5 ms·

There are quite a few things that are probably true, but you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention. If your line of thinking a

by tlb 4y ago

There are quite a few things that are probably true, but you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention. If your line of thinking approaches any of these topics, it makes it difficult to think through the issue in public.

hgsgm 4y ago
Public can be anonymous (or anonymous enough if your thoughts are mild enough to not inspire a doxxing and get a harmful reaction if you are doxxed).
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Pseudonymous is a fantastic word that describes lots of things nowadays, unfortunately eclipsed by its more assertive brother Anonymous.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
andirk 4y ago
This is where a lot of voices on Twitter feel they're being marginalized because their hate speech isn't accepted which is odd to them because in private, it is accepted. Similarly, saying "Joe Rogan" in certain holier-than-thou circles will get you banished. Point is that public discourse is often policed by the most offensive and the most sensitive, but still speak your mind, and always with respect to those in the forum.
- mlb893 4y ago
  I think that the best way of speaking about these things is not to refer to Joe Rogan but to speak ideas irrespective of who is behind. Some have a certain reaction when AOC is mentioned while others have the same reaction regarding Rogan. If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.
- nicbou 4y ago
  If you criticise someone for liking Joe Rogan, you have to explain why and convince them. You can’t dunk on them and get cheered by your side automatically. You have to deal with the other person’s perception of you, and listen to their rebuttal. This makes people a lot less intense.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do. Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.
    - TheCapeGreek 4y ago
      Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.
      - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
        This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time. In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.
        mlb893 4y ago
        I disagree on your conclusion. I think there are certain ways of explaining your point of view amongst an ambiguous crowd. Monologues can easily be boring. They are hard to put together for most people and you have to have implied consent from the crowd to be monologued. People don't like to be forced to be polite to listen to anyone for more than 30 seconds. But there are certain ways of conversing where you have time to explore deeper. Unfortunately, not everyone is open to conversation for the sake of argument.
        4y ago
- honkler 4y ago
  speech i dont like is hate speech
philwelch 4y ago
Even worse, the criteria for what you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention changes over time. So you're not even safe avoiding the controversies of the day; you also have to try and predict the controversies of tomorrow.
rainsford 4y ago
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but getting a lot of angry feedback from what you consider to be axiomatic truths seems like a useful benefit to thinking in public. Lots of topics might attract the occasional troll or disagreement from certain corners, but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true" their thinking really is. A good example could be that Googler from a few years ago who seemed amazed at the blowback he got from publicly posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers. Had he been as smart as he thought he was, that could have been a great opportunity for self reflection that would not have been available without that public airing of his thoughts.
- patrick451 4y ago
  That engineer wasn't wrong though, he just said the wrongthink out loud. Just because there is blowback to some opinion you hold has zero bearing on whether or not it is correct. The evolution of fashionable opinion through history should be enough to disabuse even the casual observer of such silliness.
  - madamelic 4y ago
    I think you are falling into the same problem as Damore did. You are thinking people are digesting the whole article like a research paper rather than considering small bits, just the title, or even second-hand summaries. Saying "women make bad engineers" is inflammatory and incorrect. That's the sentiment people quickly parse because basically "tl;dr". Saying "the educational system and society in general sets the stage for women on average to not succeed in science fields as well as men" is far more correct, most women in science would agree, and not exactly flashy as "we don't employ women because women are bad at science and math". If the reader gets even that far, a lot of people are going to write off anything further. Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already. That sentiment is pretty insane and ignores the huge effect of socialization on who we become. There have been no conclusive studies that female and male brains are structurally different. What that leaves, in my opinion, is a difference in socialization and what women tend to be told they are good at or pushed towards. Sorry, not trying to start an argument at all. I am always a little baffled by science-y types ignoring that most people aren't interested in reading dissertations randomly handed off to them. People, in my opinion, are going to read 3 sentences then make up their minds whether they agree with your premise.
SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
The truth of something is not always the most impactful part of that thing. Some truths need to be handled with care, and indelicate handling will cause unwanted angry attention, not the truth itself. Funny though, how so many people confuse this point. It's easier to feel indignancy over attracting vitriol over "a truth" than it is to play victim for brutish behavior.

by tlb 4y ago

hgsgm 4y ago

Public can be anonymous (or anonymous enough if your thoughts are mild enough to not inspire a doxxing and get a harmful reaction if you are doxxed).

bee_rider 4y ago
Pseudonymous is a fantastic word that describes lots of things nowadays, unfortunately eclipsed by its more assertive brother Anonymous.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

andirk 4y ago

This is where a lot of voices on Twitter feel they're being marginalized because their hate speech isn't accepted which is odd to them because in private, it is accepted. Similarly, saying "Joe Rogan" in certain holier-than-thou circles will get you banished. Point is that public discourse is often policed by the most offensive and the most sensitive, but still speak your mind, and always with respect to those in the forum.

mlb893 4y ago
I think that the best way of speaking about these things is not to refer to Joe Rogan but to speak ideas irrespective of who is behind. Some have a certain reaction when AOC is mentioned while others have the same reaction regarding Rogan. If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.
nicbou 4y ago
If you criticise someone for liking Joe Rogan, you have to explain why and convince them. You can’t dunk on them and get cheered by your side automatically. You have to deal with the other person’s perception of you, and listen to their rebuttal. This makes people a lot less intense.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do. Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.
  - TheCapeGreek 4y ago
    Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time. In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.
      - mlb893 4y ago
        I disagree on your conclusion. I think there are certain ways of explaining your point of view amongst an ambiguous crowd. Monologues can easily be boring. They are hard to put together for most people and you have to have implied consent from the crowd to be monologued. People don't like to be forced to be polite to listen to anyone for more than 30 seconds. But there are certain ways of conversing where you have time to explore deeper. Unfortunately, not everyone is open to conversation for the sake of argument.
      - 4y ago
honkler 4y ago
speech i dont like is hate speech

philwelch 4y ago

Even worse, the criteria for what you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention changes over time. So you're not even safe avoiding the controversies of the day; you also have to try and predict the controversies of tomorrow.

rainsford 4y ago

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but getting a lot of angry feedback from what you consider to be axiomatic truths seems like a useful benefit to thinking in public. Lots of topics might attract the occasional troll or disagreement from certain corners, but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true" their thinking really is. A good example could be that Googler from a few years ago who seemed amazed at the blowback he got from publicly posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers. Had he been as smart as he thought he was, that could have been a great opportunity for self reflection that would not have been available without that public airing of his thoughts.

patrick451 4y ago
That engineer wasn't wrong though, he just said the wrongthink out loud. Just because there is blowback to some opinion you hold has zero bearing on whether or not it is correct. The evolution of fashionable opinion through history should be enough to disabuse even the casual observer of such silliness.
- madamelic 4y ago
  I think you are falling into the same problem as Damore did. You are thinking people are digesting the whole article like a research paper rather than considering small bits, just the title, or even second-hand summaries. Saying "women make bad engineers" is inflammatory and incorrect. That's the sentiment people quickly parse because basically "tl;dr". Saying "the educational system and society in general sets the stage for women on average to not succeed in science fields as well as men" is far more correct, most women in science would agree, and not exactly flashy as "we don't employ women because women are bad at science and math". If the reader gets even that far, a lot of people are going to write off anything further. Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already. That sentiment is pretty insane and ignores the huge effect of socialization on who we become. There have been no conclusive studies that female and male brains are structurally different. What that leaves, in my opinion, is a difference in socialization and what women tend to be told they are good at or pushed towards. Sorry, not trying to start an argument at all. I am always a little baffled by science-y types ignoring that most people aren't interested in reading dissertations randomly handed off to them. People, in my opinion, are going to read 3 sentences then make up their minds whether they agree with your premise.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago

The truth of something is not always the most impactful part of that thing. Some truths need to be handled with care, and indelicate handling will cause unwanted angry attention, not the truth itself. Funny though, how so many people confuse this point. It's easier to feel indignancy over attracting vitriol over "a truth" than it is to play victim for brutish behavior.