5 ms·
> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,
by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
> there’s a liberating and freeing quality to the idea that this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative or racist,” Lederer said.
Tantalizing, now I really wonder what he said.
- davidgerard 2y agolooks like he just told us
- ryandrake 2y agoExactly. "I really want to say conservative or racist things but don't want to be considered conservative or racist by the public!"
- flappyeagle 2y agoDo you think people on social media should be required to disclose their names?
- llamaimperative 2y agoI would love a real-names only network. There should be other networks as well, but this should be an option.
- echelon 2y agoWe already have a few: LinkedIn and the real world.
- llamaimperative 2y agoLinkedIn is a professional network. It's not designed to facilitate the same types of conversations that happen e.g. on Twitter (and no, I don't think the presence of anon accounts make Twitter what it is, at least not in the circles I care about). "Real world" is umm... okay. Thanks for the contribution.
- ryandrake 2y agoA lot of people on Facebook use their real names, and back before I quit it, I was pretty shocked at the kinds of horrible things people would say under their real name and under a picture of their face, also, knowing full well their friends and family could easily see it. I don't think real names would help that much.
- llamaimperative 2y agoThat strikes me as boomer stuff though. Not as many millennial++ doing that, and I figure that number will just decline (especially given that you can easily just go be socially repulsive with anonymity and no repercussions on other mainstream networks now).
- cryptonector 2y ago> boomer stuff Makes note to self: calling people boomers is totally a-ok!
- llamaimperative 2y agoI am literally referring to baby boomers, which is a generation of Americans. "Note to self: It's okay to call people millennials now?!" Uh yes, it is.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI use mine. It keeps me honest.
- pseudo0 2y agoLederer is the woman presented as an expert to criticize the practice... > Jenny Lederer, a linguistics professor at San Francisco State University, argued that the Chatham House Rule has intrinsic flaws.
- dinkumthinkum 2y ago[flagged]
- tasty_freeze 2y agoCan you give some examples? I'm out of the loop. Personally, I am trying to think of something I could say five years ago that I can't say now.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Can you give some examples? I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist. More seriously, one could probably express a broader range of views--correct or not--on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing (or even asking about) now.
- laidoffamazon 2y ago> I was at a party recently where someone argued hard-shell tacos are racist. As a taco enjoyer I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously > on Israel and Palestine five years ago than one might be comfortable expressing As someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> I don't think this is a serious argument and it's weird that you're taking it seriously They were yelling and called the host a xenophobe. They will not be invited back. It’s not a serious argument. But they took it seriously. > someone that has been yelled at by all sides of this debate I really don't think that's true, I was getting yelled at 5 years ago too You can always get yelled at. The point is almost any expression about this topic is likely, today, to set someone in a large group off. That wasn’t true five years ago.
- jorams 2y ago> this is a safe space for me to say unpopular things and not get labeled as a conservative The first one is confusing. The US is a very conservative country. It just elected a very conservative president. Statistically like 40% of voters call themselves conservative.
- seabass-labrax 2y agoIf you look at voting maps for the 2024 USA Presidential Election, you can see that there is a blue band of Democratic voters right down the coast, including the Bay Area. The Bay Area in particular appears to have a very different culture to most of the USA, although I have never been there so cannot confirm that statement personally. I don't think that many Democratic party members consider themselves conservative, whereas a large proportion of Republican party members do.
- crooked-v 2y agoMainstream Democrats are conservative, mainstream Republicans are regressive. There is no actual liberal-centric major political party in the US, let alone one that's genuinely leftist.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> let alone one that's genuinely leftist There are plenty of elected leftists in America. We don’t have a major leftist party because we don’t have a major leftist voting bloc.
- Aloisius 2y agoWhat do you consider liberal-centric policies? Or leftist? As far as I'm aware, Democrats are still rather strong proponents of liberalism. Even most Republicans are proponents, though generally more for classical liberalism than modern liberalism. Liberalism, arguably, isn't really on the left-right axis at all.
- watwut 2y ago
- mmooss 2y agoI thought conservatives were against safe spaces?
- lisper 2y agoConservatives have been known to be a wee bit hypocritical from time to time. (To be fair, liberals can too, but IMHO conservatives are more adept at it.)
- dh5 2y agoI'm guessing this definition of a safe space (e.g. able to say what you want, with possible racism included) isn't what nonconservatives would label a safe space.
- laidoffamazon 2y agoIf I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.
- defrost 2y agoDon't forget farming the normies for profit and other forms of enlightened classism.
- cryptonector 2y ago> farming the normies for profit ELI10 please.
- invalidname 2y ago> If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online. This statement is proof for the need of this rule. Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of the other side. There can be no deviation or nuance. No debate, or benefit of doubt. That is a deeply toxic view that in the past I only saw in the right. Maybe it was my own blindness. But now I see it all over the left as well.
- laidoffamazon 2y ago[flagged]
- inglor_cz 2y agoGiven that we now have tools that can fix some serious genetic errors, and enable even people who were dealt very bad cards in life, to live a healthy life - and given that this sector of biology is constantly evolving towards more capabilities, I would argue that it makes more sense to study genetic diseases and disorders than ever. 100 years ago, when genetics was unchangeable, the only solution to any genetic problem was heavy-handed: stop that individual from procreating. I agree that this is basically fascist (though even social democrats weren't immune to this). But in 2050, we might be able to fix terrible things like Huntington's Chorea with a single shot. Which is fascinating, but it also needs some honesty. In the late 20th century, there was a lot of activism that tried to pass off seriously debilitating diseases as "being differentially abled" etc. While I can understand them wanting to stop eugenic thinking from seeping in, this attitude becomes counterproductive when tools are being developed to actually help the sick people. Similar to anti-vaxxerism, in fact.
- gjm11 2y agoI think Lederer (who, by the way, is a she) isn't saying that she herself wants to say those things, she's describing one reason why something like the Chatham House rule might be popular. It's not perfectly clear from the article, which may be because Lederer wasn't clear or because the reporter didn't pass on all the details of what Lederer said and how she said it.