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

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Post by llamaimperative »

cryptonector wrote: post #250
llamaimperative wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I am literally referring to baby boomers, which is a generation of Americans.

"Note to self: It's okay to call people millennials now?!"

Uh yes, it is.

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

#252

Post by flappyeagle »

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.

daft

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

#253

Post by manquer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182
manquer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rude, inappropriate, presumptuous, offensive . All degrees of the same thing ? And the degree in the eyes of the subject

Your argument circles back to why the Chatham House Rule is gaining popularity. It enforces the figurative walls of your neighbour's house. > degree in the eyes of the subject Yes. The people actually having the conversation.

Subject of the conversation not its participants.

In a public conversation preferences of the subject i.e. who being talked about when discussing about them publicly matters more than the participants i.e who is doing the talking

Period , done . if you disagree then you and I fundamentally different views on what is a civilized society and I hope my neighbors have my world view than yours.

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

#254

Post by manquer »

graemep wrote: post #160
manquer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 simila…

> Why not?

500 years of slavery, colonialism, genocide and religion, propping up banana republics and dictators and countless other crimes in name of civilizing society or recently bringing freedom, fighting communism or spreading democracy is why not.

Recent and ancient history shows time and again that the opinions become policy, governing everything from who and how aid is given to bombing anyone you don’t like . Policies change and principles abandoned with changing domestic political winds .

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

#255

Post by wlonkly »

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 doesn't have to be controversial, even. It might just be a little bit private.

I'm on a social tech Slack that uses the CHR. It means if someone asks a question about, I don't know, how my company does something, I can say "ah, yeah, we used to use vendor X, that didn't work because of Y, and now we're with Z instead" without worrying about a blog post showing up that says "wlonkly from company Foo says that Foo used to use X but dropped them because..." but they can definitely use the information I gave them to help solve their problem.

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

#256

Post by tasty_freeze »

itbeho wrote: post #60
tasty_freeze wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples? I'm out of the loop. Personally, I am trying to think of something I could say five years ago that I can't say now.

Vaccine Safety

There are people everywhere publicly saying vaccines are great and other saying they are terrible. Andrew Wakefield, then Jenny McCarthy, really kicked things into high gear with their claims, and that was 20+ years ago.

Then, as now, reasonable people recognize that while no vaccine is perfect (hell, even a natural exposure to many diseases doesn't always confer immunity) on the net they are improving health way more than it is causing loss of health. Then, as now, people who claim unsupported things (MMR causes autism) are going to get push-back.

The only thing that has changed, that I can see, is that the denialism is stronger now than it was five years ago.

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

#257

Post by BryantD »

apaasim wrote: post #231
BryantD wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re an Ivy League college professor, it is extremely risky to say that Palestine has a legitimate grievance against Israel. If you’re a small town high school coach, it would be smart to be careful about advocating for trans girls to be able to play on the girls team. You can be punished for opinions on various sides of the political spectrum.

If you're coaching a girls' team and you advocate that boys who say they are girls should be allowed to play on the team too, then that should be grounds for dismissal from the coaching role, as you'd be disadvantaging the girls on the team that you're supposed to be supporting. This would be an entirely warranted "punishment for opinions" because of your failure to adequately safeguard young female athletes.

See? It's just wrong-think, based on appeals to emotion.

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

#258

Post by justin66 »

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…

> Many of the mailing lists that dominated the discourse of the early Internet in the 1990s operated under a similar rule.

What lists are you referring to? I don't remember this ever coming up.

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

#259

Post by apaasim »

BryantD wrote: post #257
apaasim wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're coaching a girls' team and you advocate that boys who say they are girls should be allowed to play on the team too, then that should be grounds for dismissal from the coaching role, as you'd be disadvantaging the girls on the team that you're supposed to be supporting. This would be an entirely warranted "punishment for opinions" because of your failure to adequately safeguard young female athletes.

See? It's just wrong-think, based on appeals to emotion.

No, in that case it would be a demonstration of how unsuitable that person is for the job.

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

#260

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

josephcsible wrote: post #118
ethbr1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 exclusive…

> Now, living in a bubble is trivial. It's also the subtle default on a lot of social platforms. Indeed. IMO, social media should have very limited facilities for blocking/muting (e.g., maximum number of accounts to block, no blocking accounts that have never previously interacted with you, and no import functionality), so that it could only be used to stop true harassment, and not to intentionally live in such a bub…

uhm, hard disagree. Harassment is the #1 problem blocking helps with but... I block anything the platform suggests to me as a form of protest against it shoving click bait triggering channels in my face. I see this as resisting getting forced into a bubble by the platform.

I can't not use social media because it is the only way to get local info and it is a terrible way when you consider that for every post from someone i subscribe to, there are 6 ads and 6 channel suggestions specially chosen to entice me to join in a flame war of comments. I'd just give up if i didn't have the hope of at least from time to time catching a break because i blocked all the things the platform thought to suggest for a few weeks. My hope is to one day achieve a whitelist of local posts which is driven by geography, not agreement/alignment on politics or ideaology. since that's not an option, i'll blacklist the entire world if i must...

Post reply on HN