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

151–160 of 264 posts

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

#151

Post by ghaff »

aliasxneo wrote: post #14
bawolff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.

> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian. But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.

Anything can be taken to court. I expect, in general, people get mad at the person who broke the rule, they don't get invited back to future iterations, and they suffer reputational damage. When I've been in that sort of situation, the rule is made clear and no one breaks it--at least publicly.

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

#152

Post by dcrazy »

echelon wrote: post #148
dcrazy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.

It feels incompatible with how the rest of the legal framework works. You can be recorded in public. In most of the US states you can be recorded in private so long as the one recording is a party to the conversation. Why does California do this separate weird thing? It doesn't feel like my rights should go away when I cross into your state. It feels like a glitch.

The Chatham House Rule is not a legal principle. If you violate it by recording a meeting in a one-party consent state, the most likely consequence is that you wouldn’t be invited back. (Someone else posited legal consequences under contract law, but I’m not a lawyer.)

And for the record, California is not the only two-party consent state. There are twelve others.

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

#153

Post by david-gpu »

throw112312 wrote: post #136
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.

"There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees. Now, say that in 2020 in a woke software organization.

"I will put every person in precisely one out of two boxes at my discretion, and they will be happy about it".

Example: "I believe there are two kinds of people in the world, the righteous and the despicable. You belong with the despicable, I decided. If you disagree, you are woke".

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

#154

Post by manquer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #134
manquer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Not really. That is how humans learn and evolve. I think it is ok for people to be wrong. I think effort should go into honesty, humility, and open mindedness. I'm sure someone can have different insights from their lives experience which should be recognized, but that doesn't mean they should trump all else.

I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument and lived experience should not trump all, it should have only some weight and other points should qualify their statements clearly.

We live in the age of disinformation, influencers, and anti-intellectualism that actively dismissive qualified sources, we have to put value in source quality, while not completely dismissing the ones without them.

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

#155

Post by smashah »

Are all the contrarian lemmings having self-imposed nightmares of being cancelled for eagerly sucking on the DoD teat by backing/creating AI killer drone tech because they can no longer create alpha? Say it ain't so! Or maybe it's just another hyped trend, like reading Sapiens or calling oneself a "pattern matcher".

Odds are they're not talking about saving the world in these spaces.

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

#156

Post by defrost »

throw112312 wrote: post #136
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.

"There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees. Now, say that in 2020 in a woke software organization.

Saying that repeatedly in most settings gets tedious for the audience who'd wonder whether you're alright.

Saying that any relevant technical setting as a newcomer would likely be received politely although many would then point out the ground truth behind that simplification:

Nature has many examples of physical gender not being straightforward; egg tempreture determining development in crocadiles and other reptiles for one.

Even in humans it's less that straightforward for a little over 1% of births and decidedly undecided even by experts with all the machines that beep for about a fiftieth of 1%.

Banging on about it in online forums using throwaway accounts is simply being a sad wannabe edge lord type.

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

#157

Post by ryandrake »

llamaimperative wrote: post #101
flappyeagle wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people on social media should be required to disclose their names?

I would love a real-names only network. There should be other networks as well, but this should be an option.

A lot of people on Facebook use their real names, and back before I quit it, I was pretty shocked at the kinds of horrible things people would say under their real name and under a picture of their face, also, knowing full well their friends and family could easily see it. I don't think real names would help that much.

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

#158

Post by rhasterx »

david-gpu wrote: post #153
throw112312 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees. Now, say that in 2020 in a woke software organization.

"I will put every person in precisely one out of two boxes at my discretion, and they will be happy about it". Example: "I believe there are two kinds of people in the world, the righteous and the despicable. You belong with the despicable, I decided. If you disagree, you are woke".

The amount of inferences and insinuations you draw is a perfect example of why the Chatham House Rule is needed. I wonder how biologists discuss the issue if one hypothesis is outright forbidden. Note also that Ketanji Brown Jackson evaded the question when asked in a hearing.

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

#159

Post by josephcsible »

ryandrake wrote: post #150
TheBruceHimself wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions. But, for today, I always wonder when someone says they are going to be harassed for their opinions. Just what opinions are we talking about, her…

> Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions.

30 years is a long time. Even the most vanilla of opinions can become entirely taboo in less time than that. Take gay marriage as an example. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act became law. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer were among the Congressmen who voted in favor of it, and Bill Clinton signed it. In 2008, Barack Obama said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Even Obama's statement would be taboo today, let alone passing such a bill.

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

#160

Post by graemep »

manquer wrote: post #32
Temporary_31337 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about South Africa not doing so well currently? It could be viewed through a racial lens but it means you can’t objectively discuss and hopefully help the situation. IMO this is exactly an example of where such closed rules may legitimately help. In the process of brainstorming you are bound to say something stupid or illegal but that’s the whole idea of brainstorming- to throw ideas and see what sticks

> South Africa not doing so well currently? Unless it is group of South African expats why should we brainstorming? Is South Africa asking for help ? Either for ideas or for money? Or is there genocide or other basic human rights abuses that we cannot but intervene. The presumption that we can solve or think about their problems better than them is where it is offensive not what is being said, people are more than ca…

> Unless it is group of South African expats why should we brainstorming?

Why not? British people discussed the US election and Trump, lots of Americans express opinions on Britain, everyone expresses opinions about Russia and Ukraine, etc.

I would say that people's opinions about countries they do not know first hand are often (if not usually) worthless, but I cannot imagine that in any of the above cases (or similar) many people would say they have no reason not to have opinions.

Post reply on HN