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

301–310 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#301

Post by Chris2048 »

grzm wrote: post #290
Chris2048 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I just read the section about the sexist skeptic. I find it deeply flawed, many of the arguments are sound, and just because the author thinks they are inappropriate doesn't mean they are - that's just the authors subjective, emotive opinion.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to pointing out logical fallacies, which I understand to be the subject at hand in this branch of the thread. Are you perhaps responding to something (much further) upthread, such as here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13316770 If so, please respond there.

No, I'm referring to the content of the link above, https://web.archive.org/web/20140404202911/http://plover.net...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#302

Post by Chris2048 »

grzm wrote: post #292
Chris2048 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I think some fallacies are to vague too identify without more detail. Some are easily mis-identified, or mis-applied, esp those such as "Appeal to Authority".

However, I think most are not so.

I don't think anyone can ask for more engagement. Being made aware of a fallacy is like being made aware of a spelling mistake - it is just a note of something to be fixed, no further engagement is needed from whoever identifies it.

There is also another issue: there is a lot to read on the web, all competing for attention. I think there is a greater burden on a writer to produce fallacy-free text than there is on the many potential readers to read any one text despite its flaws. A fallacy is a common falsehood, so common it can be easily identified without further discussion of the topic. The nature of fallacies, to me, seem to be quick, efficient identification of logical flaws i.e. the low hanging fruit.

As such, maybe a text with such flaws shouldn't be engaged, if such basic flaws exist? People pointing out these flaws both help you fix them, and hinder by warning off readers until they are fixed.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#303

Post by ubernostrum »

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #295
ubernostrum wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perve…

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.

Sure, there are awful things happening around the world. But your response is classic "whataboutism"[1]. At some point you have to start prioritizing problems to solve, and problems which are closer to home will, psychologically, impact people in ways different from problems that are distant. Plus, bringing up conditions in developed countries probably creates the opportunity to marshal more resources to do things about other places (since newly-empowered people will have greater capital and technological resources to bring to bear on eradicating trouble around the world).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#304

Post by dagenleg »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #223
dagenleg wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this idea that the concept of privilege only exists in the West is a disservice to the struggle of activists around the world. There are professors in Japan discussing Japans racism and xenophobia, and privilege structures unique to their culture. There are discussions in South Africa over how apartheid has affected the culture there and structures of privilege and racism there. China's literary scene has exp…

I do still think that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Racism, xenophobia and apartheid are things that exist on totally different level from "subtle privilege of having western-sounding name on facebook" or other perceived micro-oppressions. I am not saying that "privilege" is a thing that exists and is discussed only in the west, rather I am saying that the things that do exist in the west are not worth the amount of attention they are getting.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#305

Post by pc86 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #226
pc86 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, especially if they require that you use your real name. Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

It is a human right to be able to go about your business without having your safety threatened. If that business requires use of some internet services as a matter of basic economic survival, then you do have a right to use them safely and people who interfere with that are infringing upon your rights.

I have a human right not to have my life threatened when going about my business, but if my business requires me to fly a plane or be on Facebook that doesn't mean it's a human right for me to fly a plane or be on Facebook.

Using the word right for something should be reserved only for those specific, first-order activities which are so inalienable as to suggest the inability to do them is reprehensible to and an affront to basic humanity.

Being safe is a right. Speaking your mind (with certain reasonable limitations) is a right, even if your opinions are garbage to 99% of the world. Using the laundromat at Whittaker and 8th is not a right, nor is using Facebook or even the internet.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#306

Post by sinxoveretothex »

ubernostrum wrote: post #303
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perve…

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. Sure, there are awful things happening around the world. But your response is classic "whataboutism"[1]. At some point you have to start prioritizing problems…

I don't know if it is whataboutism. If the rich lawyer complains, is it whataboutism to point out worse suffering? It seems to me that Warren Buffett could refuse to do philanthropy on the grounds that he has much less money than Gates and any argument against his position could be said to be whataboutism if you are right on this.

My understanding of whataboutism is that it must be an attempt to deflect from some problem that the user doesn't want to address. Like if one is a racist and say 'oh but what about children in country X'. And even then, there are ways to interpret what I just wrote unfavorably due to the plethora of possible definitions of the * isms (is it subtle bias or is it fear/hate of, or etc.).

Anyway, the point I would make is that I think your argument about what to prioritize is shaped around the conclusion you want to reach. Consider this: why should I prioritize my fellow countrymen/westerners of another race over my fellow human beings from another country?

Because they are closer or more akin to me? If so, why not care about people even closer to me: my family and my 'tribe'?

What I'm describing is what is generally seen as conservatism and I expect that it is even seen as either actual bigotry/racism/etc or at least related to it, yet your argument for the 'opposite side' is very similar. Or, if you prefer, what might be said to be racist about an argument against caring for other races could be said to be xenophobic about yours, in a way (I'm not trying to insult you, but rather trying to point out a case of repugnant conclusion).

But anyway, the whole topic is vast and I realize that I've contradicted my own recommendation of emphasizing solutions, so here is my attempt at that: it could be that there are ways to improve race relations that are either the most effective ways to improve the world or that also happen to benefit everyone's ingroup and if those exist then I encourage people to focus on sharing those.

As for more contentious solutions, I have no idea yet. I have seen too many life skill assessment surveys and such to believe that pure 'system 2' solutions (to use Kanehman's nomenclature) will ever work: most people are what Kahneman would call 'lazy thinkers' and I'm fairly convinced that the *isms are merely consequences of such cognitive biases. Short of genetic engineering or separating groups into nations based on their group identity, I don't know what could work.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#307

Post by SolaceQuantum »

dagenleg wrote: post #304
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this idea that the concept of privilege only exists in the West is a disservice to the struggle of activists around the world. There are professors in Japan discussing Japans racism and xenophobia, and privilege structures unique to their culture. There are discussions in South Africa over how apartheid has affected the culture there and structures of privilege and racism there. China's literary scene has exp…

I do still think that you are comparing apples and oranges here. Racism, xenophobia and apartheid are things that exist on totally different level from "subtle privilege of having western-sounding name on facebook" or other perceived micro-oppressions. I am not saying that "privilege" is a thing that exists and is discussed only in the west, rather I am saying that the things that do exist in the west are not worth t…

Actually, many of these discussions also look into microaggressions. Consider when a half-Brazilian woman earned miss Japan. There was discussion on what mucroaggressions she faced in the media and in her childhood such as pointing out how she may not he truly Japanese due to her ancestry and implications that she doesn't deserve awards. Facebook in a way of managing who is discerned to have a real name and excluding people from different cultures because the way they identify themselves are unacceptable is part of a larger problem in when identities are questioned purely for not fitting into the majority or "white" ideal of what is considered an acceptable identity, and demanding those who have unacceptable identities to change to fit the "white" ideal in order to participate in a significant social media platform.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#308

Post by newscracker »

morgante wrote: post #284
newscracker wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook doesn't need you to give your name to figure out who you are. They don't sell advertising based on your name. Well, they do need your name to link and correlate it with other data sources (like address books uploaded by people, offline data sources like data brokers, etc.) and use that to show "better ads" and make more money. The value lies in identifying related information with attributes like name, age…

With the wealth of data that Facebook has on you, I'm confident they could figure out your name even if they didn't enforce a real name policy. > Nobody is pretending. Just because some people are willing to still troll under their real names does not mean it doesn't have a substantive impact on people's behavior. Heck, I personally have seen the difference in my own activity on Reddit (where I'm anonymous) and HN (w…

> With the wealth of data that Facebook has on you, I'm confident they could figure out your name even if they didn't enforce a real name policy.

You seem to be making assumptions based on how you operate in the world and attributing superpowers to Facebook where there are none. I know people with Facebook accounts where their real name is not listed anywhere on the profile or in communications they have with others. These people do not fill in things like email address, phone number, place of work and other data that can be linked with address book uploads by other users. The people in these people's friends list are ok with communicating with the "non-real name" and haven't snitched even when Facebook tried to get them to.

> Just because some people are willing to still troll under their real names does not mean it doesn't have a substantive impact on people's behavior. Heck, I personally have seen the difference in my own activity on Reddit (where I'm anonymous) and HN (where I'm not). I definitely hold myself to a higher standard here, even when arguments get heated, because this is part of my professional profile (and Reddit is not).

It's not just some people. I never said that all people who use real names behave badly on social names. But many do (as I said above, not just a few exceptions). Real names is a facade that Facebook uses to get more information about people, and does not influence bad behavior negatively in many cases. And your behavior and how you conduct yourself with respect to the use of real name or otherwise on different platforms is your choice. It has no bearing on what others do.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#309

Post by vidarh »

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.

I am sure I am. But that is not the point. I gave other examples too, and the point is that requiring "real" names breaks down in all kinds of different cases, most of which by themselves are probably not that common, but that adds up to affecting millions of people.

E.g. which name for my ex is most "real"? Her legal name? Using that would prevent most of her friends from finding her - it's not the name she uses. This is common for vast numbers of immigrants with names that are hard to pronounce.

> This is the difference between a social network meant for the general populace and one specific for tech folk.

Facebook is trying to be the one to decide how we should interact with our friends, and fails to understand even how names are used in real life, not just for "tech folk".

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#310

Post by mjevans »

teddyh wrote: post #299
mjevans wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you for a more accurate recall of this memory, though I feel that a diplomat is but one specific sub-class of politician.
Post reply on HN