Too many people have peed in the pool • Hacker News Board

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#161

Post by tekromancr » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #112

zkhalique wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emojis are fine. But I remember the first times I started seeing "LOL" and "ROTFLMAO". And I realized that the person wasn't really laughing, but they were quietly typing that on the keyboard. If you think about it, before AIM and online chat (way before texting), people hardly ever faked their emotions so much. I mean, you could fake a small laugh, but you didn't outright say that you're rolling on the floor laughin…

"lol" is an amazingly useful addition to written, casual language. It's the textual equivalent of a smile/head nod in normal conversation. Remember that in physical conversation, body language conveys 80-90% of the message - phrases like "lol" and emojis take the place of body language.

Possibly interesting side note, I have noticed over the last few years the vocalization of 'lol' being used more and more genuinely as an affirmation of a mildly humorous situation or statement that didn't actually happen to produce a laugh. I think it started being used sarcastically or ironically, but has lost that attribute for the most part.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#162

Post by eli » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

monksy wrote: post #95

malsun wrote: post #17

I left Twitter last year when it looked like the 'professionally offended' were becoming too influential. They didn't affect me as I keep a low profile, but it was like seeing an omen and noticing friends were buying into their hype. The way Twitter is now pandering to this lot with the recently announced Orwellian-style group, and other odd behaviour suggests that they approve of the current momentum. I'm just glad…

Something that I've seen is that Twitter claims to be interested in cracking down on people who harass.. But when people come and bully in the name of "social progress" .. they tend to look the other way. I've reported a tweet or two that attacked the reputation of an individual and was told "it's been reviewed but we deem it ok."

I think literally no one is happy with the level of involvement twitter has in preventing bullying. I don't think it has anything to do with what side of a debate you're on.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#163

Post by FireBeyond » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

equalsione wrote: post #80

6d6b73 wrote: post #2

Or maybe you just have to go to a pool in a better neighborhood? After all on Twitter you can choose from whom you're getting status updates, can't you?

A post the author of ggautoblocker on what is missing from twitter when it comes to dealing with trolls etc: https://medium.com/@randileeharper/putting-out-the-twitter-t...

This was actually a useful post, moreso than I expected. But in it, you can see shades of Randi's personality:

"That is dumb and you are dumb for suggesting it"

gives me memories of her latest encounter with FreeBSD, in which she tells people they "fucking suck" (this is someone who claims to run an online harassment organization), changed her Twitter name to "Kill All Men", posted pictures of her drinking from a mug with the words "Male Tears" on it, etc.

But yes, many of these suggestions would go a long way to helping people manage their Twitter experience the way they want, which is a good thing.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#164

Post by lhnz » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #27

malsun wrote: post #17

I left Twitter last year when it looked like the 'professionally offended' were becoming too influential. They didn't affect me as I keep a low profile, but it was like seeing an omen and noticing friends were buying into their hype. The way Twitter is now pandering to this lot with the recently announced Orwellian-style group, and other odd behaviour suggests that they approve of the current momentum. I'm just glad…

If you take a moment to look around, you’ll realize that a lot of socially progressive people are saying the exact same thing about Twitter, that the “professionally offended” are becoming too influential. Mind you, they’re talking about what happens when a woman criticizes video game culture and winds up with death threats and snuff porn choking her mentions. I am not saying this to suggest that one “side” or “the o…

A problem I've noticed is that offensive content seems to float to the top. Outside of Twitter I rarely see the kind of hatred I'm about to refer to.

For example, the other day Trump RT'd a tweet by an account with a name like 'White Genocide'. I kid you not. Anybody that clicks this is going to find very unpleasant material about 'the end of the white race' including photos of blood-covered Swedish women, etc. Not very nice. Another day, people were tweeting a Business Insider article on GitHub which directed me towards a series of tweets by some employee ranting about how white people 'cannot be taught empathy' and therefore should not be allowed into positions of power.

These are both very extreme political positions which ultimately revolve around hatred and dehumanisation.

It's just not a good user experience for this kind of thing to constantly be spotlighted by either Twitter, the 'professionally offended', or the 'professionally offensive'. I'd love to be able to tick a box which just says something like "just don't show me things that are going to cause me to lose hope in the human race". Seriously.

This level of hatred doesn't seem to appear on Facebook or on the front page of papers. I don't see why it should be such a big part of my Twitter experience.

I believe in freedom of speech and I'm anti-censorship but in advance I'd like a setting which would help me to avoid having to consciously decide not to see this material.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#165

Post by mclovinit » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

I bounced back and forth on and off FB until, I bit the bullet and deleted each one of my "friends" one by one. If I didn't do that, then I would be plunged in an infinite loop of deactivation/reactivation hell.

It was interesting to see the reaction of people when I said I had deleted them in order to make it less enticing for me to use my account. They were actually offended for being deleted.

Could it be that the mere perpetual overuse (and/or misuse) of social media breeds hypersensitivity? Hmm...I say yes. Nothing wrong with the occassional indulgence, but there's just more to life. But that's just my worthless 2 cents.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#166

Post by typon » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

People are blowing this way out of proportion. Stephen Fry made a shitty joke about his friend, people objected, and he got angry at them for not finding it as funny as he did.

He has the right to his opinion as do others. This outrage culture is only slightly more annoying than the people who constantly bemoan it.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#167

Post by Karunamon » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

gilleain wrote: post #57

willvarfar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joel Spolsky wrote an excellent post on building a community: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BuildingCommunitieswi... Of course he later closed his flourishing community suddenly. Very suddenly. Everyone was confused. And the worlds he's built since, such as StackOverflow, are deliberately completely devoid of all community. The smallest remnants of the community survive and evolve at http://www.crazyontap.co…

Totally agree that SO has little community (or quite a hostile one, if any) but that may be because it is a victim of its own success. I see the same thing happening in other stack-exchange sites, sadly. The underlying problem may be the gradual fatigue at questions of the form: "HOW DO I DO DIS???!! SOLVE THIS FOR ME NOW PLZ!!" or even the more subtle "I was wondering about this homework-like question...?" which are…

Agreed, there's a problem in both directions on the stack* sites, but Overflow is the single worst offender.

An observation; reading the meta sites (where they discuss the community) turns up a lot of downright vitriolic ire directed at the stinkin' no-reps who pollute the site with their ill-thought-out questions, like someone traipsing through the house with muddy shoes on.

In fact, I'd wager that if someone who had a mind to ask a question on SO read the meta site first, they'd be completely turned off from the attitude on display.

And I say this as someone that's been on both sides of the equation. I've had questions closed for "too broad" even when they're asking a pretty direct question with an equally direct answer, I've seen the flags pile up in the review queues.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#168

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #134

AJ007 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons. It might be derogatory jokes, but this can also include things like spreading urban legends which were debunked four decades ago. Just like Usenet and countless other online communities, what starts a a small group of fairly privileged and elite eventually degrades in to garbage as the reach increases. This is not so much an overall size issue but a rela…

> There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons... I hate this super-condescending attitude. Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear (which, don't pat yourself on the back yet: there may be things these "morons" know way more about than you do), it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed...

There's a certain scale where a group of people turn into a mob. And mobs are ruled by the id, a perfectly normal, conscientious person's behavior transforms when part of an anonymous mob or when interacting with a faceless entity in an impersonal way.

When I worked as a retail salesman, you'd see it all of the time. From people pushing expired coupons to return fraud to outright theft, people degrade in that sort of environment.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#169

Post by jacques_chester » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #61

braythwayt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a moment to look around, you’ll realize that a lot of socially progressive people are saying the exact same thing about Twitter, that the “professionally offended” are becoming too influential. Mind you, they’re talking about what happens when a woman criticizes video game culture and winds up with death threats and snuff porn choking her mentions. I am not saying this to suggest that one “side” or “the o…

I don't think Twitter is making things worse than they used to be. Society has the problem. Twitter just makes it public. Remember, the US used to have anti-communist witch hunts in which people were forced to give up their careers, it had actual physical lynchings, and it still has a culture where the police can do more or less whatever they want with limited accountability. People being disrespectful or even stalke…

Yes, it's a human dynamic. In other spheres of interaction we've evolved mechanisms to cope.

I wrote about this a few years ago[0]. But for the day to day situation, Stephen Fry has made the sensible choice. There's no point drinking from a well people keep re-poisoning.

[0] http://chester.id.au/2013/03/22/why-the-law-is-slow-imperson...

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#170

Post by GhotiFish » Mon, Feb 15, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #157

chasing wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no friendly way to say it, the mass market are morons... I hate this super-condescending attitude. Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear (which, don't pat yourself on the back yet: there may be things these "morons" know way more about than you do), it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed...

> Even if you do happen to be smarter than the average bear > it's still asshole-ish to assume that everyone else just be completely dismissed... Devil's advocate: If you're above average intelligence, you're smarter than a majority of the populace by definition. Why would you not then dismiss the thoughts and ideas of those less educated? One person's condescension is another person's logic.

because people don't exist on a continuum of smart and dumb.