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

311–320 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#311

Post by dagenleg »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #307
dagenleg wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not agree with your interpretation of the Facebook naming policy - in my opinion people of non-majority cultures experience problems simply due to limited resources and maybe negligence, not evil intent or societal demand to "fit in".

Nonetheless, I did no know of Japanese discussions on "microagressions", that's curious. You do agree, that Japan is often thought of as belonging to the "Western" countries, don't you?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#312

Post by thanatropism »

blauditore wrote: post #168
thanatropism wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried to create an alt account they insisted on a phone number, though.

That's more about uniqueness than using your real name. Spam and fraud accounts are a rather big problem, and this is one way of raising the barrier for creating those. And yeah, Facebook surely has other motivation too, like not having your metadata scattered across multiple accounts. But I still don't see how knowing your real name would make a strong difference to them. I have quite a few FB friends that use obvio…

My whole real life is already on Facebook under my real name. But sometimes I wish I could say things on Facebook for a different group of people without my professors or my boss knowing.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#313

Post by mjevans »

vog wrote: post #39

The real name discussion is as old as the Usenet, maybe even older. I find it strange to see it re-appearing again and again every few years for almost decades. Back then, the consensus was roughly: 1. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your realname or an obvious pseudonym. 2. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious)…

I'm forgetting something that /has/ changed since then.

How apt to use critical thinking the average / many users of the Internet are.

"Real names" on Facebook profiles are also problematic since they are not actually authenticated in any meaningful way.

If users had to use a credit card to buy some type of service and the name on that card became their public identity name then at least in that respect it would be ///a/// Firstname Lastname that was an owner of the account. There would still be namespace collision issues (there are billions on this planet).

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#314

Post by adrienne »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #219
pc86 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nitpick: "trans" (short for "transgender") is an adjective which modifies the noun "woman" (or another noun, of course!); hence, "trans woman" (or "trans man", or "trans person") should be written as two words.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#315

Post by adrienne »

logfromblammo wrote: post #270
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'd say that everybody has a natural right to not fear malicious harm while engaging in any form of everyday commerce or public discourse. In situations like the hypotheticals described, I would also say that the local authorities have lost their mandate to govern, and that those subject to the adverse conditions are ethically justified in securing their own safety by any means at their disposal, including against th…

In fact, in the United States of America, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crimes. For instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#316

Post by teddyh »

mjevans wrote: post #310
teddyh wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I sort of see what you mean, but I can’t really agree: A politician is elected, but a diplomat is a civil servant, and is employed. Furthermore, a politician makes decisions and sets policy, while a civil servant obeys decisions and enforces policy.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#317

Post by adrienne »

Chris2048 wrote: post #206
DanBC wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, Too often one person's freedom of speech is a megaphone used to drown out some marginalised group. http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU

Freedom of speech concerns censorship, it doesn't guarantee an audience, and doesn't mean anyone can be forced to listen. Do you have examples of freedom of speech used to disproportionately drown out opposing views, i.e. "marginalis[ation]"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh my god you're serious.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#318

Post by adrienne »

Chris2048 wrote: post #287
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…

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.

'Respond like this, and you couldn't be more offensive if you said "You're too emotional, my dear: let me correct you with the firm hand of reason." In throwing around accusations of logical fallacy in such a sensitive context, you're being an asshole. And furthermore, you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group.'

You have just entirely illustrated the truth of this paragraph.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#319

Post by Chris2048 »

adrienne wrote: post #318
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.

'Respond like this, and you couldn't be more offensive if you said "You're too emotional, my dear: let me correct you with the firm hand of reason." In throwing around accusations of logical fallacy in such a sensitive context, you're being an asshole. And furthermore, you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group.' You have just entirely illustrated the truth of this paragraph.

What sensitive context is there to my comments? This is a conversation about another conversation - the context of the first conversation isn't the same.

I disagree with the author, so I don't believe there is any truth to it, illustrated or not. But in any case, the reason I describe it as 'emotive', is the name-calling ("asshole") and and things like "you're excluding a voice from your privileged in-group"; why is this an issue if on the basis of merit - Because it's an offended woman, as opposed to an offended man?

the context here is:

> By way of illustration, suppose you are a guy who identifies as a skeptic. And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist

So, talking to a male skeptic that has presumably perpetrated no act of sexism, but is being accused of it in this context, and is as such defending the movement. Is this interpretation wrong?

Let me alter the proposition a little:

> suppose you are a Muslim. And then suppose you encounter someone who tells you that because of the sexism they have encountered from other Muslims, they have decided that Islam is fundamentally sexist.

Would it still be as offensive to say:

"These people are not assholes because they are skeptics, they're assholes who happen to be skeptics"

And in the case, it's more likely that religious beliefs could lead to sexist ones, compared to skepticism.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#320

Post by SolaceQuantum »

dagenleg wrote: post #311
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not agree with your interpretation of the Facebook naming policy - in my opinion people of non-majority cultures experience problems simply due to limited resources and maybe negligence, not evil intent or societal demand to "fit in". Nonetheless, I did no know of Japanese discussions on "microagressions", that's curious. You do agree, that Japan is often thought of as belonging to the "Western" countries, don't…

The thing about micro aggression is that there doesn't need to be ill intent behind it to have a hurtful effect. In this case minority cultures are forced to edit their presented identity to fit into a scheme that the majority culture didn't even think about as having any other alternatives!

I find it interesting that you honed in on Japan and ascribed with rhetoric Japan's discussion of its own xenophobia as a "western" influence. You could with some mental twisting ascribe any such discussion with "western" influence due to the phenomenon of globalization. But in doing so there isn't room for another culture to develop their own capability to analyze and discuss potential problems within their own culture as people of that culture- in other words it is a rhetoric that denies any non-western culture agency. To say Japan's examination of its own cultural xenophobic tendencies is due to "western ownership" denies the Japanese their agency to look at their own culture and think critically about systems of oppression in Japan for themselves. It also presents Japan as a culture that is not itself, it "belongs" to another system, which of itself is a kind of unpleasant view of other cultures given you are of a "western" culture and benefit by presenting other cultures as "belonging to" your culture.

Post reply on HN