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

381–390 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#381

Post by telotortium »

asdfman123 wrote: post #362
surround wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why though? How is there any benefit to using a VPN with TOR? Especially when it’s obvious that there’s a lot of risk involved.

Because it shields the fact you're going through Tor. Tor network traffic alone is a red flag that you're doing something shady, even if it isn't sufficient proof. A comical example is when a Stanford student used Tor to call in a bomb threat to get out of an exam. Turns out he was one of two people on the entire campus network using Tor. The police talked to him and he admitted to it. (Side note: if you're going to…

MIT

Re: Blog Anonymously

#382

Post by jaccarmac »

lliamander wrote: post #380
jaccarmac wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

> In what sense do you mean they "work"?

They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example. On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed.

ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized.

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

Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#383

Post by DuskStar »

joshuamorton wrote: post #378
DuskStar wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ;)

Right, that's what I was putting as my scenario #1. #2 is adding gender-neutral restrooms and not allowing trans women in women's restrooms.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#384

Post by triceratops »

lliamander wrote: post #379
triceratops wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wor…

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

Are these conscious though? I always assumed faith was spontaneous. You don't just read a holy book and become a believer right? Faith stems from one's upbringing and/or deeply felt religious experiences. Whereas a non-religious book that gave you new facts about a particular topic could potentially convince you to change your mind.

I think you're right that opinions are harder to change the more fundamental to one's worldview they are.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#385

Post by joshuamorton »

DuskStar wrote: post #383
joshuamorton wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right, that's what I was putting as my scenario #1. #2 is adding gender-neutral restrooms and not allowing trans women in women's restrooms.

Ah, then I'd clarify that gendered restrooms based on self-identification are a different option distinct from calling all existing restrooms gender neutral.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#386

Post by DuskStar »

joshuamorton wrote: post #385
DuskStar wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's what I was putting as my scenario #1. #2 is adding gender-neutral restrooms and not allowing trans women in women's restrooms.

Ah, then I'd clarify that gendered restrooms based on self-identification are a different option distinct from calling all existing restrooms gender neutral.

Well, of course! But the two scenarios were due to the upthread (GGP? something) suggestion that adding gender-neutral restrooms like SF did would resolve Rowling's complaints.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#387

Post by zzo38computer »

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…

Well, I think the washrooms should be gender-neutral. That way, if one of them is full (or out of order), you can use another one. And if they only have one customer, then they don't need more than one washroom.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#388

Post by gruez »

detaro wrote: post #311
gruez wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between advocating for political change, and ruining someone's life.

There are connections between the two though, annoyingly often. Advocating for a policy change that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for a status quo that will ruin some people's lives. Advocating for some group of people to be fired. It doesn't make sense to see speech just as a consequence-less thing, in both directions.

You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Otherwise you get into slippery slope territory where eg. you can argue anyone who's not protesting for BLM are implicitly supporting the cops, and therefore are ruining black people's lives.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#389

Post by lliamander »

triceratops wrote: post #384
lliamander wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

> You've never heard of religious conversions? Or people losing their faith? Are these conscious though? I always assumed faith was spontaneous. You don't just read a holy book and become a believer right? Faith stems from one's upbringing and/or deeply felt religious experiences. Whereas a non-religious book that gave you new facts about a particular topic could potentially convince you to change your mind. I think…

I see the change in belief as always being a two-step process:

1. Receiving and understanding new information

2. Processing and integrating that new information.

When the belief you are updating is a relatively unconnected node in the graph of beliefs, that second processing step takes almost no time. If it's heavily connected, the processing takes longer. That's why conversions often seem "spontaneous": your subconscious has been busily reworking the web of beliefs to integrate the new information, and eventually everything clicks into place and you have an epiphany.

I don't see faith as some special category of per se. To my mind, faith is simply another word for trust. The implication is simply that it is a belief you are willing to act on.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#390

Post by 1tCKV3QfIo »

bun_at_work wrote: post #225

This is a terrible idea. Anonymity online encourages people to be highly inflammatory, and in the US, this has led to a massive cultural divide (not the only cause, though). Human social pattens and behaviors have led humans to correct bad social behavior through a mechanism based on reputation. If you say/do terrible things (what the group disagrees with), your reputation suffers, which discourages saying/doing thos…

Go live in mainland China if you are such a fan social harmony.
Post reply on HN