Live data from Hacker News

Trouble at the Koolaid Point

seriouspony.com

281–285 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#281
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The US never will because of the 1st Amendment. All I can say is that your understanding of human nature and agency needs some work. You turn people by interacting with them not shaming them. Basic lesson about human nature. We're lucky some people understood that 200+ years ago. It's carried us further than many of us appreciate.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#282
post #67
post #3

This is an excellent, brave thing to write and I originally had a long comment highlighting a bunch of particularly poignant paragraphs that I deleted because really you should just read the entire thing. Neither I nor the vast majority of the people I know have ever been subject to online harassment and it makes me thankful that there are incredible people like Kathy out there. Lord knows I wouldn't have the courage…

I wouldn't call MetaFilter a particularly high quality community. Discussions there can have just as many trite and trollish comments as your average subreddit. How MetaFilter differs is in that it features a rigid, hierarchical moderation structure, with gatekeepers who ensure posted content meets the stringent politically-correct tastes of its leadership. As a result I have seen legitimately interesting, good-faith…

FYI, the mods only (99% of the time) remove content if it gets flagged consistently. So it's less censorship and more community policing.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#283
The best way to do something about this kind of trolling is to make the punishment fit the crime. This is exactly what laws were originally created for. Before we had laws and enforcement for actions like rape, murder, theft, assault, etc, I'm sure those actions had a very similar place in society--the majority didn't engage in them, but the minority did destroyed the lives of their victims. This is no different. Internet assault is a recent invention, made possible by the invention of the internet. Therefore, it follows that we need to invent appropriate laws and penalties. And the difference in severity of penalties between internet assault and unauthorized access to a computer needs to be similar to the difference in penalties between physical assault and breaking and entering.

If this was the case, then we can clearly see the problems with Tor Ekeland's statement, "You may think weev is an asshole. But being an asshole is not a crime, and neither is obtaining unsecured information from publicly facing servers." Ekeland thinks that the big problem is that weev's AT&T activities were a crime. Regardless of what you think about that, the bigger problem is that weev's asshole activities are not a crime.

Ekeland consolidates a broad spectrum of harassment into one term "being an asshole", and labels it as not a crime. But that is short-sighted. As Kathy points out, there is a point where the spectrum of digital harassment jumps over into the realm of real-life damage. And that should be a crime that carries stiff penalties and is prosecuted aggressively.

Oh, and one other point. Kathy laments how weev has been glorified in the tech community. My guess is that this is caused by nothing other than ignorance. If all you know about weev is that he seems to fall into the group of people that were at least somewhat unjustly targeted by the government for, scare quotes, "hacking" and received a punishment that seemed too harsh, then you'll probably express support for him (read, that cause). Even if you've heard that he says things on the internet that are trollish asshole material, you, like Ekeland, probably won't change your opinion much. What tips the scale here is the knowledge that his troll speech has had the very real consequence of destroying someone's life. That fact is everything. If you don't know someone is bad, you can't correctly adjust your opinion of them. So props to Kathy for speaking out.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Suuuuuure. Please link to your many other posts (on a wide variety of topics) complaining about groupthink, especially ones where you don't open by complaining about how much you have to hear about these darned women and their abuse. And then follow up with a defense of how you totally deserve to be free to be an anonymous dick without consequences, no matter what cost there is to others.

> 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.

Weev is a famous troll, willing to say literally anything for entertainment and/or his own convenience. There is no point in refuting him. If you do, he will ignore you or come up with another set of lies. It's like trying to engage with a tobacco company PR rep. Reasoned dialog is a privilege earned through demonstration of responsible use of dialog.

> 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.

Which is odd given that Snowden didn't actually make use of anonymity. He used the traditional method, which was journalist-mediated anonymity.

Look, your precious anonymity is safe. Nobody will end that. It's not even possible. For at least our lifetimes, literally anybody will be able to rent a server and open a website. What people want is to prevent anonymity from being used as a platform for abuse, harassment, and threats.

If you want to preserve the socially valuable sorts of anonymity, the best thing you can do is to condemn the abuse and work toward limiting it, while providing those who need anonymity with hard-to-abuse flavors of it. That will work a lot better than coming here and being anonymously shitty while demonstrating zero empathy for victims of abuse.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#285
post #167
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not no much about tone as it is about making a genuine, intellectually honest argument without resorting to ad hominem insults. Hell, one of the reasons I like coming to HN is precisely because the general consensus here is in many ways contrary to my political worldview. But I digress. You've made it clear that you regard homogeneity of opinions (and possibly outright censorship) as a good thing, and I doubt I…

Yeah, creating a safe environment for discourse is super-awesome. Those environments are the best thing ever, compared to the oppressive atmosphere of places like HN and reddit. The thing is, arguments on HN about this topic are not intellectually honest. Far from it. They are awful, excruciating, painful, blood-pressure spiking. Filled with dishonesty, zero empathy and zero good faith. It’s an awful, awful place.

> Yeah, creating a safe environment for discourse is super-awesome.

You have a strange definition of discourse if all that's required to create a non-"safe environment" is to present a dissenting opinion. (Did you mean: echo chamber?)

> Filled with dishonesty, zero empathy and zero good faith.

That's a rich complaint coming from someone who called me a misogynist and awful person for the crime of mentioning an article by an actual woman in technology, with her own unconventional opinion on how to ultimately make things better for other women in technology. (Maybe she's right, maybe she's wrong, I sure as hell don't know and that's not the point—the article was censored by a mod just after I and a few other people started discussing it, so that conversation never even got to happen.)

I have every reason to believe that Susan Sons wrote her article in good faith. I sure as heck wanted to discuss it in good faith. So seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a misogynist for caring about women in technology. People who derail respectful dialogue by going nonlinear with appeals to emotion and unfounded name-calling, like you have here, are the reason important topics like this one rarely see the light of open civil discourse.

Please carefully examine your reaction on this thread and reconsider how you have chosen to conduct yourself.

Post reply on HN