Blog Anonymously • Hacker News Board

Re: Blog Anonymously

#351

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #348

joshuamorton wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ge…

> 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.

Do you often interact with trans people in your area (no blame here, it's unlikely not because of you, but because many people are very private about this).

Now imagine that someone who you assumed was a

> 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

I'm not saying great risk in the restroom specifically, but more broadly for being outed. Buck Angel using the woman's restroom would be a spectacle in the way that him using the men's restroom wouldn't be.

Trans people do face discrimination for being trans, so forcing that spectacle to happen puts them in danger in general.

As for the data on cis women: I leave that to you. Can you find a documented example of a trans woman, or a man masquerading as a trans woman, entering a woman's bathroom and doing something nefarious?

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

Trans men do face violence, but there is less (or at least there is less popular) concern among cis-men about biological females being in men's restrooms.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#352

Post by dnissley » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

jmalicki wrote: post #346

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

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 databas…

If that's what you think happened, you need to go look at the facts. No harassment occurred. There was no emotional outburst. Only a solemnly worded paper that was written in response to a request for feedback and wasn't even meant to be spread around as much as it did.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#353

Post by PenguinCoder » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

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.

That isn't "holding people accountable for their actions". It's applying today's societal standards on historic commentary. That isn't fair, that isn't 'woke', it's retribution and it's wrong.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#354

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #350

throwaway894345 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vi…

[deleted]

Re: Blog Anonymously

#355

Post by jmalicki » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #352

jmalicki wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 databas…

If that's what you think happened, you need to go look at the facts. No harassment occurred. There was no emotional outburst. Only a solemnly worded paper that was written in response to a request for feedback and wasn't even meant to be spread around as much as it did.

I did not mention harassment, or an emotional outburst.

The most controversial part of cancel culture is the blurred lines - is something in your private life grounds for you losing your job, is a tweet outside of the context of your job grounds for losing your job, etc.

If someone wants to boycott sellers of JK Rowling's books for her tweets about transgendered people, that is reasonably called cancel culture.

If someone wants to boycott sellers of JK Rowling's books based on hypothetical comments about transgendered people within the books themselves, that is something quite different.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#356

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #349

throwaway894345 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free speech doesn't cover any kind of threats. We tolerate "veiled threats" to the extent that we can't confirm that they are threats, and they are difficult to confirm by design and definition. They exploit our presumption of innocence.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#357

Post by triceratops » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #274

triceratops wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion is also a protected class, and that's not unchangeable. I have to disagree there. You can convert to another religion but unless you have genuine faith, it's not a true change.

As a religious person I absolutely agree that changing religion is not something one can do arbitrarily. The thing is, no opinion can be changed arbitrarily. At least, no opinion of consequence.

> no opinion can be changed arbitrarily.

I've changed my opinion before when presented with new information. Most people have. Can't say the same for religion.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#358

Post by ytrytr » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

HN is filled with people who are hardly ever on the receiving end of abuse bemoaning "cancel culture". Yeah yeah, cry me a river.

People are really out here using Justine Sacco, who spoke about going to a country and getting AIDS and got rightfully attacked by the citizens of that country, as a poster child.

Lol it seems like a lot of you have lived lives without consequences for your actions and are suddenly surprised that this is how the real world works. I personally wouldn't cancel anyone but I hope cancel culture lives forever.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#359

Post by lliamander » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #334

lliamander wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Fair enough.

> 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.

I disagree that it was unreasonable or extreme. "Free speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences" is mutually exclusive of the statement "free speech does mean freedom from at least some consequences". You cannot logically support both statements.

It's also the slogan that is very commonly used to justify these cancellations. I think it's worth point out that the initial comment by wGeF7H8Z59y985y (not zimablue) was clearly framing things in the context of people losing their jobs over their political opinions.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#360

Post by ytrytr » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

senderista wrote: post #152

dijit wrote: post #4

This goes into the how, but to me the more interesting question is the 'why'. Why should someone interact with something that the author doesn't throw his/her/their name into? I only have one example of why; I'm a genuinely curious and open person and I like having my beliefs tested, some of my beliefs are nuanced enough that I sometimes break down my current beliefs and my reasons into blog posts. Things that I thin…

Given recent incidents I’m sure we’re all familiar with, I would never consider writing on any controversial topic under my real identity. Why would I leave my family’s economic security at the mercy of malicious, ignorant mobs?

The sheer arrogance of thinking the people that disagree with your controversial topic are the "malicious, ignorant mobs". Hahaha, the irony here is funny.