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

321–330 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#321

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #299
throwaway894345 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because social protections haven't eroded enough to get to the point where lives are actually ruined. Why wait to speak out against cancel culture until it's actually ruining lives?

If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously, especially when the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now. "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively hav…

> If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously

Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious.

> the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now

I could hazard a guess as to what you're alluding to here, but it hardly matters--if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it.

> "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy.

You have it completely backwards. You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd).

> Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively having good consequences right now.

"Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#322

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #320
DenisM wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Damore a bigger guy?

Compared to the generic "woman at Google", I'd argue yes. But even if you disagree in that one case, that doesn't invalidate what I said. It allows upward facing action.

But it has a pretty bad record of targeting "upward" and those few 'upward' targets suffer much less than the many 'downward' targets. "Ineffective in the best case" is not a very compelling argument.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#323

Post by freedomben »

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…

> To a large degree, I think a lot of the challenges around nuance and offense-taking online are just a consequence of how communications being mediated by the Internet dehumanizes people. My experience has been that having a deep conversation over a drink in person generally leads to more positive outcomes, even with irreconcilable disagreements, than writing something online which can be excoriated on social media.

Yes, exactly right. Unfortunately however even the meat space domain seem to be getting infected with this. I was recently in a hotel lobby waiting for an Uber and heard a conversation between two strangers. It started out fine but then one person said something mildly political. Almost immediately it seemed like a switch flipped in the other person and he began preaching and talking over. He clearly wasn't even hearing what the first person was saying, but was hearing what he thought that person would say (and was not accurate). It was demoralizing to say the least. We're getting so conditioned with outrage and hatred for people online that it's moving into "real life."

Re: Blog Anonymously

#324

Post by throwaway894345 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #318
throwaway894345 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I say "it would be unfortunate if something happened to your job", am I issuing a veiled threat or am I using my freedom of speech? It's possible that I'm not making a threat, but we know it's unlikely. Technically it amounts to intent (do you intend to ruin someone's livelihood or are you just making a bizarre statement for indecipherable reasons?).

I agree with everything you said. Can you comment on my question though?

I did. I said it technically depends on intent; however, in practice it's implausible that you weren't issuing a threat, and threats don't constitute free speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#325

Post by bokbok8379 »

sophacles wrote: post #316
shpongled wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute insanity right here.

It is pure ridiculousness indeed. Imagine holding people accountable for their actions... that would be personal responsibility and is 100% unacceptable to the current powers that be.

Hopefully you don't get fired for this comment 30 years from now.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#326

Post by CathedralBorrow »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #324
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said. Can you comment on my question though?

I did. I said it technically depends on intent; however, in practice it's implausible that you weren't issuing a threat, and threats don't constitute free speech.

Ok I'm confused so can you please help me? My example was absolutely a "threat" in the sense that yes, I in that example would be serious about voicing my opinion and my intention to not voluntarily do business with that imaginary corporation while they employed that person. I would be "threatening" to do something which is entirely my freedom to do; to vote with my wallet.

But if I understand you correctly, this would be going outside my freedom of speech. Which implies that I do not have the choice to not do business with them. As in, I am obligated to purchase goods and services from them.

I am clearly misunderstanding this because that can't be right. Where did I go off track?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#327

Post by throwaway894345 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #319
giancarlostoro wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're extorting a company, let's even call it quid pro quo.

[flagged]

That freedom, like many others, is limited. You may also be dismayed to find that you aren't free to tell someone that you will do business with her on the condition that she sleeps with you. This is quid pro quo harassment.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#328

Post by bokbok8379 »

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…

How about freedom of thought? Am I still allowed to have that?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#329

Post by CathedralBorrow »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #327
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That freedom, like many others, is limited. You may also be dismayed to find that you aren't free to tell someone that you will do business with her on the condition that she sleeps with you. This is quid pro quo harassment.

I'm not dismayed at all, and would appreciate it if you could refrain from painting pictures of what you think my state of mind might be. Thanks.

Are you saying that I am breaking the law by telling a company that I will not do business with them as long as they employ some person? Just to head off future misunderstandings on my part I'd like to get this clear first.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#330

Post by joshuamorton »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #321
joshuamorton wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously, especially when the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm happening now. "Cancellation" is a democratization of power. It allows the little guy to push back effectively against the bigger guy. Saying "look there's the possibility that it might eventually have bad consequences" rings hollow when it's also actively hav…

> If your entire concern is based in a slippery slope, it's more difficult to take it seriously Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious. > the concern conceals a disregard for actual harm…

> Of course the same argument could be applied to anything, such as covid back in March. "What's all the fuss about? Things are trending in a bad direction, but they're not that bad yet so naturally they will not get worse in the future." I hope the fallacy here is obvious.

It is not. We know how viruses work. We also know how they don't do good things. Are you willing to provide specific falsifiable predictions on the harms that Cancel Culture will cause in 6 months or a year and how it will be so great?

Trying to explain away a slippery slope fallacy by comparing it to the well documented and well understood exponential growth of a communicable disease isn't good reasoning.

> if you have some concern about some actual harm that's happening right now that you'd like to express, free-speech has your back with respect to your right to express it.

Exactly! To allude to anther example: someone tweeting "@FSF, you should fire Richard Stallman because he is a bad man" is simply exercising their right to free expression. Why are you criticizing that?

> You can't cancel someone without power over them, and many of the targets of cancellation have had little power and were cancelled by people with literal, explicit power over them (e.g., Lindsay Shepherd).

Lindsay Shephard doesn't fit the definition of cancellation. There was no social media, there was an anonymous complaint to her university, who did something, and when the public was involved the university reversed course. "Cancel Culture" is characterized by a boycott or threat of boycott, or at least distributed criticism. Imagine that instead the members of her class had taken to twitter to urge the university to remove her from her position, and encouraged others to stop donating to the school if they didn't do so. That's cancellation.

What you described is a bad thing, but it's also a non sequitur.

And note the difference: her pupils (the non-authority) pulling in popular support to provide consequences to the authority figure when normal channels of feedback failed.

> "Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and you're observing the fleeting convenience of authoritarianism.

You're going to have to elaborate on how decentralized movements are authoritarian in nature, that's a relatively unique claim.

Post reply on HN