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

Game Over

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Game Over

#31

Post by kefs »

blackhole wrote: post #8

Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…

> If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us.

Hence, the title of OP's post.

It was all really inevitable though.. The collective code we write spawned this. We make it increasingly simple for humans to share.. and equally as easy for humans to collaborate. These forces will combine for good and/or evil.

Take this past week on reddit as an example... If you don't know it, one of their most prolific users, Violentacrez was forced to close his account for simply sharing controversial photos. As a result, he became a target of ShitRedditSays, Project Panda, and RedditBomb. He was doxxed and threatened IRL.. He is now offline.

If we were to listen to Voltaire unequivocally, then the same should go for OP, and Violentacrez.

How would you respond?

http://i.imgur.com/AL52y.png

Re: Game Over

#32

Post by lmm »

blackhole wrote: post #8

Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…

Letting such perspectives pass without criticism does not help us solve problems; quite the opposite. A few outlandish suggestions are amazingly useful insights, but most of them are outlandish for a reason; it's not a case of every idea being right and wrong in different ways, there really are objectively good and bad ideas, and being able to cull bad ideas quickly is vital to progress.

To my mind this is a case of "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen". If you're deliberately offering an unusual perspective, you should be prepared for it to be rapidly shot down. If it's on an emotionally charged issue, you should be prepared to be shot down viciously. The author can't have been unaware that his original post was going to offend a great many people.

Do people's emotional reactions get in the way of solving sexism? Maybe. But if you've found a way to take the emotion out of it, you're probably 9/10 of the way to a full solution already; if not, complaining that people treat the issue emotionally without offering a solution is rather empty.

Re: Game Over

#33

Post by stefantalpalaru »

Yes, sometimes being rational and having common sense will get you flamed but what's that got to do with twitter? Antirez is a well known programmer and the amount of reaction he gets is above average. Was anybody expecting anything else?

Re: Game Over

#35

Post by Jach »

blackhole wrote: post #8

Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…

This isn't about censorship, but sensitivity. I don't see how you drew from this that the world of blogging is in peril--if you write things that generate tons of hate comments, and you don't want to read those comments, disable comments. The discussion will continue elsewhere regardless. The haters aren't even censoring themselves (I guess you could make a case that their existing biases prevent them from seriously considering opposing views, but that's not exactly "self-censorship"). If you want to solve some of the problems exemplified by this article and its responses, talking about censorship isn't the way; instead, encourage people to grow thicker skins.

Re: Game Over

#36

Post by ahelwer »

kefs wrote: post #31
blackhole wrote: post #8

Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…

> If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us. Hence, the title of OP's post. It was all really inevitable though.. The collective code we write spawned this. We make it increasingly simple for humans to share.. and equally as easy for humans to collaborate. These forces will combine for good and/or evil. Take this past week on reddit as an example... If you don't know it, one of their most prolific users,…

"Simply sharing controversial photos"... nice disingenuous way to say "creating a platform and framework for sharing sexualized pictures of preteens and photos of women taken without their consent, for years, while doing everything in his power (and mostly succeeding) in normalizing the process".

Honestly, it's like when people say "free speech" they really mean "be able to do anything I want no matter how horrible with zero consequences or criticism." I'm glad VA is gone. I hope he gets thrown in a jail cell.

Re: Game Over

#37

Post by zaptheimpaler »

dmix wrote: post #25
waratuman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People did not criticize the post but the person.

Free speech still applies even if it's offending another person.

No, thats defamation/libel, and it is a civil offense, even a criminal offense in some cases. Free speech is not an unconditional right, it places responsibilities on those who exercise it.

Re: Game Over

#38

Post by ynniv »

_delirium wrote: post #22
blackhole wrote: post #8

Some people are going to say that he was in the right, and some will argue this is a consequence of being wrong, but this doesn't matter. What this illustrates is the dangerous precipice that the world of blogging is hanging on to, where the violent hatred that spews forth when anyone writes a remotely controversial opinion threatens to silence any opinion that sways too far from mainstream consciousness. The fact th…

> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire Wouldn't you then likewise defend the right of people to criticize the post, including to criticize it harshly, even if you disagree with he criticisms or the way they're phrased? edit: That said, I can see a case for communities maintaining discourse norms, in order to promote discussion/etc. But to me that's preci…

Most responses were zingers or did not show a basic understanding for what he said. They are noise, and noise is not worth defending.

I take his argument as supporting individual merit, and condemning praise for the seemingly meritless based on being a minority (what is often called affermative action). A proper disagreement with this position might be based around a purposeful cultivation of the minority to overcome the historical imbalance or avoid a flawed evaluation of merit. Debate then between cultivation and pure meritocracy is a valuable exchange, both sides of which are worth defending.

There appear to be many responses to sound bites taken out of context. Many of them are additionally vitriolic reiterations of much less insight and nuance than what antirez said. They do not contribute to progressing the core discussion, and are only valuable to the extent that we attempt to answer a subtle social issue by taking a vote of twitter users. Which is to say, they are not valuable at all.

Re: Game Over

#39

Post by arrrg »

iamdave wrote: post #19
tomasien wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(edited because it was in the wrong place in the conversation) Your thoughts about sexism, at least how to express them? Absolutely. I don't want to diminish you or your ability to assess a complex system, but it seemed to me (and a lot of other people) that you expressed a great deal of ignorance and a lot of classic misguided assumptions based on limited and biased personal anecdotal experience. But if you don't ag…

based on limited and biased personal anecdotal experience. It's not as he presented his case as stone-cold fact and call me crazy, but aren't personal anecdotal experiences exactly the things that give birth to opinion? Since when did sharing a belief/stance/daring to opine on something demand anything other than anecdote? I don't like that thought pattern at all.

It doesn’t demand anything other – but don’t be surprised when other people then tell you that you are wrong, misguided, ignorant or biased. It’s a quite unsurprising consequence of only relying on your gut-feeling when you opine.

Convincing opinions are supported by facts and theories, by knowledge of past thinking on the topic at hand. All opinions are not created equal.

I’m sorry, but if you write a stunningly ignorant post on sexism that takes so many wrong turns, you shouldn’t be surprised when other people are offended by your displayed lack of knowledge and care. I don’t want to apologize bullying or harassment – that simply isn’t something you can ever apologize – but anything below that line is perfectly ok.

Re: Game Over

#40

Post by rdtsc »

One thing to keep in mind is that unless people strongly agree _but_ even mildly disagree the will post something in reply. In rest, most people who kind of agree or the ones that are sort of neutral will not feel the need to click reply or post. So anything controversial is bound to receive more negative feedback. Any positive or supportive comments might come as a second wave, in response to a slew of negative comments but those are sort of a second order effect.

Trolls will just detect this is a sensitive topic, and regardless if they personally care or not about the issue, will see a potential for flame war and will not resist the urge to dump a can of gasoline in the fire and then watch the show.

Post reply on HN