Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#241

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

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…

> but it doesn't mean we can't (or oughtn't) use our own free speech rights to criticize and protest it.

I agree. But this goes in both directions. You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. It is self-contradictory. Yet that's what harper's does. It criticizes certain forms of speech (criticism) while claiming to uphold the mantle of free expression. You can't have it both ways.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1280992193591689221

Re: Blog Anonymously

#242

Post by vorpalhex » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:25 PM UTC

bun_at_work wrote: post #225

This is a terrible idea. Anonymity online encourages people to be highly inflammatory, and in the US, this has led to a massive cultural divide (not the only cause, though). Human social pattens and behaviors have led humans to correct bad social behavior through a mechanism based on reputation. If you say/do terrible things (what the group disagrees with), your reputation suffers, which discourages saying/doing thos…

Anonymity is an important part of free speech. That which is unpopular can still be truthful. Just because an angry mob descends on you doesn't mean your words are incorrect.

Being inflammatory doesn't mean being prejudiced or wrong. There was a time when speaking for trans rights was "inflammatory".

Re: Blog Anonymously

#243

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #233

throwaway894345 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This seems unlikely. From your link:

> For example, Adam could refuse to do business with Bill after learning that Bill has a contract or business relationship with an organization that Adam finds morally distasteful. Adam knows that his business is worth more to Bill than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause Bill to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, Bill's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#244

Post by HamSession » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #98

wGeF7H8Z59y985y wrote: post #13

> Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. They've already come for anyone who showed even the faintest trace of dissent from the mindlessly woke mob's narrative. Next they'll come for those who have stayed silent. Failure to project virtue signaling will soon be us…

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech. What planet do you live on that you think everyone else should have to both listen to what you say, and then not "punish" you for it? If you tell your wife she looks fat, she's probably not having sex with you that evening. If you call someone a racial slur, they're probably both going to tell everyone they know about what you said, and refuse to inter…

Ah bottom up control Mao would be pleased.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#245

Post by kwhitefoot » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

Google234 wrote: post #33

Translating back and forth will result in horrible text

Depends on which language pairs you try. Google does a very good job with several European languages. English to Norwegian and back often returns almost the same as the original.

For instance the text above became:

Avhenger av hvilke språkpar du prøver. Google gjør en veldig god jobb med flere europeiske språk. Engelsk til norsk og tilbake returnerer ofte nesten det samme som originalen.

Which returned this English text:

Depends on which language pair you are trying. Google does a very good job with several European languages. English to Norwegian and back often returns almost the same as the original.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#246

Post by zimablue » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #165

zimablue wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. 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.

> 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…

I think that elected representatives are a special category in this, whilst technically you employ them they’re operating democracy not capitalism, so it’s different in many ways- it’s more reasonable to judge their character, the power imbalance is in their favor, positive discrimination for elected representatives seems more reasonable etc etc.

The lines will always be a little blurred, but international bankers isn’t a synonym for Jews, it might be a dog whistle but it would only be a problem for me if they know the colleague is Jewish and do this day in day out after being asked to stop.

I think so much of this discussion is wasted, and we’d be more productive just to pick a few examples and argue on them about whether we shift the line.

Eg. For me Damore shouldn’t have been fired and that’s when I realized that the woke thing wasn’t a right wing straw man, it really was running big Corp America

Re: Blog Anonymously

#247

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

M2Ys4U wrote: post #40

>We currently live in a "there is only one correct opinion, all others must be canceled" culture. We really, really aren't. >If speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free. Just take a moment and thing about what you just wrote. It's absolutely nonsense. I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence o…

[deleted]

Re: Blog Anonymously

#248

Post by CathedralBorrow » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #206

mywittyname wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has always, always had social norms which entailed consequences if countered. And often times in the past, the norms were strict and dissent was punished by jail, torture, or death. Today, we've much improved. If you express an opinion that is contrary to the norms, you get made fun or or ostracized by the community, you don't get killed. Which is how it should be, say what you want, but people are completely…

> Freedom of speech protects you from people who attempt to silence you by jailing, torturing, or killing you. It doesn't mean people are forced to put up with your stupid and unpopular opinions. You (like many) misunderstand the debate. "Free speech" proponents aren't advocating for a prohibition of criticism--to the contrary, criticism is free speech. Rather, free speech proponents are arguing against intimidation…

If I inform a corporation that I will not do business with them while a person is in their employment, am I oppressing that person or am I using my freedom of speech?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#249

Post by Klinky » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #206

mywittyname wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has always, always had social norms which entailed consequences if countered. And often times in the past, the norms were strict and dissent was punished by jail, torture, or death. Today, we've much improved. If you express an opinion that is contrary to the norms, you get made fun or or ostracized by the community, you don't get killed. Which is how it should be, say what you want, but people are completely…

> Freedom of speech protects you from people who attempt to silence you by jailing, torturing, or killing you. It doesn't mean people are forced to put up with your stupid and unpopular opinions. You (like many) misunderstand the debate. "Free speech" proponents aren't advocating for a prohibition of criticism--to the contrary, criticism is free speech. Rather, free speech proponents are arguing against intimidation…

It sounds like you will protect free speech by suppressing certain forms of free speech?

I would not necessarily be against anti-harassment/doxxing laws, and stronger employee protections around firings. However, also stronger hate speech laws around protected classes. It's a double edged sword.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#250

Post by Emma_Goldman » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #240

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '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 hav…

You claim I am 'slippery' and 'moving the goalposts'. You said in your last post that I was 'retreating'. Yet you have not even tried to show how anything I have said in my later posts is inconsistent with my earlier posts. Absent that, those claims are not helpful.

You say 'I'm not denying people are mean on the internet. I'm denying people get harmed by it'.

There are two simple problems here. The first is that we are not talking about whether people are 'mean', we're talking about the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour of a specific subculture: 'cancel culture'. I have set out what I take to be the pathologies of that subculture. Why are you ignoring those pathologies, and talking as if 'cancel culture' didn't exist, and if this was just people being generically mean?

The second is that you protest that cancel culture is harmless. I just set out why I take it to be harmful: it degrades the public sphere, inhibits thought and debate, undermines hegemonic change, and threatens a blowback. Why have you not engaged with any of those arguments?

Finally, you raise the issue of 'employers' again. I have already said I take this to be peripheral to cancel culture. The main harm of cancel culture, as I see it, is on the public sphere. A few extreme cases end in firing - and that's significant for those people - but it's a relatively small harm compared to the effect it has on the public sphere.