4 ms·

So people feel free to speak candidly?

Arainach 2y ago
This isn't about people speaking candidly. It's about not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things and allowing them to still get invited to events without fearing any consequences for their actions. It's the same reason Kissinger still got invites to Manhattan social events (and, bizarrely, Clinton campaign events) long after it was known that he was a traitor and a war criminal.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  No, I think it’s about not having to fear being retweeted publicly for what you intended to be private discussions.
  - sneak 2y ago
    No. The Chatham House Rule only bars the attribution of the statements, not the sharing of the statements or the things they contain. It’s not simply for privacy or nondisclosure. You are free to disclose, the discussions are not private.
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      That's what I said: it's to prevent people from being quoted publicly.
      - sneak 2y ago
        People can still be quoted verbatim publicly.
        khazhoux 2y ago
        Maybe I'm confused then. So one would be permitted to post on Twitter: "khazhoux said yesterday: 'Megalopolis is the greatest film of the 21st century'"? I thought the point was you can't attribute -- no names. And without a name, it's not actually a public quoting...
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things Yes, the Chatham House Rule is practically designed to exclude people who have an immutable black-and-white worldview.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    How so? It would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things Based on what? If anything, baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Generally, lack of consequence results in people behaving less responsibly, but ... > baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience ... the dynamic you cite has been far more influential in humanity's new social medium, social media. Arguably, though, that is due to a lack of consequence for their actions. Zuckerberg says these things and there are no serious conequences (possibly; we'll see). When there are conequences, it does stop people - look at the effectiveness of the anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ mobs in silencing people and organizations.
mmooss 2y ago
Or irresponsibly, ignorantly, stupidly, recklessly ...
- falcor84 2y ago
  As social animals, we think, learn and grow by interacting with others. It's absolutely ok to say stupid things you aren't sure about, and I think it's generally better that people do so in smaller personal settings rather than broadcasting to the internet at large.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I agree completely. I meant - and I should have been clear - people saying stupid things to be loud and disruptive, not because they don't know and are trying to explore something. The latter is great and should be encouraged.

This isn't about people speaking candidly. It's about not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things and allowing them to still get invited to events without fearing any consequences for their actions. It's the same reason Kissinger still got invites to Manhattan social events (and, bizarrely, Clinton campaign events) long after it was known that he was a traitor and a war criminal.

khazhoux 2y ago
No, I think it’s about not having to fear being retweeted publicly for what you intended to be private discussions.
- sneak 2y ago
  No. The Chatham House Rule only bars the attribution of the statements, not the sharing of the statements or the things they contain. It’s not simply for privacy or nondisclosure. You are free to disclose, the discussions are not private.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    That's what I said: it's to prevent people from being quoted publicly.
    - sneak 2y ago
      People can still be quoted verbatim publicly.
      - khazhoux 2y ago
        Maybe I'm confused then. So one would be permitted to post on Twitter: "khazhoux said yesterday: 'Megalopolis is the greatest film of the 21st century'"? I thought the point was you can't attribute -- no names. And without a name, it's not actually a public quoting...
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> not hurting the feelings of people who do and work on bad things Yes, the Chatham House Rule is practically designed to exclude people who have an immutable black-and-white worldview.
- mmooss 2y ago
  How so? It would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > would seem to encourage people to say thoughtless, shallow things, among more open things Based on what? If anything, baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Generally, lack of consequence results in people behaving less responsibly, but ... > baseless grandstanding is incentivised by an audience ... the dynamic you cite has been far more influential in humanity's new social medium, social media. Arguably, though, that is due to a lack of consequence for their actions. Zuckerberg says these things and there are no serious conequences (possibly; we'll see). When there are conequences, it does stop people - look at the effectiveness of the anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ mobs in silencing people and organizations.

mmooss 2y ago

Or irresponsibly, ignorantly, stupidly, recklessly ...

falcor84 2y ago
As social animals, we think, learn and grow by interacting with others. It's absolutely ok to say stupid things you aren't sure about, and I think it's generally better that people do so in smaller personal settings rather than broadcasting to the internet at large.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I agree completely. I meant - and I should have been clear - people saying stupid things to be loud and disruptive, not because they don't know and are trying to explore something. The latter is great and should be encouraged.