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

91–100 of 264 posts

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

#91

Post by defrost »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #90
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.

If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.

Don't forget farming the normies for profit and other forms of enlightened classism.

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

#92

Post by manquer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57
manquer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If they're having a conversation in their house about your relationship

It is not private though, we are not talking about diplomats doing it in confidential communications, nobody is objecting to that .

What we are describing is equivalent to having a public conversation in the street in front of your home where you can see them having it

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

#93

Post by cgriswald »

ryandrake wrote: post #69
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.

If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it. If you're not willing to have it attributed to you because it will make you look bad, then maybe you should take a moment to think about where those beliefs come from.

You can post opinion A and opinion ^A and be vilified for either, right now. To say nothing of how popular belief has changed over time and place.

Whether something “looks bad” is a basis for whether to discuss it, where to discuss it, and with whom, but not a basis for determining truth.

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

#94

Post by manquer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
manquer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The irony is not lost to me, my comments without lived experience are one reason why we shouldn’t do it

My objection is bigger than that though, it is independent of the merit or quality of the discourse , unwelcome discourse is impolite even if it is sound.

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

#95

Post by JumpCrisscross »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #88
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist. As a taco enjoyer I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously > on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing As someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too

> I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously

They were yelling and called the host a xenophobe. They will not be invited back. It’s not a serious argument. But they took it seriously.

> someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too

You can always get yelled at. The point is almost any expression about this topic is likely, today, to set someone in a large group off. That wasn’t true five years ago.

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

#96

Post by ethbr1 »

DavidPiper wrote: post #78
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.

The only times I've seen Chatham House rules used explicitly is when multiple companies have come together to discuss serious security concerns that affect all of them urgently (e.g. widespread 0-days, etc). It makes sense that you want to have candid and open discussions, and those discussions will have to leak back to the respective companies for any concerted action to be taken, but you don't want your company's s…

> Somewhere along the way (my belief is that it was around the time social media took off, but I don't have proof for that), we forgot that we're more alike than we are different, and that people can grow and learn and change, and that both of those things are good, actually.

The difference between The Before Times and now is that it was historically hard to curate and communicate with a group of people who exclusively agreed with you. This had two primary consequences:

(1) You were constantly exposed to nice people who nonetheless disagreed with you about something / everything.

(2) It made you realize that you're the asshole, if you couldn't at least be polite to someone with different views than you.

Now, living in a bubble is trivial. It's also the subtle default on a lot of social platforms.

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

#97

Post by falcor84 »

JSTrading wrote: post #12

Are Chatham House Rules just a way for people to hedge their bets? If they say something controversial, rude, offensive, or downright dodgy, they can hide behind anonymity. But if it’s a hit or something clever, insightful, or widely praised—they’re quick to claim credit. Convenient, isn’t it?

It is indeed convenient, not just for individuals, but for society at large. People keep their most "controversial, rude, offensive, or downright dodgy" only to be said amongst friends whom they trust to not "out" them, while keeping their utterances in the public sphere more self-censored, in order to avoid offending people and being rebuked. I'm pretty sure that this is how it's always been, and I'm quite happy with it.

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

#98

Post by llamaimperative »

TheBruceHimself wrote: post #75
ryandrake wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it. If you're not willing to have it attributed to you because it will make you look bad, then maybe you should take a moment to think about where those beliefs come from.

Well, there is a matter of safety, and not wanting to be harassed for your opinions. Some debates are so heated that an opinion stated either way is going to expose you to potential violence if not, just verbal abuse through various channels. I think even though you should be honest about your opinion, it’s obviously better to avoid that harm so why not be anonymous? Personally, I’ve also found that stating your opin…

Lots of conflation of verbal response versus physical violence here despite the massive gulf of difference.

You should expect verbal pushback on your shitty ideas. You should expect physical safety nonetheless.

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

#99

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ryandrake wrote: post #69
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.

If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it. If you're not willing to have it attributed to you because it will make you look bad, then maybe you should take a moment to think about where those beliefs come from.

> If you really believe something, say it loudly and proudly and sign your name to it

Sure. Not every discussion involves something I really believe in.

Also, I think it’s reasonable to believe that not all of one’s deeply-held beliefs are the public’s to know.

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

#100

Post by falcor84 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
aliasxneo wrote: post #6

People are not bound to follow this rule, correct? As in, there's no legal consequence? > Instead, his groups have moved to signing NDAs or explicitly stating that conversations are not to be shared externally. This seems a bit better, albeit with more work.

> seems a bit better, albeit with more work Are the NDAs signed between attendees and the host? That puts the host in the awkward position of having to enforce the NDAs, even if the injured party is one of the guests.

Don't you mean, the offending party?
Post reply on HN