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

Cancel We The Web? (2020)

wetheweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 280 posts

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#191

Post by Snetry »

_euac wrote: post #101
google234123 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Dave Chappell's (or any other comedian's) jokes led to other people being harassed and led them to question their safety? Should they be "cancelled" and erased from society?

There's a whole gaping chasm between Dave Chappelle - a world-famous comedian - making what is clearly a joke on a stage and some anonymous person posting edgy white supremacist shit 'for the lulz'. In case you haven't been following the news, that's the kind of radicalization tool that resulted in a not insignificant amount of the population believing that QAnon was real and that storming the capitol and killing a p…

It just sounds like you are gatekeeping to me

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#192

Post by lambda_obrien »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #173
CanceledAccount wrote: post #40

I was canceled on Twitter last year. Hundreds of people were harassed for being associated with me, my social circles were ripped to shreds, and I feared for my safety. I got into right wing shitposting and logs from a small private chat group were leaked. It was one of the worst experiences of my life and I haven’t recovered. They feel like they’ve made the world a better place.

> I got into ...shitposting ... It was one of the worst experiences of my life and I haven’t recovered. It sounds like you got your arse kicked for being a jerk. Oops. There's a psychological model for this called DARVO, knowing about it might help you recover. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO DARVO is an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender". It is a common manipulation strategy of psychol…

> It sounds like you got your arse kicked for being a jerk. Oops.

People say things like this about people who get killed by cops for minor offenses and such. I think people shouldn't be jerks, and should learn from mistakes, but this sounds more like revenge than a true reckoning. If the guy did something illegal, that's one thing, call the cops. He shitposted right wing crap, that's just idiocy maybe, but not illegal.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I never got that phrase until recently.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#194

Post by bill_mon »

tester34 wrote: post #179
bill_mon wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business. When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning. I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

>When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. what makes you think so? words means in theirs contextes whatever people attributed to them, and I've never seen toxic used in other context than somebody trashtalking somebody and being called toxic, so definitely not dangerous.

> what makes you think so?

Because that's how language works. You don't call somebody a neanderthal to imply he has great hair.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#195

Post by klodolph »

tester34 wrote: post #180
klodolph wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people who have technical discussions are often blind to their own emotions and the effect that their words have on the people around them. In good this can be solved. In bad cases, people talk about "discussing technical issues" and "directness" as a shield for their poor behavior. An example from real life: A student, Y, was having a problem with her CS lab assignment, and talked to her professor,…

on the other hand the Prof gave to student one of the best lessons, the lesson of life Kinda kidding, but the faster you learn how to handle critics, the better for you.

And the faster you learn how to give good criticism, the better for you. Being cavalier about other people undermines your ability to effectively communicate.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#196

Post by bill_mon »

klodolph wrote: post #189
bill_mon wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business. When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning. I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

> When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning. So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion. > I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might…

> So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion.

Yes, I knew all along that "toxic" means "dangerous". When we're not talking about eg. plutonium, we at least borrow the seriousness of that use. It's a very strong word.

> [...] his actions are to call people stupid over their religious beliefs.

I think it's a stretch to call speaking an action. Hitting religious people would be an action, calling them out really isn't.

Stallman is apparently not the most agreeable person, and possibly he's been nasty and hostile. Some people have chosen not to work with him, others have worked a lot with him. He's not killed anybody, he's not made of plutonium, there's no danger.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#197

Post by 0xFluegel »

tryonenow wrote: post #171
eganist wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given wikipedia's heavy progressive bias. Do you have a robust academic citation for this? None of the sources here ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedi... ) suggest a heavy bias, and overall it seems that bias is attenuated with stronger participation. I haven't been able to find sources other than those linked.

No, not every conjecture has been researched. But if you're at all familiar with editorial policy on wikipedia, you'll know that only mainstream sources are typically treated as WP:reliablesource (e.g. wapo, huffpo, cnn, nbc, occasionally salon and vox tier) and the vast majority of right leaning sources (aside from fox) are effectively blacklisted. Not to mention the regular editorial bullying on politically sensiti…

> … the vast majority of right leaning sources (aside from fox) are effectively blacklisted.

This reminds me of a past blog post, a few weeks ago or so, from a journalist who spoke about how strongly right leaning "journalists" often think of their writing as political influencing and counter-acting the left journalism.

I don't know how true that really is but such a tendency could be a good faith explanation for such a rule (as long as it has exceptions).

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#198

Post by mckirk »

bill_mon wrote: post #164
danielheath wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hypothetical Mr X is going to take all of a week to get the entire helpdesk & IT procurement team (and every religious coworker) to avoid him and his need to criticize some aspect of their lives. That's "toxic" because now you have a staff member who people won't communicate effectively with.

Now you're inventing more personality for Mr X. He doesn't like Microsoft and doesn't hide it. He thinks Santa Claus is for children and doesn't hide it. He's not the problem here.

He is, though, because his opinion on Santa Claus should be completely irrelevant to his interactions with his co-workers. But if he prioritizes being hostile by correcting and insulting people over being humble and accepting that others might believe differently, he is being toxic -- he's poisonous to be around.

There are different ways to stand by one's beliefs. One is to keep them to yourself and let them guide your decisions silently, but defend them vigorously if they are actively challenged. And one is to feel the need to rub them into everyone's face constantly, because there is only Right and Wrong and you can't deal with somebody being wrong (i.e., of a different opinion than you) without feeling personally attacked and going on the offensive.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#199

Post by Clewza313 »

b215826 wrote: post #172
donsupreme wrote: post #25

> Sarah Mei then went through the board members involved one by one, digging into each of their histories, and tweeting what she viewed as fire-worthy infractions. The crimes included: “being super involved with Wikipedia,” retweeting a “hideous” New York Times editorial, and being friendly with famed democracy activist and law professor Lawrence Lessig. Publicly calling out each board member in turn with a clear imp…

She spends a considerable fraction of her day turning non-issues (such as the term "domain driven design" [1]) into major issues. I really empathize with her coworkers; it must be really difficult to work with a person like this. [1]: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1073234104311734273

> Last night I posted about the term “domain driven design,” frequently abbreviated “DDD” - which is a common large bra measurement in the US, & often part of dirty movie titles.

...wow.

Also, did she just call human sexuality "dirty"? I would have thought that was a cancellable offense these days.

Re: Cancel We The Web? (2020)

#200

Post by dragonwriter »

Clewza313 wrote: post #199
b215826 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She spends a considerable fraction of her day turning non-issues (such as the term "domain driven design" [1]) into major issues. I really empathize with her coworkers; it must be really difficult to work with a person like this. [1]: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1073234104311734273

> Last night I posted about the term “domain driven design,” frequently abbreviated “DDD” - which is a common large bra measurement in the US, & often part of dirty movie titles. ...wow. Also, did she just call human sexuality "dirty"? I would have thought that was a cancellable offense these days.

No, she called porn dirty. Movies about human sexuality that aren't porn exist, but aren't likely to have DDD in their titles.

(Not that I am endorsing anything she says.)

Post reply on HN