5 ms·

My account will probably soon be killed on HN - like many before them. They all die around the 30 karma mark, presumably because of the many downvotes by femini

My account will probably soon be killed on HN - like many before them. They all die around the 30 karma mark, presumably because of the many downvotes by feminists. I tend to be outspoken on feminist topics, which have become rather frequent on HN. My point is: nasty things are not the only things you can only say in anonymity. It's also required for opinions that are not aligned with the mainstream. I come from Germany - we have learned here that the mainstream is not always right. I keep considering to write about feminism in my blog, but I am actually worried about crazy people on the internet targeting me. I don't really hide - I've voiced my opinion with my real name as well. But I don't feel very confident about it. Real names are perhaps fine for tech bloggers, but there are too many subjects where they really hamper honest discussion.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 13y ago
Funny this theme cropped up, I just watched a production of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People [1], where he makes a strong argument against the wisdom of the crowds. That said, HN is really not the best place for honest discussion about controversial topics; the community is incapable of dealing with them and the software strongly discourages them. As someone who enjoys discussing any viewpoint, even those I strongly oppose, I find it somewhat disturbing how easily people censor what they dislike. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People
- facepalm 13y ago
  Thanks for the reading advice, I'll download it to my kindle :-)
sockypuppy 13y ago
> [Anonymity i]s also required for opinions that are not aligned with the mainstream. As someone whose political beliefs align less than one hundred percent with the "standard SF liberal" position on HN, I feel this pain. For example, I'm rather skeptical that gay rights are a Good Thing -- yet I'm also very afraid that I'll be permanently tarred and feathered as a bigot, and permanently lose opportunities, if I post that sentiment under an account that can be connected to my real identity. Whenever I bring it up, one side of the debate starts quoting Scripture and the other side says that anyone who questions their views, or has the least bit of skepticism, is worse than Hitler. I honestly don't know how to initiate a rational discussion of the issue. And I especially suspect that the side that immediately dismisses any other line of thinking by calling names as loudly as possible does so to cover weaknesses in their argument. It's not that I have it in for gays; rather, it's that no one's ever explained to me the argument for why the gay rights movement is a Good Thing, in a way that I find convincing. Based on my own analysis, it seems to be a weak position [1] -- perhaps not one which should be adopted, and certainly not an axiom which is beyond reproach or questioning of assumptions. And I'm a stubborn, independent thinker -- as a matter of principle, I refuse to believe something simply because it's popular among the crowd I hang out with -- or because one side has declared the opposition to be heretics. (Fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/) [1] Basically, I think our society should treat homosexuality / bisexuality as it treats adultery -- nobody goes to jail or gets their life destroyed as long as any sexual activity involves only consenting adults. But it's a lifestyle choice that people should disapprove of, not least because it's disruptive to the family structure consisting of children raised by two parents of opposite sex in a committed relationship, which -- all else being equal -- is the best environment for a child to grow up in. Also, I'm skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is not a choice -- if a person doesn't choose who they have sex with, why is rape a crime? I'm certain many readers will object to the above, but I haven't been able to get someone to make a cogent argument that actually addresses my points; everyone just screams "DIE IN A FIRE" at the top of their lungs at me when I bring this up in a liberal place like HN.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 13y ago

Funny this theme cropped up, I just watched a production of Ibsen's An Enemy of the People [1], where he makes a strong argument against the wisdom of the crowds. That said, HN is really not the best place for honest discussion about controversial topics; the community is incapable of dealing with them and the software strongly discourages them. As someone who enjoys discussing any viewpoint, even those I strongly oppose, I find it somewhat disturbing how easily people censor what they dislike. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People

facepalm 13y ago
Thanks for the reading advice, I'll download it to my kindle :-)

sockypuppy 13y ago

> [Anonymity i]s also required for opinions that are not aligned with the mainstream. As someone whose political beliefs align less than one hundred percent with the "standard SF liberal" position on HN, I feel this pain. For example, I'm rather skeptical that gay rights are a Good Thing -- yet I'm also very afraid that I'll be permanently tarred and feathered as a bigot, and permanently lose opportunities, if I post that sentiment under an account that can be connected to my real identity. Whenever I bring it up, one side of the debate starts quoting Scripture and the other side says that anyone who questions their views, or has the least bit of skepticism, is worse than Hitler. I honestly don't know how to initiate a rational discussion of the issue. And I especially suspect that the side that immediately dismisses any other line of thinking by calling names as loudly as possible does so to cover weaknesses in their argument. It's not that I have it in for gays; rather, it's that no one's ever explained to me the argument for why the gay rights movement is a Good Thing, in a way that I find convincing. Based on my own analysis, it seems to be a weak position [1] -- perhaps not one which should be adopted, and certainly not an axiom which is beyond reproach or questioning of assumptions. And I'm a stubborn, independent thinker -- as a matter of principle, I refuse to believe something simply because it's popular among the crowd I hang out with -- or because one side has declared the opposition to be heretics. (Fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/) [1] Basically, I think our society should treat homosexuality / bisexuality as it treats adultery -- nobody goes to jail or gets their life destroyed as long as any sexual activity involves only consenting adults. But it's a lifestyle choice that people should disapprove of, not least because it's disruptive to the family structure consisting of children raised by two parents of opposite sex in a committed relationship, which -- all else being equal -- is the best environment for a child to grow up in. Also, I'm skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is not a choice -- if a person doesn't choose who they have sex with, why is rape a crime? I'm certain many readers will object to the above, but I haven't been able to get someone to make a cogent argument that actually addresses my points; everyone just screams "DIE IN A FIRE" at the top of their lungs at me when I bring this up in a liberal place like HN.