De-escalating social media conflict • Hacker News Board

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#321

Post by mistermann » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

ImaCake wrote: post #318

mistermann wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An imperfect system for granular democracy could be built fairly easily, or bolted onto an existing system (Facebook has the largest global membership I'd think). There's nothing stopping anyone from building one (other than maybe reasonable fear of being suicided if it gets too much traction, etc), yet I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who's tried. It's so obviously useful that the lack of attempts almost seem…

There is an obscure party in Australia whose platform is to allow people to vote on every issue in parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Direct_Democracy

Very interesting!

> Online Direct Democracy does not have any policies. Instead it has pledged to conduct an online poll for every bill that passes before Parliament. Anyone on the Australian electoral roll would be allowed to register to vote in these polls and will be allowed one vote per bill. The MPs would then be required to vote in accordance with the clear majority (55%-70% and more than 100,000 votes). If there is no clear majority they will abstain from voting. A beta version of the system is operating and available for public use. This system has been designed to highlight the possibilities on online democracy.[2]

"required to vote in accordance with the clear majority" seems a bit problematic (in the short term anyways) - in this case it is only on a per ODD-elected MP basis so that's probably fine, but jumping straight to a direct democracy based system from what we have now likely would be a bit messy.

What I have in mind is setting up a completely independent parallel political system, that has zero power (direct power anyways), which would allow time to work out the numerous kinks and complexities, while simultaneously allowing for the first time ever for the true (or, more true at least)will of the people to be known...as opposed to the obviously untrue "will of the people" we've been sold on for hundreds of years.

Someone will eventually see this elephant in the room and do something about it, and things should start to get pretty interesting then. Although, my spider sense tells me that time may be running out, the propaganda techniques seem to be becoming so effective that it's hard to find independent opinions on most any topic - framing direct democracy as dangerous and evil strikes me as something that would be a very easy sales job in the current state of collective consciousness.

That said, there are also a massive number of obscure, disconnected communities who all seem to be coming to the same general conclusions about what is going on here on Planet Earth, perhaps the sum total of all these obscure groups is actually a very large number, it's just that they're undetectable.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#322

Post by brigandish » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:06 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #319

brigandish wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt explicitly and reminded them of the rules - what more do you want? Their reply shows I was wrong to give the benefit of the doubt and that they really need a reminder of the rules. Feel free to come up with more “no it’s you” replies if you like but they’re unhelpful, unwanted, unwarranted, and directed towards the wrong person.

You should follow the rules when you're attempting to claim someone else is not following the rules. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I didn't dismiss anything, nor did I take the weakest plausible interpretation - I followed up by asking for a clarification.

Anything else you would like my help with?

Edit: Ah! I see now. You're bothered by my response to you the other day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730545

That's childish. Please, go and play somewhere else.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#323

Post by Can_Not » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:32 AM UTC

rvz wrote: post #9

> By admitting a mistake, the poster stops the runaway train of replies and amplifications of their mistake, and the reputation damage that follows. No matter the apology of the mistake, those who demand them to apologise will still reject it and push further for calls for the accused to be cancelled. The replies and amplifications will divert into real life instead of Twitter.

Sometimes you get "sorry I got caught" non-apologies, other times people are dog-piling and Twitter doesn't show new arrivals the entire apology discussion if it were a sincere apology.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#324

Post by tomcooks » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 6:29 AM UTC

lostjohnny wrote: post #249

tomcooks wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't yell in public, usually How do I know you're certainly not from Southern Europe?)

I guess the original poster is Italian... Maybe it's about stereotypes still very strong against southern Europeans? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23718933

I'm south European myself and spent months cycling the whole thing, out of love. It's a joke, hence the ) at the end.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#325

Post by chinesempire » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 7:16 AM UTC

rnestler wrote: post #295

asjw wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way that something that is not enforceable will succeed though. Plus forgiveness works only on then forgiver side, nothing stop others to keep doing what they are doing after you forgave them. I would argue that the main reason we get along is laws, not forgiveness. Any society has written (laws) and unwritten (social rules) norms that regulate the interactions between members. People don't yell in public…

> If you forgive someone yelling at kids because their basketball ended up in their garden you could feel better, but are enabling bad behaviour that should be challenged instead. In the proposed solution of the article one would only forgive if the offending person did apologize. Probably after getting challenged or called out for what they posted. So the comparison would be more that someone yelled at the kids, was…

So the proposed solution is having rules to force people to apologize, forgiveness is just an accessory.

The post specifically said forgivenes is important at a personal level, on a global level rules and their enforcement is what makes coexistence possible.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#326

Post by chinesempire » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 7:18 AM UTC

tomcooks wrote: post #308

asjw wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for you I am exactly from southern Europe, from Rome in Italy to be precise. I think you should visit here, I would show you how much noise people from other countries make, especially Americans. I'm sure you made it as a joke and I don't mind it, but this stereotypes must stop, for a simple reason: there is more to Europe than jokes about southerners. We simply spend more time outside in the open becau…

Anche io, era una battuta - saluti!

Pure io e ha un po' rotto le palle che davanti agli americani che si sparano per cazzate noi continuiamo a fare la parte della scimmietta simpatica che strilla per le strade

Sono molto peggio di noi

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#327

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 7:51 AM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #322

fzeroracer wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should follow the rules when you're attempting to claim someone else is not following the rules. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I didn't dismiss anything, nor did I take the weakest plausible interpretation - I followed up by asking for a clarification. Anything else you would like my help with? Edit: Ah! I see now. You're bothered by my response to you the other day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730545 That's childish. Please, go and play somewhere else.

I didn't even see your reply until you brought it up. More often than not for things like that I'll drop my perspective and leave. Otherwise if I took umbrage with your comment I would've actually replied which since you seemed to look through my post history you can also see I'm not one to shy away from an argument for better or worse.

But it seems like you're not interested in sticking to the rules yourself funnily enough. If you want to assume there was some grand conspiracy instead of me just reading a thread and seeing a bad remark by all means.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#328

Post by foldr » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 8:20 AM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #316

foldr wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How long have you been on HN? Considerably longer than you, as you can easily tell by looking at my profile to see when my account was created. >"unwise" reads like a threat No, it doesn't. Don't be silly. >dare suggesting that BLM has been associated with violence or extremism Most large-scale protest movements attract violent extremists. There are always some violent idiots out there. The point is that BLM is a ma…

Yes it does, and if you’ve been here considerably longer than me then you should know the rules just as well, so try sticking to them. It is not trolling to point to the violence that follows BLM around or you wouldn’t need to produce an apologetic for it. Try the principle of charity and try not to tell others what they should think or write simply because you disagree.

My original post obviously did not contain a "threat". The rest of what you're saying similarly seems to be based on a misconceptions. I think my previous comments speak for themselves, so I'll leave it here.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#329

Post by brigandish » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 8:59 AM UTC

foldr wrote: post #328

brigandish wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does, and if you’ve been here considerably longer than me then you should know the rules just as well, so try sticking to them. It is not trolling to point to the violence that follows BLM around or you wouldn’t need to produce an apologetic for it. Try the principle of charity and try not to tell others what they should think or write simply because you disagree.

My original post obviously did not contain a "threat". The rest of what you're saying similarly seems to be based on a misconceptions. I think my previous comments speak for themselves, so I'll leave it here.

> "unwise" reads like a threat

reads like. I asked you to clarify but all you've done is dig yourself in, ironically on a post about providing mea culpa. If you don't wish to clarify, that's your decision, but please show some awareness in the way you write as what else should one conclude other than you really wanted someone else to shut up? The absence of any other explanation and your unwillingness to avoid clarifying or providing an apology and accepting it was a mistake is unhelpful.

What's unwise about it? I guess we'll never know.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#330

Post by brigandish » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #327

brigandish wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't dismiss anything, nor did I take the weakest plausible interpretation - I followed up by asking for a clarification. Anything else you would like my help with? Edit: Ah! I see now. You're bothered by my response to you the other day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730545 That's childish. Please, go and play somewhere else.

I didn't even see your reply until you brought it up. More often than not for things like that I'll drop my perspective and leave. Otherwise if I took umbrage with your comment I would've actually replied which since you seemed to look through my post history you can also see I'm not one to shy away from an argument for better or worse. But it seems like you're not interested in sticking to the rules yourself funnily…

> But it seems like you're not interested in sticking to the rules yourself funnily enough.

Telling someone they appear to be breaking the rules and then asking them to clarify (something they refused to do or walk back) is uncharitable?

What is the best way to interpret that comment? I'd love to hear.