Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blog Anonymously

uglyduck.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#211

Post by lliamander »

jaccarmac wrote: post #189
waheoo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really, really aren't. Which rock have you been under? In the last year I've seen 3 collegues fired and 2 have to issue public apologies on twitter. For publically supporting trump. Which then got turned into "I dont feel safe working with this person." This is all pushed by the stasi level initiatives that comes out of our D&I team. Its hell to work under but I dont feel like chucking my career over it.

Do you think that political engagement is a game with no consequences, or do you think that there is a point where it would be reasonable to feel unsafe around someone with particular political views?

There are absolutely people who I would feel unsafe around because of their political views!

But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish.

Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Unless that person is actually posing a threat to me through harassment or violence, I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#212

Post by surround »

adrusi wrote: post #92
surround wrote: post #82

> Feel free to use a VPN, though Tor is more than enough for your needs. This is a misconception. Using a VPN with TOR makes you less anonymous, not more. https://write.privacytools.io/my-thoughts-on-security/slicin...

ISP -> VPN -> Tor can be a good idea depending on your threat model, but if you're not completely sure that you need to do so, it's best to avoid it. ISP -> Tor -> VPN is generally extremely stupid, as tor is doing absolutely nothing for you if your VPN subscription is tied to your true identity. If, on the other hand, your VPN subscription is completely isolated from your true identity, then this can be a good way t…

Why though? How is there any benefit to using a VPN with TOR? Especially when it’s obvious that there’s a lot of risk involved.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#213

Post by gowld »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #89
dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

I think it's interesting to take a look at history. Many famous writers used or use a nom de plume or published anonymously because they didn't want their identities to draw the attention away from their writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pen_names Few people know who Jean Baptiste Poquelin or François-Marie Arouet wer…

Or they didn't want their writing to draw attention to their identiies, which is key in the public-shaming debate.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#214

Post by gowld »

nisuni wrote: post #49
dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

> why Cancel culture. People lose jobs for things said 30 years ago, and that were completely acceptable 30 years ago. > Niel Golightly stepped down after an employee complained about an article he wrote in 1987 that said women should not serve in combat. He said those views do not reflect his opinion today. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignati... You want to be insured against that.

Go-lightly indeed.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#215

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

gowld wrote: post #210
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view. I mean, that's literally what not voting for someone is - choosing to not hire them. But that's semantics. I'm not sure how you draw the lines on all this - if someone is spending all day tell their Jewish co-worker they need t…

"Jew bankers" is a nasty slur. But is it a slur because It's unfair to Jews to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers, or unfair to bankers to call bankers Jews, or to call Jews bankers? If you attack a person or a race by accusing them of misbehaviors, that doesn't mean it's wrong to oppese misbehaviors!

But that's not the dog-whistle - that's too overt. There's apparently a line here when things switch, when things switch from "direct harassment" to simply "objectionable". I'm curious as to where that is.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#217

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #201
throwaway894345 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. > We really, really aren't. Perhaps it would be better to say that there is a lot of powerful people who are working very hard to create such a culture, but they haven't yet fully achieved their mission. There's no clear definition for when something becomes "a culture of cancellation", but a lot of people are reportin…

Association is a form of expression. To uphold the freedom of expression is to uphold others' right to stop associating with people. To "cancel" them, if you will.

That's not what "cancelling" means in this context--we're talking about concerted efforts to have people's employment terminated (or to dox them or send them explicit threats or etc). I don't see how this is anything other than harassment and intimidation, but even if it isn't, hate speech also falls under the rubric of "free expression", but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#218

Post by x1798DE »

One thing this doesn't address is how to build an audience anonymously. I have occasionally considered creating a pseudonymous blog, but I don't know how to acquire readers without leaking information about my existing social network. I feel like anonymous submissions to stuff like reddit and HN rarely get traction.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#219

Post by hakka-nyu-su »

tristor wrote: post #187

I have often considered blogging anonymously because I do not feel free to write my nuanced philosophical views about the world anymore, as nuance is mostly dead in the public discourse and anything I write could easily offend someone and cause me problems. But I decided that if I believed something and I was willing to say it aloud, I should be willing to write it down with my name attached. In the end, it has had t…

As I understand the term "cancel culture", it mostly relates to celebrities who were already controversial or polarizing in some way, that were finally able to be organized against.

And in many cases, the same celebrities are still able to have a career that is sometimes even boosted by their ability to campaign against "cancel culture" generally.

Do you have any books/articles/resources for thinking about "cancel culture" as it would relate to an ordinary person writing an ordinary blog?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#220

Post by gowld »

numpad0 wrote: post #140
teddyh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? Once again: Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Re...

That is a very detailed list but I think it’s awkwardly missing “normal men”. Cancels occurring to a normal, well paid, stable person into jobless of even into suicide aren’t negligible events. In fact isn’t it happening to university professors right now? Identities without mob support is a universal weakness no matter your social protectedness/minority statuses.

"Cancelling" cis married (or intending-to-get-married) men hurts the women they marry, too.
Post reply on HN