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

Trouble at the Koolaid Point

seriouspony.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#31

Post by iherbig »

verroq wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: 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…

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

I am not who you asked, but if I may step in?

It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#32

Post by kansface »

olefoo wrote: post #5

After reading this, I'm battling the urge to suggest technical solutions to social problems. Except that in this case the social problems are caused by the fact the internet is a house built on sand and the underlying protocols don't support authentication or accountability to anything like the degree traditional public conversations did. That said, the choices that were made in the 1980's and early '90s to support p…

Would you elaborate on the drastic failure modes you think are inevitable?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#34

Post by adrianhoward »

verroq wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: 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…

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

> Serious question: why does this even bother you?

Not the person you aimed the question at, but…

I worked as a volunteer counsellor for a few years in my twenties. Some of the stuff I encountered during those years was folk who were going through horrific, long-term abuse.

One of the patterns that you notice is that abusers go to a lot of effort at times to show that their behaviour as normal. Both as a tool to justify it to themselves (this is normal — everybody does it — I'm not a bad person or doing anything bad), and as a tool to further control the abused (this is normal — this is what you should expect — you won't get any better elsewhere).

Anecdotally the ones who can find or create an active "community" of abusers — where two best friends both hit their partners and acknowledge it to each other, where everybody in an extended family beats on their kids, etc. — the abuse is worse because there is little or no sense of shame in what's done.

It's normal.

Now this was the 90s. Before subreddits were around. But this is why it bothers me. Yes, it's just words. But those words are probably making the lives of other people worse.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#35

Post by waterlesscloud »

iherbig wrote: post #31
verroq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

I am not who you asked, but if I may step in? It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.

The problem there is that the range of what people consider "terrible" is quite broad.

Who decides?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#37

Post by wtracy »

Is it known how doxers are able to get information like social security numbers? I can understand a determined party being able to find, say, your phone number and home address, but certain information just shouldn't be available to the public.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#38

Post by McDoku »

My take away from this article is simply raise your standards of people. Esteem should not be so fickle, it should mean something.

Our culture has a very short attention spans and we exalt the wrong people. It creates a weird tension. Being a bad actor is an equal opportunity field and the doubt this creates grows until reasonable people are swallowed.

We have no willingness to forgive and this puritanism has in the end soiled us.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#39

Post by McDoku »

verroq wrote: post #17
deciplex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I told you that around 35% of the population is just terrible, and another 50% is too busy to do anything about it? Would that change your mind? I'm not claiming these are the numbers, just pointing out that there are numbers, and I'm wondering where you would draw the line, if you would draw it at all. That is, giving these people a forum where they can freely associate, normalize their behavior, and find sy…

What if I told you I'm a fascist dictatorship and I and I alone uphold the moral authority? Maybe we should find these people and exterminate them, for the good of everyone.

A bit bold, but it does highlight that insidious tension that leads good people to doom.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#40

Post by McDoku »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12
McDoku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech. The one jerk of a teacher I had, made me realize this. It is better they are out in the open, that they are confronted publicly. Those standing to be counted are not the dangerous ones.... it is the 10 more who agree silently. If it is driven to silence it does not disappear but is spoken in whispers. It is better that they are challenged in the open.

And I think that's at the heart of why there isn't a technical or legal solution to these issues. Whatever solution will be found will be a social one, that's the only way to actually change what people feel and think and believe. And if they feel and think and believe it, they'll act on it in one way or another, no matter how you try to prevent it.

Hearts and minds
Post reply on HN