Trouble at the Koolaid Point • Hacker News Board

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#261

Post by wpietri » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 4:23 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #259

wpietri wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is, to put it mildly, undemonstrated. The KKK wore hoods for a reason. Sure, there were plenty of racists willing to be open about their views. But letting people be anonymous assholes greatly increases the awfulness. Even gamers know it: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Your viewpoint is similarly "undemonstrated". Weev's public identity is known. That didn't stop him from trolling or harassing the subject of the article. ------- EDIT: also, the Penny Arcade comic you linked was from 2004, literally 2 or 3 years before the invention of youtube and long before Twitter and Facebook existed. The opinion contained in the said comic does not, and cannot apply to the modern internet, wher…

I'm glad we both agree that you have demonstrated no evidence for your views.

As I already said, some people will be assholes under their own names, because they're just that awful. But that proves nothing about how many people would be assholes when they can evade accountability.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#262

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 4:28 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #261

dragontamer wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your viewpoint is similarly "undemonstrated". Weev's public identity is known. That didn't stop him from trolling or harassing the subject of the article. ------- EDIT: also, the Penny Arcade comic you linked was from 2004, literally 2 or 3 years before the invention of youtube and long before Twitter and Facebook existed. The opinion contained in the said comic does not, and cannot apply to the modern internet, wher…

I'm glad we both agree that you have demonstrated no evidence for your views. As I already said, some people will be assholes under their own names, because they're just that awful. But that proves nothing about how many people would be assholes when they can evade accountability.

True, no hard evidence either way. But real hard evidence is rather hard to come by.

I'm more worried about the people who shy away from online conversations when anonymity is stripped away. Anonymity is my _only_ protection from harassing trolls like Weev.

If I didn't feel secure in my thoughts, I wouldn't be able to talk frankly to you, and I'd leave.

http://www.groklaw.net/

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#263

Post by wpietri » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 4:35 PM UTC

swandriven wrote: post #257

wpietri wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And finally, if this article itself is about harassment and speaking truth to power, then why do I feel compelled to use a throwaway account to post this comment? Because you show all of the sympathy and concern of an albino crocodile? Because you indulge in blatant victim-blaming? Because after (maybe) reading about the horrific campaign of calculated abuse, all you can care about is yourself? And, of course, beca…

That's an awful lot of ad hominem. I made some other points too, you know. You're right that other people would think less of me, for the same reason I could never hope to refute your attacks - the narrative for this topic has left the domain of logic, and is based solely on hysterical feelings . Now that nerds have achieved societal glamor through VC money and social acceptance from selling their mothers and friends…

Yes, your comment was a paragon of unemotional wisdom. You have no interest here other than cool exercise of rational thought. You aren't upset at all. It's those other people who have let their feelings run away with them. Just keep telling yourself that. Because as we know, feelings like empathy and concern have no place in a discussion about how humans should treat other humans.

Funnily, I agree with you that nerds are behaving badly now that they have power. [1] But I disagree with your conclusion. What happened to Sierra is a great example of nerds misusing their sudden social power. Now we need to start taking responsibility for the broader effects of our works and our previously insular culture.

[1] For others, this is a good analysis: http://petewarden.com/2014/10/05/why-nerd-culture-must-die/

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#264

Post by phkahler » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #206

phkahler wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> mechanism. And here's my opinion that will probably get me downvoted into hell: there is no way to stop this, other than leaving the internet. What about ending anonymity? Much as I like the idea of remaining annoymous online (not that I am here), there are legal means to deal with the extreme end of the trolling spectrum so long as you can identify them. The next issue that pops up of course is privacy. We need t…

Honestly, removing anonymity has made things worse over time. Facebook and Youtube now have open racists who push their malignant opinion upon everyone now, and are proud enough to sign their name next to it.

I wasn't talking about opinions, I was talking about threats. If one of those racists advocates violence against a specific persons, they will get a visit (so long as someone notifies the the police) Sure, if you don't want to see opinions you need to avoid the people that have ones you don't like.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#265

Post by Torgo » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 4:48 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #127

tomp wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a weird choice to make - in the name of freedom of expression we're going to create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people to make sure they can't express their opinions. So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions?

> So you're suggestion that instead, in the name of safety, we should create an environment that is ridiculously hostile to large numbers of people (banning them) to make sure they can't express their opinions? If their opinion is "You should die you stupid fucking cunt" or "I'm going to find you and rape you and then kill you" then yes, ban those people. "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison…

>Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a few dozens of messages that were a bit mean.

Yeah she was:

https://twitter.com/CCriadoPerez/statuses/375689920742182912

If you dig, you find that she's an aggressive jerk, and that's why she's a hate magnet. In a different political context, she'd be the "troll." Same for the person she's arguing with. I don't lump Kathy Sierra in this category, but there's a reason some people always find themselves in the middle of a shitstorm.

>I find it fucking baffling that you chose to defend those people, the people saying stuff like that, at the cost of their victims.

See, this is the thing. You see very, very few people defending that. But everybody who doesn't agree with banning vehement disagreement gets attributed that opinion. Every time. The same thing is happening with the so-called gamergate.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#266

Post by tedks » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #252

tedks wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France, lighting fires outside synagogues and chanting "Jews to the gas": http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-... On the Mexican-American border with assault weapons, picking off migrant workers trying to find work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Civil_Defense_Corps In Greece, leading a prominent political party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28political_party... And i…

> This isn't the greatest part of white supremacy or homophobia but it does exist and to claim it doesn't is either ignorance or (now that you don't have that excuse) willful complicity. Wait, back up. Who said they don't exist? Your claim was that letting people be bigoted makes it worse, not that it creates the problem in the first place.

You said they don't exist:

>>Where are the violent neo-Nazis? I don't see it.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#267

Post by swandriven » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #263

swandriven wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an awful lot of ad hominem. I made some other points too, you know. You're right that other people would think less of me, for the same reason I could never hope to refute your attacks - the narrative for this topic has left the domain of logic, and is based solely on hysterical feelings . Now that nerds have achieved societal glamor through VC money and social acceptance from selling their mothers and friends…

Yes, your comment was a paragon of unemotional wisdom. You have no interest here other than cool exercise of rational thought. You aren't upset at all. It's those other people who have let their feelings run away with them. Just keep telling yourself that. Because as we know, feelings like empathy and concern have no place in a discussion about how humans should treat other humans. Funnily, I agree with you that nerd…

The only thing I'm upset about is what I perceive to be a large case of groupthink. I have no other dog in this fight.

Weev posted a response that contained specific assertions. If he is lying then rebutting them should be quite easy, yet the only responses are ad hominem dismissals.

> feelings like empathy and concern have no place in a discussion about how humans should treat other humans

The topic starts with that, but takes on a much larger scope. Empathy and concern don't scale, as illustrated by main stream media's pathologies.

I don't think it's right to harass people, but I think it's inevitable that some people will be harassed on a global communications network. Even if you change the culture (all cultures), outliers will always remain. Castigating "the culture" for the doings of the outliers effectively creates a new Original Sin.

I could expound on the necessity of anonymity and lack of centralized control, but it would fall on deaf ears here. The same argument would be well-received in a Snowden thread.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#268

Post by tedks » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 5:41 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #242

tedks wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, white nationalists and other racist groups depend on liberals like you allowing them a platform to appear like a legitimate alternative in the political system. They use that legitimacy to attract new members, and there's a bright line from that to violence to Kristallnacht. Europeans understand this, which is why they've outlawed Nazism. It's to express as a society that such a thing is not acceptable. By…

> Europeans understand this, which is why they've outlawed Nazism. It's to express as a society that such a thing is not acceptable. By expressing that it is acceptable, you are participating tacitly. If you live in the US you're clearly in the wrong country. > I think that you sell your integrity away by capitalizing on your privilege and oppressing people, either actively and directly, by being a nazi; actively and…

It's a little absurd to ragequit a discussion about free speech for racist extremists when someone mentions... racist extremists.

I think I'm in the right country, because as an aware, conscious person, I can act against oppression in a place where it needs to be struggled against. One day, the United States will also outlaw Nazism, and that will be a great victory for humanity.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#269

Post by ryanpardieck » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

golemotron wrote: post #199

mononcqc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That something is legal does not force it to be acceptable by any business whatsoever.

That's not my argument. My argument is that there is inherent good in providing space for all opinions. That's what liberal democracy is about. Reddit gets to choose whether it will be one of those platforms and it looks like they have. You can boycott Reddit for that choice but why not boycott the US for permitting speech you disagree with too?

We can also criticize Reddit for that choice. Freedom of speech, and all. It sounds like you're upset that we choose to criticize Reddit for this.

The difference between what a business allows and what a state allows are so different as to not really be illuminative here.

I could decide that no one watches animated cartoons in my house, and no one is really harmed by that in any significant way. A state that declares that no one shall watch animated cartoons, however, is quite a different thing.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#270

Post by ryanpardieck » Thu, Oct 09, 2014, 5:55 PM UTC

taliesinb wrote: post #93

freshflowers wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you mention Reddit, I've abandoned it because that cesspool is overflowing. It's no longer just the obscure subs, misogynist thrash from mainstream subs is hitting the front page on a daily basis.

Me too. You end up feeling ambushed, because you'll be reading a bunch of witty, smart, and/or playful comments on some Reddit post, thinking "I don't know these people but they're fun", and then you randomly encounter some unchallenged misogyny or racism in the midst of it with plenty of upvotes. Can these people really exist? Do I want to even be reading something that people who repulse me are also reading? If you…

Personally I find the predominant brand of humor at Reddit to be annoying too. An interesting conversation devolves into five trailing one-liners circling around a pop culture reference ... ugh.