[flagged]
From the title I didn't expect that kind of cartoon character villainy. tbh I don't have to "think carefully" to avoid it.
Untitled topic
21–30 of 149 posts
Re: undefined
#22[flagged]
Re: undefined
#23I’m sorry you have to go through this. Of course it doesn’t matter what I feel or think. I’m a random stranger…
Except I’m another human of your kind who found this post. It moved me. So there is meaning in your suffering that goes beyond you and reflects in someone else’s experience.
We are all doomed, but at least we can see each other along the way, clap hands and cry “we lived!”
I hope you pull through.
Re: undefined
#24The decision was made to ban him here, try to get him fired though I don't know if we succeeded, and attack him with sockpuppets on Reddit
I was on the receiving end of similar treatment for several months on StackOverflow. It made me angry but eventually I just accepted and kinda felt bad for the people doing it. Your admission makes it seems like it wasn't worth it.
Hope the surgery works out in your favor.
Re: undefined
#25> 3. Ethics matter. I don't believe there's any life after this one Serious, non-troll question: why bother? If there isn't any scope outside of the current perceived existence, and we're all so much "smart dirt", then the difference between kindness and malevolence seems moot. Note: I do subscribe to an explicit meaning to life, so this is posed more to express bewilderment at the alternative than reveal any anxiety…
I personally don't think belief in an afterlife should be necessary to believe it's worthwhile to not be shitty to people.
"What goes around comes around" suffices for me.
Call it "ethics", call it "maximizing outcomes for all involved stakeholders", call it "karma", "good business", or "kindness"...whatever you call it, I don't think it's difficult to find your own personal justification for it if you want to.
Re: undefined
#26>In 2015, I had a lot of interaction with a startup incubator you know well, and ended up sitting in the discussions and planning around banning and erasing a young programmer we considered a threat to our financial interests, due to his concerns about authoritarianism in technology. In retrospect, he was harmless, but an example had to be made. The decision was made to ban him here, try to get him fired though I don't know if we succeeded, and attack him with sockpuppets on Reddit, and it seems to have worked because you don't hear his name much.
Jesus Christ, dude. I'm going to be honest with you. While I feel bad for you in your current state, this is a pretty disgusting thing to have done. Have you tried to make any of it better? I mean, you could name this programmer (assuming that wouldn't make it worse), and you could definitely name the incubator and everyone involved in this decision. I'm guessing this kind of thing is quite common.
If you just want someone to tell you that it's okay, I'm not going to be the one to do that. Be as sorry as you want, but what have you done to make it better for him? Even part of this post reads a bit patronizing ("In retrospect, he was harmless..."). Not "this was intrinsically wrong and we shouldn't have done this", just "he wasn't even a threat to take down". My God, dude.
I wish you well because there are vanishingly few humans I wish to see truly suffer. If you make it, I hope you work towards righting the wrongs you've done.
Re: undefined
#27[flagged]
Ruins some innocent man's life, shows up to the forum of the likely-incubator wanting back pats for feeling sorry. Unreal.
Re: undefined
#28Is the "young programmer" you mentioned Jacob Appelbaum?
Re: undefined
#29If you want to know the key to Heaven is asking God for forgiveness for your sins with the intention of becoming better. Repent and believe in the Gospel, go to the traditional Latin mass if you can
[dead]
Re: undefined
#30> 3. Ethics matter. I don't believe there's any life after this one, but I find myself ruminating on what I've done. In 2015, I had a lot of interaction with a startup incubator you know well, and ended up sitting in the discussions and planning around banning and erasing a young programmer we considered a threat to our financial interests, due to his concerns about authoritarianism in technology. In retrospect, he was harmless, but an example had to be made. The decision was made to ban him here, try to get him fired though I don't know if we succeeded, and attack him with sockpuppets on Reddit, and it seems to have worked because you don't hear his name much.
There's something a bit odd about confessing that you were part of an institutional attempt to cancel a specific person, without naming the person or what their specific concerns were, or what specific institution this was; and also claiming that the reason you regret this now is because they were "harmless" rather than "correct".
Someone who in 2015 was concerned about "authoritarianism in technology" possibly came from a cluster of political perspectives that is relatively close to my own; and also possibly came from a cluster of political perspectives that I am relatively opposed to. It's hard to tell which from just that wording and the fact that someone with institutional power in 2015 wanted to cancel them.
I'm certainly curious for more details about exactly what happened here. I imagine it would compromise your anonymity to say more, and depending on the details it might even be bad for that person.