3 ms·

Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is d

Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.

aliasxneo 2y ago
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian. But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Anything can be taken to court. I expect, in general, people get mad at the person who broke the rule, they don't get invited back to future iterations, and they suffer reputational damage. When I've been in that sort of situation, the rule is made clear and no one breaks it--at least publicly.
manquer 2y ago
Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ? anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.
- bawolff 2y ago
  Given the chatham house rules specificly allow that, its kind of a moot point.
  - manquer 2y ago
    I should have been clearer. Anonymous source in the meeting leaking to news media that person X said something controversial in this summit . Since nobody would know the anonymous source itself , social norms like being shamed or not being invited in the future will not work is the point
sp527 2y ago
> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  What do you think “the marketplace of ideas” actually is, if not talking shit about people with shitty ideas? Such a ridiculously overloaded use of the word “persecution.”
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Not everything has to be legal. The consequence is you don't get invited back and some people might think less of you. Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian.

aliasxneo 2y ago

> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian. But I didn't say that? I was genuinely unsure of whether this was something that could be taken to court if someone violated it. If it's socially bound, and the purpose is to increase free speech, I find that less compelling in today's culture.

ghaff 2y ago
Anything can be taken to court. I expect, in general, people get mad at the person who broke the rule, they don't get invited back to future iterations, and they suffer reputational damage. When I've been in that sort of situation, the rule is made clear and no one breaks it--at least publicly.

manquer 2y ago

Only if they associate their name with the disclosure ? anonymous sources to media is pretty common way to share information.

bawolff 2y ago
Given the chatham house rules specificly allow that, its kind of a moot point.
- manquer 2y ago
  I should have been clearer. Anonymous source in the meeting leaking to news media that person X said something controversial in this summit . Since nobody would know the anonymous source itself , social norms like being shamed or not being invited in the future will not work is the point

sp527 2y ago

> Legally enforcing every social norm is dystopian Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? And it's not like the persecutors ever give you the full story. For example, the reporting on Meta ending DEI didn't want you to know their rather logical view of the situation (discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics is wrong). What fraction of people actually believe in giving a boost to certain candidates purely on the basis of race? Certainly not enough for the persecutors to allow that argument to be broadcast widely.

bawolff 2y ago
> Persecuting people for their beliefs by exploiting loopholes (e.g. blast on social media, bully their employer, etc) is also pretty dystopian, don't you think? Sometimes it can be. More than one thing can be dystopian.
llamaimperative 2y ago
What do you think “the marketplace of ideas” actually is, if not talking shit about people with shitty ideas? Such a ridiculously overloaded use of the word “persecution.”
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]