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

The Real Name Fallacy

blog.coralproject.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#211

Post by strictnein »

macintux wrote: post #183
stupidcar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because someone rang up using their details. H…

I can attest that there was a disturbed individual who lived not nearly far enough away for my comfort who came to the conclusion that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991. As concerning as that was, it in no way compares to what women in particular face today online.

> "that I was evil and should die based on online interactions (MUDs) in ~1991"

Trade Wars players can be aggressive at times.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#212

Post by NoGravitas »

eternalban wrote: post #110
freshyill wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google requires phone or text verification on new accounts. I'm not sure about Facebook, but they do require an email address, and that has to come from somewhere. Eventually, you will require verification via phone or text, and that's when it gets harder to prevent these services from linking back to you. I'm not sure what it takes to create a burner phone number not linked to you these days. None of that really mat…

> A few months ago, worrying about such things seemed kind of silly to me. Now, I think I understand the need better I am assuming you are now concerned because of the incoming administration. I find this puzzling. Do you remember this character? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft

GP might not be old enough for John Ashcroft to be relevant to them. I, on the other hand, remember Ed Meese. We all become aware when we are ready to become aware.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#213

Post by Chris2048 »

DanBC wrote: post #60
mjolk wrote: post #9

While I agree that expecting users to use real names is a bad thing, this knocked the air out of me: > In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1] > [1] Sarah Banet-Weiser and Kate M. Miltner. #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Med…

> A post by ESR was even flagged off HN because its message was that he expected evidence to back claims of harassment, No. People flag ESR posts because he's a pathological arsehole and his threads contain some deeply unpleasant posts. >I reject the assertion that these issues are "common" in the US Interesting that you complained about people not bothering to support their claims, and then immediately make a claim…

"citation needed" does not need a citation.

The bar is higher for an article, than a comment.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#214

Post by cr0sh »

crystalmeph wrote: post #177
teddyh wrote: post #137

Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Expanding on the entry for those who have an unpopular political opinion - Take for example the current narrative that anyone who voted for Trump is a bigoted sexist homophobe. I know many people that did vote for Trump, and while I personally didn't vote for him (and it's telling that I feel I need to get that out of the way), I believe that many, if not the vast majority of people who voted for him did so either: -…

> Expanding on the entry for those who have an unpopular political opinion - Take for example the current narrative that anyone who voted for Trump is a bigoted sexist homophobe.

I don't think I could go so far as to label someone a "bigoted sexist homophobe" simply because they voted for someone who I didn't agree with or vote for, but that isn't really the case with Trump.

This was a man who we have documented video and audio evidence of him saying bigoted, sexist, and homophobic statements. We have evidence of him encouraging (to an extent) his followers and supporters to commit violence against those who disagreed with him (at his political rallies, for example). I won't go further into this - all of it is documented - it was his platform! Strangely, that was about all of his platform; I don't really recall ever hearing him actually state any real policy positions or what he would actually do and why, once in office. What little he did say ended up being word salad at times, and at others, he would literally contradict himself from one sentence to the next!

Now - let's say we have a person who votes for someone else. The person they voted for they have heard make statements that are bigoted, that are sexist, and that are also homophobic. Video and audio evidence, as well as witnessed evidence, can also be presented to them after the fact.

If that person, after knowing this, and also being presented the same evidence of these statements, goes ahead and votes for that person, well - that is their right, of course. But it also has to speak to their character as well, because they either chose to ignore such statements, or they potentially agree with them. As-is, even ignoring them says they tacitly agree with them on some level.

He may have been considered "the lessor of two evils" and/or someone who would try to help others in dire economic situations, but of the two candidates, he was the only one who espoused bigoted, sexist, and homophobic ideas, out loud, and on the record. I'm not sure how that could be considered "lessor of two evils" unless one thinks such thoughts and statements aren't inherently bad.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#215

Post by Tharre »

Frondo wrote: post #205
Tharre wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a significantly weaker claim then. Depending on how many women are needed for a 'significant number' I might even agree with it.

I don't think you're arguing in good faith right now. This sounds an awful lot like sealioning. (For those who aren't familiar with it, http://wondermark.com/1k62/ is the origin of the term.)

I have no idea what you're trying to point out (or what that comic is about).

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#216

Post by [deleted] »

Tharre wrote: post #194
jlarocco wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what sites you visit, but I've been online since 1996 and have never received a death threat. It's not a normal thing. Second, I don't think the OP's point was that women face "worse than death threats", but that they receive a lot of harassment online. That should be obvious to anybody who's used the internet for any appreciable amount of time. If that's really news to you, then google it.

I didn't claim it's 'normal' nor did I claim that everyone on the internet gets death threats. But if you have an online presence with an audience of tens of thousands you will get them. So pointing to popular female youtubers for example, who get death threats is not valid evidence. I don't know what his point was, thus I wrote ' if you're claiming that ...'

[deleted]

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#217

Post by optimuspaul »

adevine wrote: post #172
vidarh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people I would consider friends are people I haven't met in real life. And for many years a majority of my friend circle were people I probably never even knew the "real" name of - people in the demo/cracking scene where it was often common for people to introduce you by handle and group (e.g. say Strider of Fairlight, to take a "well known" example from the scene that I spoke to on the phone but back in…

> Most of the people I would consider friends are people I haven't met in real life. You are likely in a small minority. This is the difference between a social network meant for the general populace and one specific for tech folk.

> You are likely in a small minority.

Agreed. I'm a fairly introverted person and participate in a lot of online communities, but I rarely consider people I haven't met to be my friends. That just seems strange to me. I'd even venture to say that in the tech folk world that is a minority position. Most of the people I know need some sort of tangible validation to form a real friendship.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#218

Post by grzm »

Chris2048 wrote: post #210
grzm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vouched for this comment as I didn't see anything particularly egregious: looks like the included URI triggers some automatic down-voting behavior (perhaps to encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies?) Regardless, it's probably not worth including that link in the future :)

> encourage better discourse rather than calling out fallacies? How is calling out fallacies not the best kind of discourse??

I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing. What I am trying to express is that it can sometimes be reduced to little more than name calling if not done well. Say, for example, I identify what I believe to be a straw man. If my response is only "That's a straw man", while it may be accurate, it's not very useful to the discourse. It should include at least why I believe the argument to be building a straw man.

It can also lead to a desire to score points rather than to reach some kind of mutual understanding (if not agreement), which also doesn't lend itself to constructive discussion.

I hope it's clear that my explanation as to why that particular URI is banned is just speculation, and not very strong at that. I can't think of a better explanation, however.

For what it's worth, it looks like I'm not alone in thinking along these lines:

citing a logical fallacy is often employed by those who are lazy and aren't genuinely addressing a given argument.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195076

For reference, a couple of other HN threads where this URI has been discussed:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391743

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660078

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#219

Post by SolaceQuantum »

pc86 wrote: post #202
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think Facebook's real name policy is a good example of a kind of subtle privilege. Specifically, if you don't have a western or "white" naming scheme than you are literally not considered to have a "real name" according to Facebook's algorithm. This has stirred up controversy before with Native American groups, LGBTQ people(the person who helped implement the Facebook genders had their own account suspende…

Does FB allow Arabic text in names? I have several middle eastern friends (people born there and some who still live there, not middle eastern Americans) so see it in comments a fairly often but it comes to mind that I've never seen an Arabic name. How does one's LGBTQ status affect their legal name?

LGBTQ people can legally change their name to match their new identity or adopt a pseudonym to avoid harassment from people who know them offline. LGBTQ people who legally change their name(s) to something less conventional are often pinged by facebook as not having a real name. For example, Zoe Cat, a transwoman who worked at Facebook with that name and helped develop the gender options on Facebook had their account suspended for having a "fake name". [1]

According to another anonymous source, Facebook refused their name despite presenting government-issued documents.[2]

[1]https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-... [2]http://www.dailydot.com/via/facebook-real-names-cracking-dow...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#220

Post by lostphilosopher »

dagenleg wrote: post #209
lostphilosopher wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've dug into the meaning of "rights" and I'm with you. No one has the "right" to use Facebook. But, you lose me when you don't draw the connection to "privilege." While I don't have the "right" to use Facebook I have the "privilege" of using it, and at no point feeling unwelcome or un-catered to. That feeling comes not because of my merit or choices, but because I'm a "check all the boxes" white dude.

Oh dear. Is there any corner of the world safe from you privilege hunting types? It's funny how all your activism starts and ends with feelings and what you feel. The sad thing about your self-flagellation is that you forget that people outside of the West (the majority of the world population, by the way) do no really care about the "privileges" that you so righteously seek out behind every corner. They care about v…

Commenting on social media is a far cry from activism, but it's an adequate form of dialog. How do you propose I make the argument, "I think I've got some unearned advantages" without being written of as virtue signalling or what have you? And "self-flagellation"? Really? By my reckoning I won the 'veil of ignorance' lottery. I won't apologize for that or feel bad about it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hide from reality. Your point about "people outside the West" seems like further evidence of exactly my point. How lucky was it that I was born where I don't have to worry about my basic needs? Isn't a reasonable response to that luck to look for ways to back up people who didn't get the "be born a white dude in the US" memo? Maybe support some charities, try to see things from uncomfortable perspectives, do some civic duties, maybe chime in on a post or two to acknowledge that people who think that social media isn't always friendly to them aren't crazy, and as a consumer I'd prefer it if products would treat them better? (See! I was getting back to the topic!) Have I really gone off the "SJW" deep end? If you think I have feel free to add trigger warnings to your posts, maybe it will cushion the blow... ;-)
Post reply on HN