Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 264 posts

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#51

Post by jorams »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #11

> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said. Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.

> this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative

The first one is confusing. The US is a very conservative country. It just elected a very conservative president. Statistically like 40% of voters call themselves conservative.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#52

Post by Aaargh20318 »

bawolff wrote: post #21
rlpb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free speech" is normally about a government restriction on speech. Most people don't take it to mean temporary restrictions during specific private events. For example, at a funeral, the norm is not to speak ill of the dead (or any other time, for that matter), and if you break that rule, you might find yourself socially excluded. But that has nothing to do with the concept of "free speech". The same goes for some k…

In the usa context yes, but i think its wrong to hold that the concept in general is soley about governments. E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue.

Free speech only means you are not prevented from expressing yourself. It does not mean freedom from consequences.

While I don’t condone violence that is not the only possible consequence. If you call me an asshole that is your right, but if I disinvite you from the party I was planning as a result that is not a ‘free speech issue’.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#54

Post by cmdli »

bawolff wrote: post #7

Seems pretty obvious why in a world where if you misspeak or say something ill considered it can be all over twitter and have serious personal and professional ramifications. Regardless of how well meaning people are in their desire to hold people to account for bad views, it does have a chilling effect, and you can't learn if you don't have a safe place to make mistakes.

Alternatively, it’s a way for bad faith actors to spread their beliefs while not having to worry about their reputation. Many people with power are only hurt through public opinion, so this is the way they try to gain control over that.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #48
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you give some examples? I'm out of the loop. Personally, I am trying to think of something I could say five years ago that I can't say now.

> Can you give some examples?

I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist.

More seriously, one could probably express a broader range of views--correct or not--on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing (or even asking about) now.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#56

Post by seabass-labrax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35
rlpb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E.g. if someone beats you up due to a view you expressed, i consider that a free speech issue. If the police beat you up, then that's a freedom of speech issue (as well as police abuse, etc), since one might argue that the government is suppressing your speech. If a private citizen beats you up, then I disagree; it's merely a matter of assault. That's illegal anyway and your speech had little to do with it. If some…

If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech. (I'm not violating your First Amendment rights.) > I think your concept is "creep" that has occurred over time for some subset of people, spawned by a principle that never originally included what you now include in the concept You've got it backwards. The Athenians believed in both "isēgor…

> If you come to my house and express a view I disagree with, and I ask you to stop talking, I'm abridging your freedom of speech.

To what extent are you able to abridge someone's freedom, though? The only legally permitted thing you can do is to compel that person to leave. If you are hosting that person commercially, say by running a lodging house, even that option may be restricted by other laws.

Legal restrictions on speech are a little different, because of the unlimited sovereign power of the law (what Max Weber called the state's monopoly on violence). The USA has a special limitation on its own sovereignty by means of a written constitution, but I do believe that only applies to government restrictions as parent said.

Also, it is worth noting that the freedom of speech in Britain that you link to applies only to Members of Parliament. Nobody else is afforded freedom of speech by the Bill of Rights; other people have to look to different laws to defend themselves.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#57

Post by JumpCrisscross »

manquer wrote: post #50
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless it is group are South African expats why should we brainstorming? Why is this an inappropriate topic to discuss? > presumption that we can solve or think about their problems better than them You're the only one who presumed this. (It's also presumptuous to assume that nobody outside your own context can be helpful to you.)

> You're the only one who presumed this I didn’t say you can’t be helpful, but if not being asked that is the definition of presumption . > Why is this an inappropriate topic to discuss? It would be same as my neighbor discussing how to fix my problems with my wife or Mexicans having leadership conferences on how to prevent the raise of Trump . Same as how it feels for citizens when Elon Musk is doing now in UK, Germ…

> if not being asked that is the definition of presumption

If I want to have a discussion about South Africa, that's between me and whomever I'm speaking to. South Africa doesn't have a global veto on conversations about itself.

> would be same as my neighbor discussing how to fix my problems with my wife

If they're having a conversation in their house about your relationship, I don't see the issue. It's rude. But it may also be interesting or even instructive to their own situations.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

manquer wrote: post #38
TMWNN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How about South Africa not doing so well currently? I recently read a book review that discussed South Africa today. One of the many points it made about the dire state of things is that the air force planes that flew overhead during Mandela's inauguration were, a decade later, completely inoperable. https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-south-africas-brave-new-... >.

Why is that shocking? It would be the case no matter how they do as a country As a long it was a white government there was lot of monetary support and knowledge transfer to South Africa, all the way to building nuclear weapons those collaborations stopped once the racial profile changed. overtime that means complex technologies like military aircraft which are difficult to keep flying anytime will stop working as So…

You're making the point for why people who are not South African can have interesting and meaningful conversations about South Africa. All while possibly expressing views that are incorrect but still interesting to consider and respond to.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#59

Post by seabass-labrax »

jorams wrote: post #51
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #11

> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said. Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.

> this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative The first one is confusing. The US is a very conservative country. It just elected a very conservative president. Statistically like 40% of voters call themselves conservative.

If you look at voting maps for the 2024 USA Presidential Election, you can see that there is a blue band of Democratic voters right down the coast, including the Bay Area. The Bay Area in particular appears to have a very different culture to most of the USA, although I have never been there so cannot confirm that statement personally. I don't think that many Democratic party members consider themselves conservative, whereas a large proportion of Republican party members do.
Post reply on HN