Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

De-escalating social media conflict

nickpunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 350 posts

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#341

Post by stephenbez »

silvat wrote: post #191
noobermin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have apologized before on HN and people vote it up, so no I do not see it. It feels much more like people just dig in their heels due to selfish reasons.

I wouldn't be so sure. I read a book about rhetoric (basically the bread and butter of politicians, marketing and PR) and it strongly advocated never( or almost never) apologizing. I can't remember the exact reasoning but the the assertion was that it rarely has the desired effect and often weakens your position and your ability to actually fix the situation.

Interesting. Do you know what book this was?

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#342

Post by brigandish »

foldr wrote: post #331
brigandish wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 clari…

I just meant that it's unwise, i.e. not a good idea, to suggest in passing that BLM is an inherently violent movement, as this kind of inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory statement is not likely to lead to a productive discussion. I am not sure why you think I meant anything else.

Thank you for being good enough to clarify, I appreciate it. My objection was sincere, I accept that your words were and are sincere too and not designed to elicit a malign outcome. Hopefully what follows will allow you to see why I would think they might have.

> this kind of inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory statement is not likely to lead to a productive discussion

I disagree that it's inaccurate, and hence is not unnecessary nor inflammatory. However, instead of being bald men fighting over a comb about whether prominent BLM members calling whites "sub-humxn"[Toronto] and calling for violence implicitly[NY1] or explicitly[NY2] is any kind of evidence of BLM itself being inherently violent (I accept it may or may not), let's focus on the general point by leaning on J. S. Mill's words from On Liberty[Mill]:

> Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

My favourite part of the whole book.

> I am not sure why you think I meant anything else.

Threats are often given as ostensibly well meaning advice that dissuade, or attempt to dissuade, someone from continuing on a course of action via an unspoken alternative that is personally bad. The discontinuance will happen to benefit the kindly person. Was the advice about unwise things…

- apparently well meaning? - attempting to dissuade someone from continuing their action? - would it benefit you? - did you make explicit what the alternative was?

Then it may appear like a threat.

We also live in an age of increasing censorship, by government, by corporation, and by groups in society who are willing to shut down discussion by their opponents. It used to be "conservatives" burning books and railing against gangsta rap, now it's "liberals" with cancel culture and pile ons. To hear an attempt by a (possible) supporter of BLM, on an online forum, to be quiet, that is clearly in threat territory. I've experienced threats online of many kinds and they're not fun, and they often look similar to this case.

Like I wrote above, I fully accept your explanation and I hope you accept mine.

[JSMill] https://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

[NY1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fz4ZpZGkkw It's out of context because it's short but it's not misleading because…

[NY2] https://youtu.be/NZEulL30vdY?t=26 …he repeats it too often, and with less of the "figurative" nature. "or we will burn this country to ashes", to a crowd is incitement to violence in my book. The speeches are full of violent rhetoric.

[Toronto] https://thenationalpulse.com/news/blm-white-folks-govt-award...

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#343

Post by foldr »

brigandish wrote: post #342
foldr wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just meant that it's unwise, i.e. not a good idea, to suggest in passing that BLM is an inherently violent movement, as this kind of inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory statement is not likely to lead to a productive discussion. I am not sure why you think I meant anything else.

Thank you for being good enough to clarify, I appreciate it. My objection was sincere, I accept that your words were and are sincere too and not designed to elicit a malign outcome. Hopefully what follows will allow you to see why I would think they might have. > this kind of inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory statement is not likely to lead to a productive discussion I disagree that it's inaccurate, and hence…

I did not make a threat. If you think you need to write paragraphs and paragraphs to explain why I did, you are probably just off base on this one. I am also not calling for anyone to be censored, so most of your post is irrelevant.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#344

Post by shadowgovt »

nullc wrote: post #338
shadowgovt wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument made (I believe I've even made it myself at some point), but in practice, it turns out to be less effective than people think. "Be silent and it'll just blow over" is increasingly ineffective as a strategy because the Internet has a longer memory; as one looks up information on a person, allegations will jump to the surface. And increasingly, people seem to assume that absence of a counterpoi…

I agree with what you're saying there, but instead of responding by apologizing people are often still better off by going on the attack, calling the allegations baseless nonsense, or personally attacking the people spreading them.

That works unless they aren't baseless nonsense.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#345

Post by tomrod »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #162
tomrod wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inadvertently, this is a great argument for government as the public needs a coercive force able to require companies to internalize costs.

Companies only exist as legal fictions granted privileges by governments.

Patently untrue. The organization known as corporation, sort of. All of this is a red herring related to the point of cost internalization.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#346

Post by holler »

mistermann wrote: post #143
holler wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agree! It’s a challenging problem to solve. Im working on a new project that’s a sort of hybrid between twitter/slack/discord, and actively thinking about these issues... Still young but my aim is both scale and nuanced convo! (example post https://sqwok.im/p/TU2ba6D-iDEYuQ )

Is sqwok that project? I'm curious to know some of the ideas you have in mind for increasing nuance, have you written them up anywhere?

Hey sorry late response, yes it is the project.

I don't have it written anywhere publicly. In the immediate I'm focused on solidifying the foundational conversation features, which center around fast, open, low-friction live conversation. It should be possible to take advantage of the live nature of it with features like alternate conversation modes, branching, and other ways to signal feedback to users that are engaging. The ranking algo uses chat activity and other data points instead of using voting. Anyways, I'm hoping to engage with others interested in such things to see what types of ideas could work in a new site like this!

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#347

Post by silvat »

stephenbez wrote: post #341
silvat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be so sure. I read a book about rhetoric (basically the bread and butter of politicians, marketing and PR) and it strongly advocated never( or almost never) apologizing. I can't remember the exact reasoning but the the assertion was that it rarely has the desired effect and often weakens your position and your ability to actually fix the situation.

Interesting. Do you know what book this was?

Yeah, it was this one: Thank You for Arguing: What Cicero, Shakespeare and the Simpsons Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

From chapter 23. Recover from a screw-up

```Don’t apologize at all. The problem with an apology is that it belittles you without enlarging your audience. Belittling yourself fails to un-belittle the victim. That’s why apologies often don’t work. They rarely seem sincere enough or extreme enough. And many people—especially men—try to couch their apologies in ways that avoid belittling themselves: “I’m really sorry you feel that way.” Apologies like that only increase the belittlement, implying, “I really wish you weren’t such a sensitive flower.” Try this sometime. Shrink your audience to the size of a plant and watch the anger flow.

Whoa, wait. Aren’t we splitting a hair or two here? When I told my boss how terrible I felt about misplacing a volcano, wasn’t that the same as an apology? Actually, no. Look closely and you will find a critical difference. When you own up to falling short of your own expectations, you emphasize your high standards. Focus on the standards, and you can actually make your ethos bigger in your audience’s eyes. Say you’re sorry, and you shrink.```

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#348

Post by Siira »

sukilot wrote: post #251
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using elite as a term of derision is rather silly anyway. Who else would you want running the country than the most skilled and accomplished?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy I want a country where the median person is educated and grounded enough to make good choices about their community.

This might not be possible. (“Myth of egalitarianism”)

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#349

Post by whiddershins »

Very interesting. Something like this definitely needs to be done.

The angle here though, seems to condone a certain amount of shaming. It’s hard for me to not see this through the lens of someone doing a ‘mea culpa’ because they said something which upset people’s sensibilities, even if it was true.

Re: De-escalating social media conflict

#350

Post by brigandish »

foldr wrote: post #343
brigandish wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being good enough to clarify, I appreciate it. My objection was sincere, I accept that your words were and are sincere too and not designed to elicit a malign outcome. Hopefully what follows will allow you to see why I would think they might have. > this kind of inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory statement is not likely to lead to a productive discussion I disagree that it's inaccurate, and hence…

I did not make a threat. If you think you need to write paragraphs and paragraphs to explain why I did, you are probably just off base on this one. I am also not calling for anyone to be censored, so most of your post is irrelevant.

The length of an explanation has no connection to the complexity, validity or soundness of any point, concept or idea under discussion, anywhere, at any time, in any language, so if we're looking for irrelevancies we should start with your complaint.

I would suggest that if you don't wish for your utterances to be examined or misconstrued then you might try to avoid speech that appears threatening, and instead inject more sincerity in any defence you make, otherwise your opponent will feel justified in their scepticism of your intentions.

In short (since you appear to favour succinctness), you'd be wise to be more careful in future ;-)

Post reply on HN