4 ms·

I don't feel I have any difficulty airing positions I feel online without anonymity. I sometimes end up arguing, but rarely in bad faith. I stand by what I say,

I don't feel I have any difficulty airing positions I feel online without anonymity. I sometimes end up arguing, but rarely in bad faith. I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too. If you can't stand by a position, maybe you shouldn't air it.

shkkmo 4y ago
It isn't about not standing by a position, it is about the potential of attracting the attention of a small extremist minority that will spend outsize effort trying to destroy your life. I'm glad that you feel secure enough in your position in life that you think you can weather such an attack, but not everyone is so lucky. Implying anyone who needs anonymity is simply holding an unreasonable position is simply not fair.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  > Implying anyone who needs anonymity is simply holding an unreasonable position is simply not fair. Neither of us did.
  - danachow 4y ago
    From the GP: > If you can't stand by a position, maybe you shouldn't air it. The implication of this is pretty clear.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      Fair point. But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this: > I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too. They were clearly talking about themselves, and a rule they apply to themselves. That said, one of my "cleanup routines" for writing and posting, is I look for instances of "you," and often change it to "I" or "me." I would have probably written it like so: > If I can't stand by a position, maybe I shouldn't air it. BTW: I apply the same philosophy to my own posting. There's a very valid argument for online (and offline) anonymity, and I don't like the specious "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." argument. I just find using that as a fig leaf for trolling and stalking people is rather annoying, as that behavior actually puts the people that really need it, at risk. Standing up for my Principles can sometimes be quite scary. I've risked losing jobs, for refusing to carry out orders that were unethical, and I am routinely attacked, here (but politely -this is HN, after all), for holding some of the views I hold.
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        > But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this Yes, the context was a switch from first person to second person. The most reasonable and likely interpretation is not that it was an accident, but that the second person was intended to convey a statement about what people in general should do. E.I: "If one can't stand by a position maybe one shouldn't air it." It is true that there is a trade off between anonymity and culpability, but that doesn't mean we don't need both. To my mind, we need anonymity to protect smaller scale participants and accountability for larger scale participants to limit abuse of power. I don't know how you achieve that in practice.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      That works well amongst equals. It fails when some have more power than others and can use that to hurt those others for things they disagree with. E.g., this is why true democracy needs secret ballots. Perhaps you and I aren't afraid to vote in public. But a democracy needs everyone to give their honest vote, not only those who have nothing to fear.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
        Cool screen name. Eddings fan? Definitely agree. I have my approach to life, the universe, and everything, and it is unreasonable to project my values and whatnot onto others. Many times, the favor is not returned, though.
        Beldin 4y ago
        > Eddings fan? Yup :) (1) Also an online privacy fan with (what probably amounts to) strict views. Eg.: privacy is a bit of a misnomer. It puts the focus on the person who can be wronged. In other crimes, we don't do that. A burglar is not the one whose house was burgled; a robber is not the one who was robbed. Privacy isn't about me or my rights; it is about other people and limits on theirs. You're not allowed to take other people's money, why should you be allowed to take other people's data? (1) Aside: I keep rereading the books. I found others that move me more, but I tend to move beyond them. Eddings writings manage to keep entertaining me. Not necessarily high-brow, but definitely entertaining and the entertainment doesn't peter out after the 3rd or so book (all too common in fantasy in my experience).
        ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
        (1) Same here. Every couple of years. I also read The Elenium/Tamuli series. I tried the Elder Gods series, and it was ... awful. The Redemption of Althalus was readable, but couldn't hold a candle to the other books.
        mst 4y ago
        The intra-party banter is what makes them. I tend to call it "popcorn fantasy" but mean that positively (and the length of time he takes to set up the "who's turn is it to cook" gag is simply masterful). Last time I played a Rogue in an AD&D game I used Silk as an archetype, and it worked out very nicely.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Not only that, but benign positions today might be totally taboo in 20 years, and when that time comes, they will be just an Internet search away. You have no idea whether something harmless you say today will be used to paint you as a terrible person decades from now. I think back to some of the stuff I said 20 years ago which at the time were entirely uncontroversial, that I'd get fired for if I said today.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
There needs to be a middle ground though. When people air opinions they're unwilling to change, any criticism(no matter how justified) will feel like a personal attack, and bad faith arguing will tend to be the result. In other words, stand by your position, but also learn when to admit you were wrong.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  In my case, that happens all the time. You probably won't have to search too far, to find me apologizing, admitting error, or finding a way to make amends. It's a fundamental tenet of my way of life. I promptly admit when I'm wrong. I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends, is to not cause the offense, in the first place. I tend to be fairly careful about keeping it in the "I," all the time (but no good deed goes unpunished -I am often told that "I'm making it all about me"). I do find that I get attacked, sometimes, right out of the blue, for stating personal philosophies and/or experiences. My fave is when I am told that something that happened to me "didn't actually happen." I assume that is because it is an inconvenient truth, for others. My experience, dealing with tech industry ageism, is a common fulcrum for that kind of response.
  - mst 4y ago
    I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends is to not cause unintentional offence, certainly, and I've got (annoyingly) slowly better at it over the course of my life. Sometimes, though, I absolutely -do- intend to offend somebody, and in that case I own it.
- ByteJockey 4y ago
  > When people air opinions they're unwilling to change That's the thing, there are a lot more positions these days that people seem to be unwilling to change.
than3 4y ago
That is a very naive point of view. Its not standing by a decision, its the unknown risk of an adversary using information you thought private against you. Whether its abortion clinics, or prospective employers vetting your background. You won't know which opportunities were missed as a result of something in your record that may have happened 20 years ago. You'll probably think it isn't happening, until it impacts you personally, and then its too late. That's exactly how it happened in East Germany with the wall. https://www.stopspying.org/pregnancy-panopticon https://www.stopspying.org/pregnancy-panopticon

shkkmo 4y ago

It isn't about not standing by a position, it is about the potential of attracting the attention of a small extremist minority that will spend outsize effort trying to destroy your life. I'm glad that you feel secure enough in your position in life that you think you can weather such an attack, but not everyone is so lucky. Implying anyone who needs anonymity is simply holding an unreasonable position is simply not fair.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> Implying anyone who needs anonymity is simply holding an unreasonable position is simply not fair. Neither of us did.
- danachow 4y ago
  From the GP: > If you can't stand by a position, maybe you shouldn't air it. The implication of this is pretty clear.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    Fair point. But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this: > I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too. They were clearly talking about themselves, and a rule they apply to themselves. That said, one of my "cleanup routines" for writing and posting, is I look for instances of "you," and often change it to "I" or "me." I would have probably written it like so: > If I can't stand by a position, maybe I shouldn't air it. BTW: I apply the same philosophy to my own posting. There's a very valid argument for online (and offline) anonymity, and I don't like the specious "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." argument. I just find using that as a fig leaf for trolling and stalking people is rather annoying, as that behavior actually puts the people that really need it, at risk. Standing up for my Principles can sometimes be quite scary. I've risked losing jobs, for refusing to carry out orders that were unethical, and I am routinely attacked, here (but politely -this is HN, after all), for holding some of the views I hold.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      > But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this Yes, the context was a switch from first person to second person. The most reasonable and likely interpretation is not that it was an accident, but that the second person was intended to convey a statement about what people in general should do. E.I: "If one can't stand by a position maybe one shouldn't air it." It is true that there is a trade off between anonymity and culpability, but that doesn't mean we don't need both. To my mind, we need anonymity to protect smaller scale participants and accountability for larger scale participants to limit abuse of power. I don't know how you achieve that in practice.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    That works well amongst equals. It fails when some have more power than others and can use that to hurt those others for things they disagree with. E.g., this is why true democracy needs secret ballots. Perhaps you and I aren't afraid to vote in public. But a democracy needs everyone to give their honest vote, not only those who have nothing to fear.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      Cool screen name. Eddings fan? Definitely agree. I have my approach to life, the universe, and everything, and it is unreasonable to project my values and whatnot onto others. Many times, the favor is not returned, though.
      - Beldin 4y ago
        > Eddings fan? Yup :) (1) Also an online privacy fan with (what probably amounts to) strict views. Eg.: privacy is a bit of a misnomer. It puts the focus on the person who can be wronged. In other crimes, we don't do that. A burglar is not the one whose house was burgled; a robber is not the one who was robbed. Privacy isn't about me or my rights; it is about other people and limits on theirs. You're not allowed to take other people's money, why should you be allowed to take other people's data? (1) Aside: I keep rereading the books. I found others that move me more, but I tend to move beyond them. Eddings writings manage to keep entertaining me. Not necessarily high-brow, but definitely entertaining and the entertainment doesn't peter out after the 3rd or so book (all too common in fantasy in my experience).
        ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
        (1) Same here. Every couple of years. I also read The Elenium/Tamuli series. I tried the Elder Gods series, and it was ... awful. The Redemption of Althalus was readable, but couldn't hold a candle to the other books.
        mst 4y ago
        The intra-party banter is what makes them. I tend to call it "popcorn fantasy" but mean that positively (and the length of time he takes to set up the "who's turn is it to cook" gag is simply masterful). Last time I played a Rogue in an AD&D game I used Silk as an archetype, and it worked out very nicely.
ryandrake 4y ago
Not only that, but benign positions today might be totally taboo in 20 years, and when that time comes, they will be just an Internet search away. You have no idea whether something harmless you say today will be used to paint you as a terrible person decades from now. I think back to some of the stuff I said 20 years ago which at the time were entirely uncontroversial, that I'd get fired for if I said today.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

There needs to be a middle ground though. When people air opinions they're unwilling to change, any criticism(no matter how justified) will feel like a personal attack, and bad faith arguing will tend to be the result. In other words, stand by your position, but also learn when to admit you were wrong.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
In my case, that happens all the time. You probably won't have to search too far, to find me apologizing, admitting error, or finding a way to make amends. It's a fundamental tenet of my way of life. I promptly admit when I'm wrong. I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends, is to not cause the offense, in the first place. I tend to be fairly careful about keeping it in the "I," all the time (but no good deed goes unpunished -I am often told that "I'm making it all about me"). I do find that I get attacked, sometimes, right out of the blue, for stating personal philosophies and/or experiences. My fave is when I am told that something that happened to me "didn't actually happen." I assume that is because it is an inconvenient truth, for others. My experience, dealing with tech industry ageism, is a common fulcrum for that kind of response.
- mst 4y ago
  I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends is to not cause unintentional offence, certainly, and I've got (annoyingly) slowly better at it over the course of my life. Sometimes, though, I absolutely -do- intend to offend somebody, and in that case I own it.
ByteJockey 4y ago
> When people air opinions they're unwilling to change That's the thing, there are a lot more positions these days that people seem to be unwilling to change.

than3 4y ago

That is a very naive point of view. Its not standing by a decision, its the unknown risk of an adversary using information you thought private against you. Whether its abortion clinics, or prospective employers vetting your background. You won't know which opportunities were missed as a result of something in your record that may have happened 20 years ago. You'll probably think it isn't happening, until it impacts you personally, and then its too late. That's exactly how it happened in East Germany with the wall. https://www.stopspying.org/pregnancy-panopticon https://www.stopspying.org/pregnancy-panopticon