The Real Name Fallacy • Hacker News Board

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#291

Post by sedachv » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:25 PM UTC

nommm-nommm wrote: post #134

DanBC wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Who is ESR?

ESR is Eric S Raymond, a troll that made his fame from writing about/antagonizing the Free Software community. His "accomplishments" include starting the "Open Source vs Free Software" naming controversy and ruining The Hacker's Dictionary.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#292

Post by grzm » Wed, Jan 04, 2017, 11:35 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #286

grzm wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The context in that first link is: https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net... This adds a little more nuance: 1) LOGICAL FALLACIES ARE USUALLY IRRELEVANT OR CITED INCORRECTLY... 2) CITING LOGICAL FALLACIES IS USUALLY COWARDLY AND LAZY ... " Rather than engage with the ideas in a text, it's much easier to skim through it trying to spot a quick fallacy; and once a fallacy is found, a baloney detect…

I'll admit to being a little confused by your response. I understand you to be arguing that

(a) identifying fallacies is good; and

(b) pointing out the fallacy and nothing more is fine.

As for (a), we're in agreement, and I believe I was clear in saying so above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13320712):

I agree with you that identifying weaknesses or fallacies in an argument is a good thing.

As for (b), if pointing out the fallacy is limited only to identifying the fallacy by name, I disagree, and also expressed this in the same comment. In short (and I repeat myself), I think it lends itself to point scoring rather than cooperative, constructive discussion. If it includes explaining how the argument is an instance of the fallacy, I think that's better.

I appreciate your taking the time to provide the reference to "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks". However, while it's related, I'm don't believe I'm making the arguments you cite (though the second is similar in spirit) and argue against.

I'm fine with our possible disagreement on (b). I can understand why some people may think that identifying and naming the logical fallacy is sufficient. I just don't agree, as I want more out of the discussion. If I've misrepresented or misinterpreted what you've written or intended, please forgive me as this is not my intent, and I would appreciate you pointing it out. Otherwise, I thank you for the discussion and take my leave.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#293

Post by mjolk » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 12:06 AM UTC

freshyill wrote: post #94

mirimir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fourth option: use Facebook with your real name, and separately with fake name(s). For the real-name account, carefully manage "friends" to avoid problems with family, friends, coworkers, etc. Make sure that there's no leakage between your real-name account and fake-name accounts, or among fake-name accounts. Practice good compartmentalization OpSec.

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…

> I'm not sure what it takes to create a burner phone number not linked to you these days.

Cash transaction for a prepaid phone. Pretty easy, if not a little inconvenient.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#294

Post by wfunction » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 2:12 AM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #80

Fnoord wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. They're not even allowed to enforce it in Germany [1]: "Facebook may not prevent its users from using fake names, a German privacy watchdog said on Tuesday, in the latest privacy setback for the U.S. company in Europe." Note that said authority is part of the government (unlike, say, EFF). [1] http:/…

Facebook won't care. Worst case, they'll get a fine of Similar to the right of getting all your data in the EU. They stopped answering requests and the government representative in Ireland (who is responsible) also stopped replying to emails. They'll give you all your data if you sue them, otherwise they just ignore the laws. With Dublin on their side, there's little the EU can do.

Would you have any links to articles about this? I'd like to read more.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#295

Post by sinxoveretothex » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #186

pc86 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever argument you heard other people make. I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean…

Call the police. Call the police ? You don't have enough proof, and shouting death threats at people isn't "harassment" anyway, it's just "free speech", so just grow a thicker skin already, and stop encouraging the death threats to be sent to you by being out in public like that! You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes but you don't have a right to wash your clothes in that specifi…

I like the way you frame privilege. I've heard it expressed in almost the same terms before, but maybe it's a combination of you expressing it less emotionally and me being more receptive to the message in the first place.

And this segues into my response to you: as you said, it is very hard for some people to just "up and ignore politics for a while".

What I feel you are missing however is that there is a very perverse mirror effect: as a white guy (which I assume from your comment you are not), drinking from the social justice firehose is like basking in anti-white male hate (remember that just like not every white male is a racist and a sexist, not every advocate for social justice is immune from similar hateful beliefs targeted at the former group).

One difference is that you're supposed to like it. Or at least a white male who's a "good person" is.

Now, I don't know to what extent both situations are similar or different, I've only ever experienced one side of it (and all the minority friends I ever asked couldn't relay experiences that approach the level of severity people imply on the Internet. But maybe that's because Québec/Ontario is a very different place than wherever you live, or maybe I just don't know the right people).

> something that others can't just do whenever they want, something that really is a luxury compared to the way others are forced by our society to live

I don't really know how to frame this, but I think it's worth noting that in fact, no matter what you've experienced, you still live a luxurious life yourself by today's world standards.

Indeed, if you make just 18k $/year, you're part of the world's richest 10%.

If you have Internet, then you're part of the 40% of people lucky enough to do so.

In many countries today, female foeticides (that is, killing babies because they are not males) is a reality. In other places, young boys are used as sex toys. In a few Islamic countries in Africa (Sudan and Chad are the 2 I remember offhand), actual chattel slavery is still a thing today.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that probably all of us who can comment on HN live in a bubble (certainly some bubbles are inside others however).

And I think it's easy for all of us to look at bubbles inside our own and "take a week off" from problems which do not affect us directly. Heck, I've seen videos of crazy stuff and I'm writing about it here and I still don't really grasp that people actually get stoned to death for adultery.

In perspective, it feels to me like the plight of marginalized people in western countries is akin to a rich lawyer complaining to Bill Gates about how unfair it is that he can't afford a small island himself while ordering a burger from a minimum wage cashier.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#296

Post by mirimir » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 2:35 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #158

mirimir wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One aspect of compartmentalization OpSec is not telling your meatspace friends about your fake-name accounts. And vice versa . And you wouldn't use real photos in fake accounts.

The problem comes in when/if you use your Alternate Identity (I dislike "fake" as it is no less real than your government approved Identity IMO), to attend events, meetups, or other real world activities. I know many people are a part of Real Worlds clubs, attend conferences, or other events under Identities that do not match their government issued documents. They do this for a verity of reasons.

Yes, that is the downside. Miririr doesn't attend meatspace meetings :( But perhaps that will become possible as robotics develops. Snowden attends many meetings via robot. Of course, people help and accommodate that because he's famous. But maybe robotic-presence services will develop. Consider attendant reductions in global climate forcing! I like the vision of temporary bodies in Kevin MacArdry's Last Trumpet Project.[0]

[0] https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/last_trumpet/LTP.pdf

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#297

Post by mirimir » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 2:44 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #228

mirimir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fourth option: use Facebook with your real name, and separately with fake name(s). For the real-name account, carefully manage "friends" to avoid problems with family, friends, coworkers, etc. Make sure that there's no leakage between your real-name account and fake-name accounts, or among fake-name accounts. Practice good compartmentalization OpSec.

That's just a special case of (3). Essentially you're saying 'spend a lot of time and effort on security, much of which may be arbitrarily zeroed by your counterparty.' That's a shitty proposition , because it's basically offloading the cost of doing that onto someone who is at a comparative disadvantage, and allowing FB to exploit the resulting economic gap - indeed, this is their business model. Naturally people wa…

I'm not saying that maintaining fake-name Facebook accounts makes any sense for most people. As you say, it's too much work, and there's too much risk of losing accounts. But if you need fake accounts, for whatever reason, it's doable.

I don't think that it's a special case of (3). It's rather a combination of (2) and (3).

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#298

Post by mirimir » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 3:09 AM UTC

dagenleg wrote: post #135

mirimir wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Unless you have a reason to need other Facebook accounts. To get anonymous logins on other sites. Or whatever.

I think anonymous logins and Facebook accounts just do not combine very well.

No, they don't. But there are use cases where it's worth it.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#299

Post by teddyh » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 8:24 AM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #282

crystalmeph wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, the man says some things that make polite society cringe, and its fair to at least ask the question of what motivates his supporters. But that wasn't the entirety of his message: His position on illegal immigration, while couched often in racist terms, resonates with people who actually see a lot of jobs they or their families used to get paid for going to much-lower paid immigrants. His tough talk on Ch…

His speeches had a /lot/ of barking, and very little in the way of actually saying how he'd bite (tackle the issue). Trump as a politicization reminds me of one of the Foundation series books that Azimov wrote. A politician of sorts visited the foundation, and after someone there actually took the time to look at everything he'd said they realized that effectively only puffery and no actual promises had been made.

It was a diplomat, not a politician.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#300

Post by pja » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 9:29 AM UTC

robmcm wrote: post #28

Wow a 5.6 MB background image... It took me 13 seconds to load it on a 20 Mbps connection. And there we are worrying about how many Kb our JavaScript libs are.

I dropped the site’s tech contact an email & they’ve fixed it now.