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

221–230 of 264 posts

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

#221

Post by invalidname »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #219
invalidname wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a person that would be considered dysgenic, yes, I think eugenics is bad, I guess you got me there. Implying that I support Eugenics because I want to listen to people and not pre-judge them is pretty much the exact thing I'm complaining about.

I brought up eugenics because I’ve seen this before and you stepped up to bravely defend it against accusations of wrongthink. I think you’re telling on yourself here.

When did I defend eugenics? What specifically did I say?

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

#222

Post by sillyfluke »

vr46 wrote: post #197
jandrewrogers wrote: post #173

This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades. The original purpose (on the Internet) was to create a space where complex ethical and moral questions could be explored and discussed in depth without risk of someone taking a hypothetical statement out of context to…

Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag, they allow everyone to talk FREELY. I have been to many classes and forums under this rule, not least at Chatham House in St James Square, and it means that the speakers can speak freely, name names, without hedging or fudging or perambulating around the shrubbery. You can report whatever you like, but not who said it. I have heard so…

I like how the parent points out that it was a similar rule and not explicitly stated as "Chatham House Rules".

>This is not new. Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule. The novelty is that it disappeared almost entirely for decades.

Anecdotally, I believe this rule was followed implicitly and often subconsciously and probably through some of the peak blogosphere era, despite blogs being accessible by the general public at the time. People were still looking for their tribe to escape the intellectual, creative, or censored dullness of their local surroundings.

The concept of ratting out people who were looking for the same thing would not occur to most people. They prized the discussion they couldn't have elsewhere more than the specific points being made. It'd be like the pilgrims going back to England and complaining to the English about all the other crazy heretics in the new world.

The whole thing started disapearing when going "viral" on social media started becoming a thing.

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

#223

Post by edanm »

vr46 wrote: post #215
edanm wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agreed - This article is wrong at the beginning, Chatham House Rules are not a gag FYI gag as in "gag order" not gag as in a joke. In case anyone else was confused about this as I was :)

I didn't mean gag as joke, it was a direct reference to the article, but I see that people might be confused.

Yeah, I wasn't criticizing or anything, that's why I wrote it as clarification. I assumed other people like me might read your comment without having read the article.

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

#224

Post by invalidname »

watwut wrote: post #216
invalidname wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement. We are supposed to give infinite benefit of the doubt to people even after it is super clear what it is that they are saying. I have seen these paranoid SJW accusations to .... turn out truth enough times already. Turns out, people who say these things are the ones who actually listen with comprehension to what is being…

> Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement.

There are fair cases of dog-whistle racism. But that is the person who is indeed racist and not necessarily everyone who falls to the whistle or happens to be next to that person. The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics.

Typically division would make sense if you're cutting off the terrible people. Unfortunately, current western politics is cutting off half of the population with a blunt instrument.

A lot of these snap judgements block our ability to self reflect. How can you tell if you're in a cult or an echo chamber?

How do you know your confirmation bias isn't lying to you?

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

#225

Post by laidoffamazon »

invalidname wrote: post #221
laidoffamazon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I brought up eugenics because I’ve seen this before and you stepped up to bravely defend it against accusations of wrongthink. I think you’re telling on yourself here.

When did I defend eugenics? What specifically did I say?

[flagged]

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

#226

Post by invalidname »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #225
invalidname wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I defend eugenics? What specifically did I say?

[flagged]

You said this:

> 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.

I responded without talking about Eugenics at all... My problem was with this phrase of yours:

> "If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places"

That's a pretty problematic phrase. You're "guessing" what they're saying then judging them to be guilty based on your imagination.

Notice you're blaming me for that in this thread even though my response didn't mention that in any way. You chose to interpret that as me supporting Eugenics. That's projection. That isn't me.

That is a problematic way to look at life and at people in general.

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

#227

Post by llamaimperative »

watwut wrote: post #212
llamaimperative wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is figurative speech. It is valid use of an English language.

Right and it means “don’t criticize when I say stupid things,” which is how the marketplace of ideas works.

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

#228

Post by ANewFormation »

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…

The reason examples are generally those from the past it's because those from the present are, by definition, controversial and so it mostly would just derail the topic.

It just so happens that controversial views on one era frequently end up being seen as 'right and proper' in another, and vice versa.

Here's a 'safe one' unless you actually think about the implications of what it means I'm saying - forcing people, against their will, to kill (or be killed) is a fundamentally unacceptable violation of human dignity and human rights, that should never be tolerated under any circumstance.

That's probably safe to say, yet now apply it to certain situations and suddenly it becomes tabboo. Of course in the future it will probably be as plainly obviously correct as the notion that slavery is wrong.

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

#230

Post by llamaimperative »

ryandrake wrote: post #157
llamaimperative wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That strikes me as boomer stuff though. Not as many millennial++ doing that, and I figure that number will just decline (especially given that you can easily just go be socially repulsive with anonymity and no repercussions on other mainstream networks now).
Post reply on HN