4 ms·

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.

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.