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

371–380 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#371

Post by jaccarmac »

lliamander wrote: post #211
jaccarmac wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that political engagement is a game with no consequences, or do you think that there is a point where it would be reasonable to feel unsafe around someone with particular political views?

There are absolutely people who I would feel unsafe around because of their political views! But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without…

> Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish.

On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms.

> Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing.

Of course.

> I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.

Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#372

Post by throwaway894345 »

Klinky wrote: post #369
throwaway894345 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Threats of all kinds are made every day, and often in completely legal contexts. Threats of violence are often less tolerated, but even in some contexts protected under freedom of speech.

Take care not to conflate free speech principles with legal protections for free speech.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#373

Post by sophacles »

PenguinCoder wrote: post #353
sophacles wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So here's the thing: people can and do lose jobs all the time over accusations that they've done something wrong. Often this happens pre-employment when background checks are happening the company finds old posts, or old arrests or whatever. Sure they don't fire you, they just never offer you the job. Other times people are fired over stuff like getting arrested even if it's a case of mistaken identity and the person is cleared, or a case where there are no charges brought. Lives are ruined over it, and it isn't new - it's been going on my whole life at least (b. 1980). The new thing is that it's being applied to people in prominent positions.

I agree that the whole concept is unfair. I disagree that this instance is particularly unfair - in fact I like the "new" cancel culture, because its very fair in the sense that it applies the same standards to public figures that are applied to everyone else. As the old saw goes "the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strongly".

Re: Blog Anonymously

#374

Post by jaccarmac »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #345
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes, and of course whether or not something is a threat depends on intent. And who could be a better judge of intent than ... throwaway894345. Who I'm sure has an incredibly nuanced way of determining intent that doesn't boil down to "SJWs have bad intent".

Re: Blog Anonymously

#375

Post by DuskStar »

joshuamorton wrote: post #290
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…

> 1. allow all men to enter the same bathrooms as women, but stop calling them "women's bathrooms" Are you planning to enter a women's bathroom any time soon? Do you plan to "self-identify" as a woman solely to go into a bathroom? There's a great TikTok that makes fun of this concept, that goes a little something like this: Would you be afraid if a man who identified as a woman was in the bathroom with you? Why would…

"People who will use this access in an abusive fashion do not exist in significant numbers" is a valid rebuttal. "We can just add gender-neutral bathrooms" is either saying that the trans-rights folks "win" (situation #1) or that JK Rowling's side "wins" (situation #2), which is IMO not a valid rebuttal. (since it's either saying that changing labels will make things magically work, or conceding the point and saying that women and trans women should not share bathrooms)

I don't have a horse in this race, but I dislike "that's a dogwhistle" getting used more and more to end arguments.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#376

Post by stevens32 »

hakka-nyu-su wrote: post #219
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…

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…

It's mind boggling that someone who doesn't understand a term and asks for clarification of it be down-voted like this.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#377

Post by someguydave »

jmalicki wrote: post #355
dnissley wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

“Regardless of what your beliefs are, harassing your coworkers about them ”

You did mention harassment though?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#378

Post by joshuamorton »

DuskStar wrote: post #375
joshuamorton wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. allow all men to enter the same bathrooms as women, but stop calling them "women's bathrooms" Are you planning to enter a women's bathroom any time soon? Do you plan to "self-identify" as a woman solely to go into a bathroom? There's a great TikTok that makes fun of this concept, that goes a little something like this: Would you be afraid if a man who identified as a woman was in the bathroom with you? Why would…

"People who will use this access in an abusive fashion do not exist in significant numbers" is a valid rebuttal. "We can just add gender-neutral bathrooms" is either saying that the trans-rights folks "win" (situation #1) or that JK Rowling's side "wins" (situation #2), which is IMO not a valid rebuttal. (since it's either saying that changing labels will make things magically work, or conceding the point and saying…

I specifically said only gender-neutral restrooms, not additionally ;)

Re: Blog Anonymously

#379

Post by lliamander »

triceratops wrote: post #357
lliamander wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've never heard of religious conversions? Or people losing their faith?

I think it is easier to change our beliefs about some things than others, but that has more to with how that belief relates to our other beliefs. If a particular belief is not just something we believe to be true, but is also a framework we use to make sense of the world, then new information is rarely sufficient to contradict it. With any worldview/religion/ideology, you're going to run into facts that are difficult to explain in light of it.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#380

Post by lliamander »

jaccarmac wrote: post #371
lliamander wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are absolutely people who I would feel unsafe around because of their political views! But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without…

> Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish. On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms. > Let's also rememb…

> On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases.

In what sense do you mean they "work"?

> Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.

One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".

Post reply on HN