261–264 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The easy solution to this in my state is to just wear a recording device. I live in a one party consent state for the recording of conversations [1,2], whether on the phone or in person. I don't know how y'all get away without it in California. It pairs really well with free speech, and it feels wrong to not have this legal feature available. [1] https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call... [2] htt…
If you don’t plan on following the rule, you don’t need a recording device. Rules like this are an agreement among friends or attendants at an even. If you go in to such an event with an awareness of the rules but an intent to go against them, that’s bad faith. If you go in to such an event with an intent to secretly record people and release recordings of them that’s just terrible behavior, regardless of what the la…
Inviting the public and then putting them under a gag order isn't something we should be excited about. It feels like a slide into censorship.
If you want to publish ideas with anonymity, there are forums for that: social media, journalists with anonymous sources, anonymous editorial pieces, to name just a few. Some of these channels even let you lean on titles or authority, eg. "editorial by an anonymous tech CEO".
Chatham House Rule doesn't really work in practice, and it's a bizarre new social construct that stands in the way of fostering an open society.
We shouldn't be ashamed of free speech. Rather than bending over backwards to create artificial safe spaces where we can say controversial things, we should normalize speaking plainly and openly with one another. This is a weird retreat and it makes society more reclusive and less open. It handicaps us and makes us less authentic.
Memetic contagion meets cargo cult when someone or a group is trying to: a. "lead" and hide attribution of a nefarious or unpopular thoughtspace or particular idea. b. control other people through coercion with arbitrary rules like a literal cult.
Usually it doesn't get spelled out quite this prominently, but it happens any time you visit any meetup. Try shitting in the sink at the next birthday party and you'll find out real fast that the host has set rules.
It is of course your right to disagree with the rules in turn, however the mature thing to then do is to not attend. Not to shit in the sink and complain about oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, in that case it would be a demonstration of how unsuitable that person is for the job.
Appreciate the demonstration of why Chatham House Rule can protect opinions on the left side of the spectrum. Just to be clear, this is a real live example of someone saying that an individual should be punished for their opinions, separate from their actions.