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

231–240 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#231

Post by throwaway894345 »

triceratops wrote: post #183
senderista wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I’d rather not associate with Black folks at my work, I have the right to refuse to hire them? I’ll have to say, this is the first time I’ve heard the freedom-of-association argument against civil rights laws coming from the left.

Race is a protected class. It's a protected class because it has been used to discriminate in the past and it's unchangeable. Speech or opinions aren't a protected class for discrimination. So your analogy isn't apt.

The cancel culture debate is about free speech ideals, not actual laws. Moral rights, not legal rights (these are not the same thing and the latter is not a perfect subset of the former).

Re: Blog Anonymously

#233

Post by lliamander »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #217
joshuamorton wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

It's also potentially tortious interference:

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#234

Post by celestialcheese »

notRobot wrote: post #99
adrusi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If ... your VPN subscription is completely isolated from your true identity One way to do this is to get a Mullvad subscription, and to pay for it with bitcoin. They don't even require an email address.

OR, mail cash https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2019/1/29/sending-cash-use-our-n...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#235

Post by karpierz »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #193
karpierz wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press cha…

Purpose of cancel culture is lynching, and you're not allowed to lynch.

Can you be more precise by what you mean by lynching?

If I retweet a message that says "X assaulted Y" and X ends up fired later, have I participated in a lynching?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #193
karpierz wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime Why should I avoid talking about something because it pertains to a criminal proceeding? If I get sexually assaulted, should I avoid reaching out to anyone for support? If a person cheated me out of money during a business transaction, should I avoid calling them out on it? If someone punches me, and the police decide not to press cha…

Purpose of cancel culture is lynching, and you're not allowed to lynch.

> Purpose of cancel culture is lynching

No, it's not, and saying it is is trivializing lynching. Which, given the political alignment of the people usually arguing the loudest against cancel culture, is unsurprising.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#237

Post by throwaway894345 »

dandellion wrote: post #50
pydry wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem that probably existed before writing itself, never mind Twitter.

It's not new. It was huge when religion was more prevalent, for example, but it was becoming less of a problem as society became more educated and secular. Now there's a new wave riding on top of social media like Twitter, and as it gains more popularity it's becoming more about flaming vs virtue signalling than making actual progress.

> It was huge when religion was more prevalent, for example, but it was becoming less of a problem as society became more educated and secular.

Secularism vs religion is a red herring. Society became freer because people began to value (classically) liberal ideals--i.e., people came to value freedom as a principle. Liberalism is secular but secularism isn't liberal (nor is it inherently illiberal), and there have been many illiberal secular ideologies not only in theory, but in practice (e.g., practical communism of the 20th century wherein people were literally executed, imprisoned, exiled, etc for their free speech). And of course what we see today.

Secularism isn't a virtue, liberalism is.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#238

Post by dnissley »

hakka-nyu-su wrote: post #219
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 cu…

Regular folks who were "cancelled":

- David Shor

- Justine Sacco

- James Damore

- Adria Richards

A full list would be a mile long

Re: Blog Anonymously

#239

Post by Nasrudith »

syshum wrote: post #71
Fiveplus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with emerging and easily accessible technology is that in 2020, especially for the younger folks venturing into their first jobs - at least some kind of social media presence is a pre-requisite. Our school's career center gave a presentation where this issue was raised. What if a student wants to not associate his/her political thoughts lest they create a hindrance for a future employer digging through the…

>>A ghost profile seems a red flag, as such a non-existent one I guess my future is going to be limited then, because I have never, and will never have a "real" social media presence. Ever. That is a hard, never going to happen, even if I have live under a bridge

It seems to be something field dependent. Having a social media presence is an "occupational hazard" for marketing related fields compared to others where it is a don't care.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#240

Post by newacct583 »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #209
newacct583 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all respect, you seem to be retreating here. I don't think I disagree with any of your remedies, they sound fine. They also sound like pretty much the way our society and internet culture already work. So I can't tell what you're arguing against. If "cancel culture" isn't the giant problem you originally jumped into argue against, and our existing protections are already in place... what are you arguing against?…

> 'With all respect, you seem to be retreating here.' Nothing I said in my last post with inconsistent with the letter or spirit of my foregoing posts. I didn't set out any 'remedies'. You asked me about about two relatively narrow issues. As I have repeated, I take 'cancel culture' to be, in the first instance, a cultural problem. The fundamental remedy is, therefore, cultural. Abolishing Twitter would help, though…

Again, you just seem slippery here. I'm not denying that people are mean on the internet. I'm not denying that people get harmed by it. I'm denying that it's a huge problem, thus my attempts to pin you down on What Exactly Is Wrong, and How Do You Propose to Fix It. And you keep moving the goalposts!

Basically, this is what I keep hearing: "OK, these people weren't harmed, exactly. But countless others were who I haven't named. And why do you demand evidence of "harm" anyway? Aren't there other ways of being harmed?"

I mean... people are jerks. We can't fix that. Twitter surely can't fix that. If employers are routinely firing people[1] based on what jerks say on Twitter, then that's a problem. But it's something employers are going to have to address on a case-by-case basis.

[1] They aren't. Seriously, they aren't. It's happened in the past. It's not "happening". Far more people get fired for far worse reasons and we don't freak out at HN over it.

Post reply on HN