Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#61

Post by anonymousiam »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #41
embedding-shape wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the r…

Europeans use American iPhones and Android bc they wouldn’t add a backdoor. Didn’t the UK want a backdoor added?

Anybody who feels that their communications are secure on their mobile devices is deluded. There are countless access methods at many levels, even in the US.

There are laws in every country (including the US) to ensure that communications can be monitored when such monitoring is "authorized."

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#62

Post by kodoman »

huijzer wrote: post #54
smolder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.

Talking about historical sources, this verse from the King James Version from 1611 agrees with you. 1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” The antichrist is often correctly or incorrectly made synonymous with the son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “ Let no man deceive you…

Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god or gods true nature (basically any heresy). I think Tertullian has in mind Arianism or Marcionism or some other major heresy. My point was that Schmit is reading Tertullian and closely and holds very different positions to Thiel who holds very different things and the identification of the Katchon as a negative force seems unique and I have not seen before and goes competely against Tertullian and Schmit (who is making the consept corrupt but in a much smarter way then Thiel does In my opinion).

I do however think the views of the Fathers can not simply be dismissed and hold them in high esteem and as partially authoritative even outside counsels.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#63

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

huijzer wrote: post #56
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here. If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really…

If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not. Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my poi…

What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that?

When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels.

And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#64

Post by SadErn »

mentalgear wrote: post #35
SadErn wrote: post #3

When Benjamin Franklin launched Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1733 under the fake identity of “Richard Saunders,” he needed a way to get attention in Philadelphia’s crowded almanac market. So he decided to kill off one of his established competitors. Franklin announced that Titan Leeds would soon die: “He dies, by my Calculation... on Oct. 17. 1733. 3 ho. 29 m. P.M.” Leeds, inconveniently, did not die. Instead, he publi…

Credible Source or it didn’t happen .

[dead]

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#65

Post by huijzer »

kodoman wrote: post #62
huijzer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about historical sources, this verse from the King James Version from 1611 agrees with you. 1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” The antichrist is often correctly or incorrectly made synonymous with the son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “ Let no man deceive you…

Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god o…

I’m surprised you capitalize “the Fathers” and write “god” lowercase

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#66

Post by inigyou »

embedding-shape wrote: post #20
Animats wrote: post #18

Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group. In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US…

> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the r…

The US seems to generally take the approach that everything must be absolutely protected from the government, while European countries are fine with delegating things to the government and regulating things, and putting all the protections on the government itself, instead. It hasn't always worked well and may turn out to be naïve, but so has the US way.

It's a bit like spreading your eggs between many ordinary baskets, or putting them all in one basket but making that basket as strong as you can. Neither one is obviously a better approach.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#67

Post by inigyou »

dannyobrien wrote: post #26
embedding-shape wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a US perspective, stemming from US history. EU rights as to anonymous speech are weaker, It's interesting that on one hand you're right, in the US, anonymous speech receives near-absolute protection. In the EU, it's more of a "qualified right" than so absolute. But, on the other hand, in our modern age, EU seems better at defending against mandating backdoors or weakening end-to-end encryption violates the r…

Could you give examples of the US adding backdoors and weakening end-to-end encryption? I'll give you the almost-certain weakening of proposed crypto standards, and Clinton-era export controls, but I don't think I've seen any movement in that direction recently. The most successful attempts statutorily seem to be in the UK and the US. Also: the European Court of Human Rights, as a non-EU institution, doesn't have an…

Surely everyone knows Dual_EC_DRBG, the CLOUD Act, and National Security Letters?

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#68

Post by inigyou »

embedding-shape wrote: post #29
hdgvhicv wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US free speech is qualified too - just in different ways. And even when free speech is protected, it doesn’t stop you receiving the consequences log being arrested or losing your job and home.

I feel like we're talking about different things here. I understand "free speech does not mean free of consequence", so if your employer doesn't like your opinions, you can get fired, that's all fine and dandy. But why you add that someone could be arrested for free speech? The whole point of free speech, at least for me, is that the government cannot arrest you for that, even if all the people around you see you as…

Indeed, that's why people sometimes say the US doesn't have free speech. But when people say that, they often get attacked, because duh, it says right there in the first amendment that it does! That's why they would instead say things like "the US has exceptions to free speech" or "the US doesn't have unqualified free speech" even though the truth is "the US doesn't have free speech"

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#69

Post by inigyou »

kodoman wrote: post #25
Animats wrote: post #18

Most of the Founders published under pseudonyms, even after the Revolution. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Franklin - all had pseudonyms for their political writings. The Federalist papers were signed "Publius". What Franklin did was in no way unusual for that group. In the US, anonymous speech is considered a core part of free expression, and is treated as a First Amendment right. That's a US perspective, stemming from US…

From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because wh…

Have there been any new laws in the UK since 1689?

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#70

Post by inigyou »

arjie wrote: post #14
huijzer wrote: post #11

What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1], > Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and…

Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart? Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is enter…

If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.
Post reply on HN