I have an inalienable right to talk about my own research interests, and talking about my own research interests obviously doesn’t violate any norm against leaking private information about someone else’s family, or criticizing someone else’s parenting decisions.
I think you’re violating a norm against criticizing someone’s parenting decisions, to the extent that readers know whose decisions they are. I happen to know the answer, and I guess a significant number but far from a majority of readers also know. Which also means the parent or parents in question can’t easily reply without deanonymizing themselves, which is awkward.
This isn’t to take a stance on what you have a right to do or should have done. But I think it’s false to say that you obviously haven’t violated the norms you mentioned.
If that section were based on a real case, I would have cleared it with the parents before publishing. (Cleared in the sense of, I can publish this without it affecting the terms of our friendship, not agreement.)
Nod, in that hypothetical I think you would have done nothing wrong.
I think the “obviously” is still false. Or, I guess there are four ways we might read this:
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in general, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: I disagree, in general it can violate them.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in general...”: I disagree for the same reason.
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in this specific case, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: it’s not obvious to the reader based on the information presented in the post.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in this specific case...”: okay sure.
To me (1) is the most natural and (4) is the least natural reading, but I suppose you might have meant (4).
...not that this particularly matters. But it does seem to me like an example of you failing to track the distinction between what-is and what-seems-to-you, relevant to our other thread here.
“My claim to ‘obviously’ not being violating any norms is deliberate irony which I expect most readers to be able to pick up on given the discussion at the start of the section about how people who want to reveal information are in an adversarial relationship to norms for concealing information; I’m aware that readers who don’t pick up on the irony will be deceived, but I’m willing to risk that”?
I think you’re violating a norm against criticizing someone’s parenting decisions, to the extent that readers know whose decisions they are. I happen to know the answer, and I guess a significant number but far from a majority of readers also know. Which also means the parent or parents in question can’t easily reply without deanonymizing themselves, which is awkward.
This isn’t to take a stance on what you have a right to do or should have done. But I think it’s false to say that you obviously haven’t violated the norms you mentioned.
If that section were based on a real case, I would have cleared it with the parents before publishing. (Cleared in the sense of, I can publish this without it affecting the terms of our friendship, not agreement.)
Nod, in that hypothetical I think you would have done nothing wrong.
I think the “obviously” is still false. Or, I guess there are four ways we might read this:
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in general, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: I disagree, in general it can violate them.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in general...”: I disagree for the same reason.
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in this specific case, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: it’s not obvious to the reader based on the information presented in the post.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in this specific case...”: okay sure.
To me (1) is the most natural and (4) is the least natural reading, but I suppose you might have meant (4).
...not that this particularly matters. But it does seem to me like an example of you failing to track the distinction between what-is and what-seems-to-you, relevant to our other thread here.
Alternatively,
“My claim to ‘obviously’ not being violating any norms is deliberate irony which I expect most readers to be able to pick up on given the discussion at the start of the section about how people who want to reveal information are in an adversarial relationship to norms for concealing information; I’m aware that readers who don’t pick up on the irony will be deceived, but I’m willing to risk that”?
Fair enough! I did indeed miss that.