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

331–340 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#331

Post by throwaway894345 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #326
throwaway894345 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

Of course you have the choice of whether or not to do business with them. Nevertheless, threats are not free speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#332

Post by CathedralBorrow »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #331
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

Of course you have the choice of whether or not to do business with them. Nevertheless, threats are not free speech.

I'm still confused. I am completely free to choose whether or not to do business with them, but I am not allowed to tell them about my choice? Or am I not allowed to speak about it at all, regardless of who listens?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#333

Post by joshuamorton »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #322
joshuamorton wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it? Consider the numerous celebrities, comedians, and even The New York Times.

If your argument is that powerful people land on their feet even when they face accountability, then yes that's true. But at least they're facing accountability and the value of powerful people actually having to face consequences when they do bad things can't be understated. It changes the culture of power.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#334

Post by krapp »

lliamander wrote: post #265
krapp wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to believe the phrase "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" implicitly justifies all possible consequences. It doesn't, it merely implies that speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and that the consequences of speech often, themselves, are as much a manifestation of free expression as the original speech. Your own counterclaim, however, that "freedom from anything means freedom from the cons…

It's not clear that you and zimablue are in agreement unless you agree that the level consequences people are currently experiencing is excessive. For a lot of us here, the phrase "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" comes across (not unreasonably) as support for firing trump supporters or people who question system racism (etc.) which is both unjust and foolish for a number of reasons. We also need t…

> It's not clear that you and zimablue are in agreement unless you agree that the level consequences people are currently experiencing is excessive.

I actually would agree with that, but I disagree that any consequence is always excessive.

>For a lot of us here, the phrase "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" comes across (not unreasonably) as support for firing trump supporters or people who question system racism (etc.) which is both unjust and foolish for a number of reasons.

I think it is unreasonable, or at least uncharitable, to assume the most extreme interpretation possible of a phrase simply because you disagree with the politics of the people using it.

That's exactly the sort of thing "a lot of us here" accuse progressives or "the left" of doing to them.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#335

Post by syshum »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #288
DuskStar wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman—and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones—then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. You've called this a dogwhistle, a "harmful and dangerous trope from half a century ago". Do you have an…

> You've called this a dogwhistle, a "harmful and dangerous trope from half a century ago". Do you have an actual, substantial response that isn't "this person is secretly a wrongthinker!", though? Sure. Trans bathroom panic is a ridiculous fiction that ignores how bathrooms and access to them really works. Restrictive bathroom legislation would also be completely unenforceable in any way that wasn't also incredibly…

>>> remember, trans people are often physically unsafe entering the bathrooms of their birth genders

I have really never understood how this position could be squared with the position of JK is "concern trolling"

If bathrooms are safe places, and I believe they are, why are trans-people in mortal danger if they us the one of their birth sex, where other people are not in mortal danger in the inverse situation?

These positions do not see logically contestant to me

Re: Blog Anonymously

#336

Post by bldavies »

hellofunk wrote: post #272

> Run your articles through multiple translation converters. Edit minor mistakes afterwards. This avoids engines and tools picking up on your writing style. Sounds like a good opportunity for a tool that will do this for you -- send it through a bunch of different converters in a feed pipeline. Would be fun to see the results.

Try this: https://obfuscator.albertnis.com

Re: Blog Anonymously

#337

Post by syshum »

anonms-coward wrote: post #264
commandlinefan wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you provide an example of what you mean? The CEO of Goya foods called Donald Trump a "great leader" and there's an active boycott of the brand as a result.

To be fair, that sounds a lot more reasonable. A CEO represents their company and their actions leading to people boycotting their company is just people voting with their wallet. People have boycotted small businesses due to the opinion of the business owner's children, even after persistent apologies by the business owner. In this case I don't even think there is anything significantly wrong. This isn't much differ…

While people are free to Boycott for any reason they want

A person that has respect for the concept of Free Speech WOULD NOT boycott a business simply because the CEO of that business supports the current president of the US.

That is simply NOT a reasonable reaction to learning of said support.

So no it does not "sound a lot more reasonable", it sounds like a perfect example of society losing respect for free expression

Re: Blog Anonymously

#338

Post by joshuamorton »

syshum wrote: post #335
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've called this a dogwhistle, a "harmful and dangerous trope from half a century ago". Do you have an actual, substantial response that isn't "this person is secretly a wrongthinker!", though? Sure. Trans bathroom panic is a ridiculous fiction that ignores how bathrooms and access to them really works. Restrictive bathroom legislation would also be completely unenforceable in any way that wasn't also incredibly…

>>> remember, trans people are often physically unsafe entering the bathrooms of their birth genders I have really never understood how this position could be squared with the position of JK is "concern trolling" If bathrooms are safe places, and I believe they are, why are trans-people in mortal danger if they us the one of their birth sex, where other people are not in mortal danger in the inverse situation? These…

The claim isn't that bathrooms are in general safe spaces. That doesn't make sense. Bathrooms aren't magical.

The claim is that the risk of a trans woman being forced to use the mens restroom puts them at great risk in some places (and especially in the places that would enforce such a rule). The risk that cis women face from trans women using the bathroom is nil. And the risk that cis women face from cis men masquerading as trans women to get into a women's bathroom is not large (I'm aware of exactly one sort-of example, and it's not actually clear whether the person is a person masquerading as trans, or simply a predator who also happened to be trans).

As a result, excluding trans women from women's restrooms doesn't appear to make anyone safer.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#339

Post by syshum »

ativzzz wrote: post #118
giancarlostoro wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except its not I have seen people called Neonazis just for being Republican or siding with Trump whether or not they are "Trump supporters" on issues. Even saying the name "Trump supporter" is evidence alone that there is an element of cancel culture. A woman was rejected from a college recently for posting a MAGA video on Tik Tok. Some developer is being called a Neonazi for protesting against an open source org tha…

It's not any different from republicans calling liberals libtards, antifa and communists whenever someone talks about medicare for all. Both sides do it to each other, right wingers just complain about it more because the majority of people who control social media platforms tend to be left leaning. In general, people only want free speech for things they want to say, but not for things they disagree with.

Yes naming calling is very different from an organized effort to up end someone life.

Calling someone a "libtard" is not the same as 1,000 angry mob members calling a persons work place to get them fired

Re: Blog Anonymously

#340

Post by sky_rw »

joshuamorton wrote: post #277
dnissley wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular folks who were "cancelled": - David Shor - Justine Sacco - James Damore - Adria Richards A full list would be a mile long

Of those, the last three didn't suffer any long term consequences (all three were employed relatively soon after they were fired), and the first happened too recently to really analyze.

I would describe having your name included in such a list and immediately recognizable by a huge percentage of the population as a seriously detrimental long term consequence.
Post reply on HN