Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
We can probably find 10 'hate' stories from the DM like this and 10 'hate'-stories about other parties. They're easy to write - it's simply promoting a prejudice with the minimum of facts. It's aimed at people who seek confirmation of their prejudice, not seekers after truth.
You use a fake ID on this website - if I were the DM, I'd take it as proof (that you don't seem to like Labour) of a nasty, false conclusion about you. Why not use your real name so we know who you are? You must, surely, have something to hide:
Are you now or have you ever been:
a member of the Liberal Democrats?
The DM fuels hatred towards politicians, presumably because they hate their own readers.
Shame on any opponent who tries to benefit from gutter journalism.
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
Personally think everyone should be entitled to the right to privacy if they so wish and that includes the right to remain happily annymous online if they so wish (unless a crime has been committed).
Whilst linking to the daily mail is criminally unfashionable, it is not yet a crime.
The issue at hand should be the debate itself. Peronally I think that Labour missed a massive trick in changing the law of funding political parties altogether and should have made them funded by the state and not private interests.
One of the many, many tricks labour missed after far too long in power doing not very much. If Ed Milliband changes this one thing, he probably will be one of the best remembered politicians in British history over time.
Question is, does he have the balls.
-
-
>>Personally think everyone should be entitled to the right to privacy
Well, it's not you personally, is it? If it was, you'd use your real name. Bet you do on Facebook, so what are you hiding?
Making a link between me asking you to come clean and human rights is so silly I wonder if you're joking? Nobody is calling for regulation - I'm just saying.
HoL will never force people to do stuff - we're not like that. We are friends and neighbours on this website - that's what it's for. You don't have to post here, but if you do, you accept our unwritten rules- the 'spirit' of HoL. Most of us do use our real names and I guess dismiss 'fakes' like you as cowards. A few fakes may be there because they need to be so if you are under stress and reaching out for help, I apologise.
If not and we knew who you were, would that cause anyone embarrassment? Assuming that you're a nice guy (apologies if in fact you are a woman - you chose a 'manly' photo so I suppose you could easily be being ironic).
If your next door neighbour put a false name on their door and introduced themselves (wearing a mask) with an obviously false name (as you do), you'd want something in exchange for familiarity - honesty. That's what I'm asking you for.
If you lie about your identity, why wouldn't you lie about your opinions?
-
-
The anonymous internet is a wise security measure to allow freedom of speech without reprisal in the real world and follows on the democratic ballot box right to make your views counted anonymously if you so wish.
Facebook on the other hand is a space that supports friends to hang out together, naturally there is no point in friends being anonymous because they already know each other. Facebook rightly also let's you ensure that your privacy stays within your friends group.
Neither approach is wrong. What can be dangerous is allowing your entire digital footprint to be linked to your name and address to be read by future employers or any other people that could use that information to prejudice or discriminate against you because of your previously expressed lawful opinions.
Obviously people in public office or other individuals for different reasons find value in using the internet to promote themselves and chose to use their own names and this is their right. They may also chose to keep some of their opinions under anonymous handles and as long as those opinions are lawful, again that is their right.
For me, the right to privacy in the digital world is probably one of the most important rights we can protect and one of the worst of all rights to dishonour against someone's wish. Exposing or taking our own lawful information against our wishes, is in my mind either abuse of an act of theft.
Anonymity can also protect people fleeing from domestic violence etc and unmasking people against their wish could in worst case scenario's end in acts of violence from third parties to those trying to use their right to remain private.
So perhaps consider next time when you chastise someone for choosing not to entirely expose themselves online. Calling people who wish to remain private as fakes and cowards really is far too close to digital bullying to be considered 'in the spirit of HOL'.
I defend your right to look like Homer Simpson if you so wish, please defend mine to look like a stupid bloke with fly eye goggles and a silly hat. The truth is, it can all can add to a more fun environment as long as everyone just wrestles with idea's and not each other.
-
-
With great respect you come across as patronising. Your use of phrases such as
' a wise security measure' 'Neither approach is wrong' 'Anonymity can also protect people'
makes me feel you're just pontificating, avoiding the issue.
You keep generalising, setting my views up as generic and applicable globally, then get distracted arguing a general principle, criticising me for breaking rules you construct - you sound as if you're talking to yourself as both judge and jury.
It's a bit rich of you to cite anonymity as worth defending when you are posting anonymously - go on, admit it, you are in no need of protection for views you express here.
If you can, without elaborating on general principles, just explain to us exactly why you personally are posting your not-very-personal-or-contentious views anonymously? Is it, to take from your post above:
a) 'a wise security measure'? Think this through - we have nothing to fear but fear itself...
b) 'people that could use that information to prejudice or discriminate against you'. Come on, nothing you are writing or have written is remotely risky is it? If so, what?
c) 'fleeing from domestic violence' - please confirm that this is not you
d) 'not to entirely expose themselves online' - you are afraid that, by commenting on others' posts in the way you do, you will 'entirely expose yourself'? Seriously?
Basically, are you afraid of changing your account name to your real name (or creating a new account in your real name if you don't already have one) and, if so, what of?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
How can you say " With great respect " and ( you are ) " patronising " in the same sentence ?
Perhaps, Chris, you should put up your real pic as your avatar so we can recognise you in the street ?
-
-
Is this you ?
If it is you, you can see how dangerous it is to give your name in clear.
If it's some other Chris Setz, you can see how dangerous it is to give your name in clear.
-
Permalink Reply by LSquared on
-
I cant speak for FPR but im happy to share my reasons for staying anonymous online
1. there is a small proportion of nutters in the world and I don't want someone turning up on my doorstep because they've decided I need to be punished for something I said in passing ten years ago.
2. Anyone who has spent any time trying to discuss complex, tricky or emotional ideas online knows how easily one's words are taken and misrepresented. For example, you yourself say a few posts above "human rights is so silly". Very easy for me to take that put of context, throw some emotive associations around which others will weigh in on, and trigger so much noise that what you actually said would be completely lost in the weight of people condemning you for what they thought you said. And it would be there forever, your name attached to something horrible and only a google away. And the worst thing is, the people who do this aren't even deliberately trying to misrepresent you, they just misinterpret you very very loudly!
So paranoia isn't the only reason for anonymity. Its also a sensible protection against good old fashioned stupidity.
-
-
Completely agree with your reasonable fears and accept that you have a good point, but I hope it doesn't apply to this site. Is there really a risk that, as a result of posting an honest opinion here, a nutter will call? I really don't think so.
This is a site for neighbours, people who live near to one another and want to get to know each other better.
>> "human rights is so silly"
Do you stop talking to people because misreported gossip will harm you?
I completely accept that there are uncountable risks in everything we do, but to remain anonymous because you might suffer is bringing everyone else down too. This 'no smoke without fire' thing has always harmed us and yet there are many passionate people on this site who post about 'complex, tricky or emotional ideas'
Are you aware of any incident at all that has arisen because of contentious HoL posts? I uphold the right of anyone to be open about hard-to-write stuff that has their name attached -that's the sort of society worth having, isn't it? Not one were ordinary people are too frightened to tell the truth.
Why not open an account in your real name so that you can tell the truth if you deem it risk-free, and one to hide behind? Then at least you'll add to the reals and diminish the fakes.
-
-
I am not a fake. I choose not to use my real name. If you give my opinions less weight because of it that's your prerogative: it does not make me any less of a complete human. I find it interesting that you find it hard to attribute as much weight to a human whose name you don't know as one you do.
The capacity for "misreported gossip" is infinitesimal compared to the archived, attributed and searchable Internet. And of course when I talk to people face to face I can take account of who I am talking to and easily pick up and manage misunderstandings before they run away from me in a way which you just cannot do to an unknown online audience.
Many blind studies have shown people react differently to job applications from male names vs female, black vs white etc. Perhaps I don't want to give my name so I know you can't be letting your subconscious colour how you perceive my words. -
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Harvey on
-
Very well said
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Chris, there are lots of people who don't use their names on this site but use nick names or whatever. I've no problem with this. I for one couldn't imagine not having the wit and wisdom of Old Age Emporium on this site (and I'm not being sarcastic OAE). I don't think someone should have to have a special reason for doing it. If that is what they want, fine.
I do think though that those with what could be seen as a vested interest or have a position in a political party or forum should declare it, as our ward councillors, neighbouring ward councillors and people like Rob Tao from the traders' association are always are careful to do.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
