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

421–430 of 482 posts

Re: Blog Anonymously

#421

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

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…

> offense-taking online are just a consequence of how communications being mediated by the Internet dehumanizes people

Can you expand on that? What do you think are the factors that are causing this dehumanisation?

I am giving it a try: it has become easier to band togather, now groups often need an enemy - as a unifying tool and as a means of defining the group (us vs. them). If this is true then any improvements in communication will inevitably lead to greater polarization

Re: Blog Anonymously

#422

Post by luord »

Or one could post exclusively about one's interests and nothing even remotely political. That's what I have in my blog.

Of course, not the same applies to my twitter and facebook accounts. I've never posted anything really controversial, but there are some political posts. I remain optimistic, though, maybe I won't have to delete them. Hopefully.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#423

Post by tristor »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #421
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…

> offense-taking online are just a consequence of how communications being mediated by the Internet dehumanizes people Can you expand on that? What do you think are the factors that are causing this dehumanisation? I am giving it a try: it has become easier to band togather, now groups often need an enemy - as a unifying tool and as a means of defining the group (us vs. them). If this is true then any improvements in…

There may be some more complex elements to this, but I don't think about this in a complex way. It's very simple for me. When you are face-to-face with a person, especially a person you know, there is a connection which forms through body language and other factors I can't identify which makes it very viscerally real that the person across from you is a human being who has their own unique experiences that have helped them to craft a particular worldview. It engenders at least some measure of respect, perhaps enough to give people the benefit of the doubt and to hear them out.

When you're online, you don't even know if you're talking to a person who is being sincere in their beliefs or a troll trying to get a rise out of you, or perhaps an advanced bot intended to drive discussion in a particular direction. There's no indication of the motivations, the sincerity, or even the reality of another human being when you interact online. I can't imagine how a conversation intended to be deep and nuanced couldn't be dehumanized by the Internet?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#424

Post by footlose_3815 »

ThA0x2 wrote: post #301
joshuamorton wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIR: Justine Sacco still suffers from severe PTSD and has to attend regular counselling. Adria Richards fell off the face of the planet, was chronically unemployed for a while, then finally ended up at a no name company, probably making peanuts compared to where she was. James Damore was also similarly unemployed for a while, was in several lawsuits with Google, and claims to be working at a start-up, but he may als…

James Damore threw away an engineering job at Google with a long, generalized, and internally-shared rant about women, listing off their "Qualities". He then tried to start a lawsuit making it about his politics, which never went anywhere.

Why is there sympathy for this man?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#425

Post by dang »

ytrytr wrote: post #361
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

(I made this standalone comment somewhere else because of you so I might as well reply directly to you) 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…

Please don't use HN for ideological warfare. It's not what this site is for and will eventually get your main account banned as well.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#426

Post by nephanth »

Some time ago, for anonymous blogging there was a pretty good solution called freenet. Dunno if it is still around but it was really interesting technologically speaking

Re: Blog Anonymously

#427

Post by ytrytr »

a1369209993 wrote: post #413
ytrytr wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The sheer arrogance of thinking (some of) the people that agree with your controversial topic are not also "malicious, ignorant mobs".

Where did I say or even indicate that?????

Re: Blog Anonymously

#428

Post by ytrytr »

dang wrote: post #425
ytrytr wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I made this standalone comment somewhere else because of you so I might as well reply directly to you) 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…

Please don't use HN for ideological warfare. It's not what this site is for and will eventually get your main account banned as well.

Can you explain what ideological warfare is according to the rules please? And how my comment is ideological warfare but not the people complaining about cancel culture?

Re: Blog Anonymously

#429

Post by waheoo »

jaccarmac wrote: post #417
waheoo wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe that support of Trump should be without consequences? Yes. You do realise your position violates multiple UN human rights? Take a read through the lot of them. Please. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ People have died to maintain these rights. Please stop trying to tear them down. You're not woke. You're asleep.

Which human rights does my position violate? Please, enlighten me. YOU do realize that human rights don't include a blanket prohibition on people treating you differently due to your political opinions? Also, how do you reconcile these "universal" human rights in a state that violates them?

They apply to everyone, regardless of political stance.

Articles 12, 20, 21, 23, 29.

You do realise that while not a blanket prohibition on treating you differently, employment, wellbeing and political leanings are expressly covered for obvious reasons.

Re: Blog Anonymously

#430

Post by friendlybus »

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.

Analyzing the consequences is only half the ethical story. Doing the right thing sometimes is different to what the consequences are. If you don't do the right thing in the first place regardless of the outcome, you let weaknesses in the system grow.

James damore's memo was created and went nowhere within google. It's some people fretting over the consequences who took it, spread it among the company and got a good engineer fired, sowing distrust in the community. Should have just left the memo to be forgotten in somebody's email account somewhere. A deontological ethic will come to bite back if you are determined to ignore the fact that sometimes you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Post reply on HN