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

121–130 of 264 posts

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

#121

Post by llamaimperative »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114
llamaimperative wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You should expect verbal pushback on your shitty ideas There is also shitty pushback to decent, or inchoate, ideas. I strongly push back against the notion that there shouldn’t be spaces where one can say something dumb and not be crucified for it.

Again: “crucified.” Say what you actually want, I don’t know how to interpret this idea. I haven’t heard of a crucifixion in recent times if I’m being honest.

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

#122

Post by manquer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #116
manquer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

forming opinions should not be limited to lived experience because people (and states) interact in a shared world. Our personal opinions govern how we interact with others. The alternative is greater ignorance.

Forming opinions should not need anything yes, however promoting or publishing that others will consume should be based on stronger foundations don’t you think ?

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

#123

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

More like stupid is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area.

The one fine piece of good journalism in there is that SFSU professor: humans have a hard time separating the ideas from the speaker. Done.

Now, I might be wrong, but it sure does sound like tech folks in the Bay are getting ready to take advantage of MAGA madness, and paranoid about AI / surveillance.

If anything, it’s this orange website that’s closer to untangling identity from the content, but that’s nothing new and Web 1.0 news.

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

#125

Post by manquer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109
manquer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> 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 Still rude, but nothing more.

> Rude, inappropriate, presumptuous, offensive .

All degrees of the same thing ? And the degree in the eyes of the subject

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

#126

Post by manquer »

bawolff wrote: post #73
manquer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ? anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.

Given the chatham house rules specificly allow that, its kind of a moot point.

I should have been clearer.

Anonymous source in the meeting leaking to news media that person X said something controversial in this summit .

Since nobody would know the anonymous source itself , social norms like being shamed or not being invited in the future will not work is the point

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

#127

Post by gjm11 »

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.

I think Lederer (who, by the way, is a she) isn't saying that she herself wants to say those things, she's describing one reason why something like the Chatham House rule might be popular. It's not perfectly clear from the article, which may be because Lederer wasn't clear or because the reporter didn't pass on all the details of what Lederer said and how she said it.

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

#128

Post by dcrazy »

Denunciations of the Chatham House Rule seem underdeveloped. According to the history on Wikipedia, it was invented to let members of post-WW1 English civic society discuss and debate potential reforms, and then get as much of that discussion into the public record as desired without having individual members pilloried for things they said during the discussion, even if the rest of the group disagreed with them.

This doesn’t even seem unique. Newspaper editorial boards don’t assign individual names to editorials or sentences thereof. Individual members of Congressional commissions aren’t cited for the sentences they (or their staff) committed to reports.

Chatham House Rule, meet Chesterton’s Fence.

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

#129

Post by SanjayMehta »

llamaimperative wrote: post #121
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should expect verbal pushback on your shitty ideas There is also shitty pushback to decent, or inchoate, ideas. I strongly push back against the notion that there shouldn’t be spaces where one can say something dumb and not be crucified for it.

Again: “crucified.” Say what you actually want, I don’t know how to interpret this idea. I haven’t heard of a crucifixion in recent times if I’m being honest.

ISIS crucified a number of people as recently as 2014.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-crucifies-11-christi...

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

#130

Post by invalidname »

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.

> 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.

This statement is proof for the need of this rule. Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of the other side. There can be no deviation or nuance. No debate, or benefit of doubt.

That is a deeply toxic view that in the past I only saw in the right. Maybe it was my own blindness. But now I see it all over the left as well.

Post reply on HN