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

341–350 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#341

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #333
throwaway894345 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly you're making generic arguments in favor of mob rule. I get the appeal, but it's reprehensible and I can think of precious few things as boring as debating its merits. Let's just say we agree that cancellation is as good as mob rule and part ways.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#342

Post by throwaway894345 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #330
throwaway894345 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

See my response to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796317

Re: Blog Anonymously

#343

Post by novok »

numpad0 wrote: post #121
BorisTheBrave wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the two most common reasons for anonymity are: * blogging from an oppressive regime * to isolate yourself from online mobs If you write something controversial these days, sometimes it catches a wider audience and you can find yourself under a lot of attention. A minority of those poeple will not be nice, and may send death threats or worse. Your experience is a tiny fraction of what this can be like. Being a…

Offline mobs too. As a Japanese I completely don’t understand why most English speakers so casually disclose their identity so publicly. If you post something in your real name, your colleagues WILL find it out and your boss WILL read it and your neighbors WILL scrutinize it no matter how woke your post may read. There WILL be consequences from being pointed at to losing your job and pension. People using real names…

Because there is also professional benefits about writing with your real name. For example the famous patio11: https://www.kalzumeus.com/greatest-hits/

He also goes into detail in this podcast about the benefits of writing with your real name too: https://player.fm/series/north-star-podcast/patrick-mckenzie...

Funnily enough, he also lives in japan!

Re: Blog Anonymously

#344

Post by Klinky »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #270
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

This would be hard to legally call extortion, since consumers are free to do business with who they please, and there is a strong history of boycott activity. Also if it were illegal, then many negotiating tactics become extortion. Is threatening to leave a company unless you get a raise now illegal extortion? Is demanding a lower cable bill or else you'll go to a competitor now illegal extortion?

I would consider these more ultimatums than extortion. Also extortion always includes quid pro quo, but not all quid pro quo is illegal. Context matters.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#345

Post by throwaway894345 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #332
throwaway894345 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Issuing threats is not free speech. You're still free to choose with whom you do business. Terribly sorry, but I don't know how to make it simpler than that. Good luck in your pursuits.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#346

Post by jmalicki »

dnissley wrote: post #238
hakka-nyu-su wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In James Damore's case, at least, he engaged in the "problematic behavior" at the workplace - it wasn't like he was participating in a group outside of the workplace which then led to him being fired.

Regardless of what your beliefs are, harassing your coworkers about them isn't going to make your coworkers, or bosses, happy.

For a second, forget about the content. "Hey coworkers, your decision to use a NoSQL database is stupid, you VPs should change the way you're doing things" when not asked for comment and when the decision is well outside of your role is always risky, and can quite often lead to conversations where the targets of your rant can say "I can't deal with this person anymore, I'm ready to quit over this."

Re: Blog Anonymously

#347

Post by throwaway894345 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #329
throwaway894345 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was a hypothetical. I wasn't speaking about you specifically. Anyway, I've explained in another thread as simply as I'm able. Good luck on your educational endeavors.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#348

Post by syshum »

joshuamorton wrote: post #338
syshum wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 masquer…

Is there data to back these claims, either that Tran-Women are at great risk in men's rest rooms, or that cis women are in no risk in

Absent from this conversation it seems in Trans-men, are they not in any danger at all if so why?

I live in deep red area, a place where you would stereotype as "places that would enforce such a rule" my interactions in the Men's bath room are silence, awkward, and everyone wants to get out as fast as possible.

Men do not socialize in the bath room and I do not see where the danger comes into play, but I am open to being wrong

To be clear, I dont see any reason to have a law to enforce this issue, use what ever bathroom you want I dont care.

My lack of understanding is from the claim of danger on both sides. I do not see it...

Re: Blog Anonymously

#349

Post by Klinky »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #251
Klinky wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Threats and intimidation don't constitute free speech, even when veiled. Note that I don't think anyone is advocating for more/harsher laws to protect free speech (although these might be welcomed by some), only appealing for a cultural shift away from cancellation and toward free-speech values.

I believe free speech does not cover "true threats". I don't think a consumer complaint threatening to not do business is going to be considered a "true threat" against a company.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#350

Post by joshuamorton »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #342
joshuamorton wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

See my response to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796317

I certainly don't favor mob rule. And I don't agree that cancellation and mob rule are in any way comparable. If you want to make claims like that, much like your claims that "cancellation is authoritarianism", you're going to need to support them.

Large groups of people taking action you dislike isn't mob rule. Mob rule is characterized by violence. Is large groups of people expressing their disagreement with you violence now?

The danger of "mob rule" is that it endangers minority groups. It's really, really difficult for me to square movements that are often minority lead and exist to hold the relatively powerful accountable as being dangerous mobs in the classic sense.

Again, you're welcome to actually support that assertion, but drawing the metaphor without backing it up appears to be more of a veiled attack at my morals than any attempt to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of these movements.

Post reply on HN