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

Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 233 posts

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#51

Post by nickthemagicman »

okareaman wrote: post #42
nickysielicki wrote: post #33

This sort of wishy washy argument (seemingly accepted by generally educated/reasonable people on HN) is the reason that society is so scientifically illiterate. It has nice sounding arguments that embed themselves into your thought patterns but zero real substance. Articles like this are how you get hordes of people to believe something without cause. The next time you see someone act "bad" online, you'll be able to…

You don't say what is wishy washy or give any supporting evidence to your assertion that HN users seemingly fall for such arguments or how "nice sounding" arguments embed themselves into our thought patterns to control us or how these wishy washy nice sounding arguments lead us to dismiss people. You sound like you may have psychological issues and I say this as a non-neurotypical (bipolar)

That's a little ad hominem to diagnose them from one paragraph.

There's actually a well known term for what they're describing.

It's called pop science and is a very real thing.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#52

Post by shoto_io »

verytrivial wrote: post #48

Trolls create anger and conflict and conflict drives engagement. But that is as nothing compared to the engagement you get from public spectacles of righteous indignation. Social media breeds a special sort narcissistic positive feedback loop and it turns out a very small amount of validation is all that is required to set people off. But trolls usually know they're trolls. On the other hand take for example Twitter…

This is… I don’t know. I lack words to describe it.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#53

Post by amznthrwaway »

chrismeller wrote: post #10

This is one of the main reasons I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone is ultimately toxic. As a person with (currently treated and doing fine) psychological issues I don’t expect any single comment to get through to you, but if there are never any negative indicators that you are the problem, rather than everyone else… there is a mathematically insign…

> This is one of the main reasons I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone is ultimately toxic.

This culture doesn’t exist in the real world.

A bigger problem is people like who who soak themselves in hyper-partisan media and ideas, lose the ability to engage in critical thought and analysis, and whose brains turn to mush.

So let me be clear: you’re a moronic idiot who is completely and totally fucking wrong both on the facts and your (dull-headed) interpretation of your invented reality.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#54

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

tus89 wrote: post #50
dbrueck wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the background - tell me more. Also, your comment comes across as an ad hominem attack, not sure if I'm just misreading it though.

It was created to promulgate extremist Christian-right propaganda - the kind that is "un-heard" in the mainstream media in the UK apparently. There are a lot of such organizations that don't openly declare their ideological background, and funding sources.

Can you cite that UnHerd was founded by and funded by “extremist Christian-right propaganda” forces? Considering that its executive editor has frequently featured commentators who are downright anti-religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), and various commentators who subscribe to old-school 20th-century leftism including its antipathy to religion, that is a claim hard to believe.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#55

Post by nitrogen »

3grdlurker wrote: post #28
chrismeller wrote: post #10

This is one of the main reasons I feel like the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone is ultimately toxic. As a person with (currently treated and doing fine) psychological issues I don’t expect any single comment to get through to you, but if there are never any negative indicators that you are the problem, rather than everyone else… there is a mathematically insign…

> the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone I'm not sure what you're talking about--I wonder if this is just your extremely subjective experience of the internet? Because I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement.

I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement.

Perhaps it's disagreement across tribes, but mandatory agreement within each tribe?

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#56

Post by amznthrwaway »

jandrese wrote: post #40
zepto wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of trans people in fact are mentally ill. Given the additional stresses and oppresive social experiences trans people face and are outspoken about , this is entirely unsurprising.

[flagged]

And very online people like you whine and cry about how you’re the real victims if anybody critiques any aspects of your ideas, or probes your motives.

Because very online white male people are so ensconced in privilege that they not only demand to be able to say any thought that comes into their head; you are such entitled little princesses that you must be able to say it without anybody ever being even slightly mean to you in reply.

And then, comically, whiny, thin-skinned little losers like yourself call other people snowflakes and characterize them poorly, without ever realizing what an absolute hypocrite you are.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#58

Post by bellyfullofbac »

verytrivial wrote: post #48

Trolls create anger and conflict and conflict drives engagement. But that is as nothing compared to the engagement you get from public spectacles of righteous indignation. Social media breeds a special sort narcissistic positive feedback loop and it turns out a very small amount of validation is all that is required to set people off. But trolls usually know they're trolls. On the other hand take for example Twitter…

Hah, if he's willing to get botox in his lips he's probably being sincere. Or, maybe it's just some sort of video editing magic?

A lot of online interaction is based on "If I can prove how this person is terrible, then I can be happy because I've proven to myself that I'm a better person.". Well, a glance at this Twitter account makes me feel better, because I'm certain he's a very unhappy troll, because people looking for offense wherever they turn surely will find them, and he's probably a very unhappy person because he feels he's been offended every day. Ah, that sweet persecution complex!

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#59

Post by kingsuper20 »

5cott0 wrote: post #47

What if the people acting out are actually the healthy ones?

Maybe it's just that they're normal (is 'healthy' an ableist term?).

You can make the argument that 'normal' people have been held down by jus' reg'lar dudes for millennia. This is their chance to shine.

Have an upvote ya 'rebel.

Re: Disproportionate amount of bad online behaviour stems from psychological issues

#60

Post by tus89 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #54
tus89 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was created to promulgate extremist Christian-right propaganda - the kind that is "un-heard" in the mainstream media in the UK apparently. There are a lot of such organizations that don't openly declare their ideological background, and funding sources.

Can you cite that UnHerd was founded by and funded by “extremist Christian-right propaganda” forces? Considering that its executive editor has frequently featured commentators who are downright anti-religion (e.g. Richard Dawkins), and various commentators who subscribe to old-school 20th-century leftism including its antipathy to religion, that is a claim hard to believe.

So I search google for "undherd Richard Dawkins", first link:

https://unherd.com/2021/04/why-the-atheists-turned-on-richar...

"Why the atheists turned on Dawkins - They care more about social justice than whether or not God exists"

Written by: Ben Sixsmith is an English writer living in Poland. He has written for Quillette, Areo, The Catholic Herald....

Post reply on HN