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

241–250 of 264 posts

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

#241

Post by laidoffamazon »

invalidname wrote: post #226
laidoffamazon wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 con…

I want to listen in on your eugenics adjacent conversations now

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

#242

Post by kyleee »

ANewFormation wrote: post #228
ryandrake wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

Good example. Also possibly circumcision, eating animals.

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

#244

Post by mmooss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183
mmooss wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? It would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things.

> would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things Based on what? If anything, baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience.

Generally, lack of consequence results in people behaving less responsibly, but ...

> baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience

... the dynamic you cite has been far more influential in humanity's new social medium, social media.

Arguably, though, that is due to a lack of consequence for their actions. Zuckerberg says these things and there are no serious conequences (possibly; we'll see). When there are conequences, it does stop people - look at the effectiveness of the anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ mobs in silencing people and organizations.

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

#245

Post by mmooss »

falcor84 wrote: post #110
mmooss wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or irresponsibly, ignorantly, stupidly, recklessly ...

As social animals, we think, learn and grow by interacting with others. It's absolutely ok to say stupid things you aren't sure about, and I think it's generally better that people do so in smaller personal settings rather than broadcasting to the internet at large.

I agree completely. I meant - and I should have been clear - people saying stupid things to be loud and disruptive, not because they don't know and are trying to explore something. The latter is great and should be encouraged.

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

#246

Post by mmooss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #181
mmooss wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. While I agree that the outcome has been bad or really catastrophic, I'm not sure it's the same cause. Certainly ideas from positions of power need openeness and sunshine, speaking very generally. The problem on social media is the flood of crap that buries everything else, and nobody can keep up - the sunshine effect is overwhelmed.

> ideas from positions of power need openeness and sunshine, speaking very generally Very generally. Transparency also incentivises grandstanding; you're always speaking to the audience, never to your counterpart.

Are you saying it's better for powerful people to make plans and develop ideas in secret? What about government?

At least to some significant degree, the grandstanding has nothing to do with the actual ideas and plans; it's part of the coverup; it's a distraction while the real plans are made. Grandstanders like Trump and Musk often say things they have no intention of following through on.

To the grandstanders, who are really propagandists, words are weapons and not information. And of course, everyone's words are some of each, but the grandstanders are far over toward one endpoint or axis on that graph.

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

#247

Post by _wire_ »

kyleee wrote: post #242
ANewFormation wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

Good example. Also possibly circumcision, eating animals.

Looking forward:

The right to choose an abortion also extends to the prospective father.

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

#248

Post by [deleted] »

llamaimperative wrote: post #108
sp527 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of…

What do you think “the marketplace of ideas” actually is, if not talking shit about people with shitty ideas? Such a ridiculously overloaded use of the word “persecution.”

[deleted]

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

#249

Post by cryptonector »

defrost wrote: post #91
laidoffamazon wrote: post #90

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.

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

> farming the normies for profit

ELI10 please.

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

#250

Post by cryptonector »

llamaimperative wrote: post #230
ryandrake wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> boomer stuff

Makes note to self: calling people boomers is totally a-ok!

Post reply on HN