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

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#441

Post by danharaj » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 1:51 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #430

danharaj wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he made a joke to his friend in public. i have friends to whom i could shout "i hope you fucking die, you bloated moist abscess" at, but if i did that on twitter as a famous person without the context of our friendship readily visible, what people ought to think? once it came to light that he was ribbing his good friend, then people ought to have apologized and moved on. it doesn't make them terrible people for being…

But didn't you just say, "If from the get-go you assume people are acting in bad faith and you demand that they admit that this is the case before you even consider them as reasonable people, you are asking for full surrender instead of treating them as equals"? Isn't failing to do this precisely the source of the outrage? And yet now you seem to be suggesting it was perfectly reasonable for people to assume bad fait…

I think we're using different notions of good and bad faith. My notion of good faith is sincerity and reasonableness in intention, likewise bad faith is insincerity and unreasonableness in intention. All these people got outraged by interpreting Fry's tweet offensively. Are they doing it for kicks? (insincerity) or are they just stupid? (unreasonableness)

I don't think good and bad faith is a quality of their behavior, but of their intent and mental competence as human beings. Someone can get incredibly outraged but be sincere and capable of explaining their feelings reasonably. It doesn't mean that one assumes the best in others, because that is just as spurious as assuming the worst in others. One should just call it like they see it and think it, nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#442

Post by philovivero » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #233

moron4hire wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could I have so clearly misinterpreted "GP can't take a joke" to be a refutation of my assertion the guy wasn't joking? Must be you were also telling a joke and I just don't get jokes.

See, you think it's personal and that I've made some kind of determination on your character based on my conclusion. You've totally come off the rails and started attacking me personally at the mere suspicion (not even to you!) that you might have misinterpreted things. I've merely read and worked with the information that was made available; you call this person a friend, for example. You were having lunch with this…

Holy shit you put a lot of thought and care into deconstructing that situation logically and rationally. You would probably make a great super-forecaster. Head over to Slate Star Codex!

Thanks for doing such a thankless job. It made me smile on many levels.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#443

Post by hudibras » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:05 AM UTC

monksy wrote: post #319

muglug wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something can be both clever and offensive – the two are not mutually exclusive...

Could you explain to me how that statement is "offensive"?

Do you really not understand how telling a woman that she looks like a bag lady is offensive, even setting aside the fact that a.) this was on a television program and b.) the woman was not in a position to say anything in response?

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#444

Post by pklausler » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:15 AM UTC

For me, what's important is not avoiding disagreement, conflict, or rage -- what I want to somehow exclude from my social media existence is just good old craziness. The Internet has been enormously empowering to the stark barking mad.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#445

Post by humanrebar » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

david-given wrote: post #414

kefka wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other value systems.

This is a shibboleth, is it not? A code phrase used by a particular in-group to signal membership of that in-group. (Although frequently they're terms of art to mean certain specific things by that in-group.)

It's not a shibboleth, it's a dog whistle. Shibboleths are for identifying people in one-on-one or small group situations. Aluminium vs. aluminum could be a shibboleth.

Dog whistles generally sound like platitudes to one group (family values, social justice, "let's have an honest conversation about race") and mean something entirely different to a particular demographic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#446

Post by bananaboy » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:23 AM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #245

seren wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it will prevail in the end, but I think that Reddit approach by splitting the community in small subgroups/communities has a better chance to last in the long run. Of course, you'll create feuds between communities but at least it is somewhat confined and not always spilling in the common public space. Unfortunately it also greatly increases the echo chamber / filter bubble but it seems you can not ha…

For those of you old enough to have seen the net hey started, but young enough to have been impressionable by its start: Remember when we wanted EVERYONE to get online? Remember when we thought how great the world would be if everyone was connected and could read all this great information and research? HA! One thing we did not understand: the tragedy of the commons. It is now nothing but a tragedy. Best thing to do…

See also Eternal September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#447

Post by humanrebar » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

VLM wrote: post #383

kefka wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other value systems.

This is an interesting side topic, social signalling and out of control holiness spirals. What do you get if you mix the tolerance of a religious inquisition with any side of contemporary politics? You get out of control holiness spirals as each author tries to outdo the previous at being just a little more holy, a little better of a true believer in the real story. Its a perverse game of "telephone". I propose VLM's…

I'm going to disagree. Any debate about definitions is fundamentally about power. There's no real reason why a word means one thing and not another. It's inconsistent to be frustrated with one group for insisting on a definition ("family values" means heterosexual couples and their progeny) and not be equally frustrated with other groups for doing exactly the same thing ("marriage" includes same-sex couples).

I'm willing to be wrong on this point if someone cares to enlighten me. I find it sad to conclude that power struggles are inevitable. It's better than violence, but still distasteful.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#448

Post by abrookewood » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

foxylad wrote: post #440

derefr wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage. Literally: express outrage, get banned. "Signal boost" someone else's outrage, get banned. It's not welcome within the community. Would this even make sense? Or would this shove so hard against human nature that people would never be able to abide it? (Of course, sometimes you'd be outraged at the community—or its management—and that'd…

> I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage. One of the reasons I like HN is that outrage is discouraged.

Agreed .. especially compared it to the cesspool that Slashdot became!

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#449

Post by wcummings » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

I love Stephen Fry, but I'm conflicted. On one hand, he's upset that people are offended and without a hint of irony is obviously very offended by their sensibilities. That said, celebrities (intentional or otherwise) have a very different experience on social media than the lay person.

Re: Too many people have peed in the pool

#450

Post by dclowd9901 » Tue, Feb 16, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

randomacct44 wrote: post #422

derefr wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered whether you could just have a community that banned outrage. Literally: express outrage, get banned. "Signal boost" someone else's outrage, get banned. It's not welcome within the community. Would this even make sense? Or would this shove so hard against human nature that people would never be able to abide it? (Of course, sometimes you'd be outraged at the community—or its management—and that'd…

I've been playing Clash Royale on iPad (it's a multiplayer battle game set in the Clash of Clans universe that essentially drops the base building element and concentrates on the strategic combat). Generally, competitive multiplayer games can be pretty harsh (devolving into toxic) communities. Clash Royale addresses this problem in an interesting way. You're allowed to communicate with your opponent, but only from a…

One of the finest multiplayer gaming experiences I ever had was Journey, and that devolved communication to pinging.