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

On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

avdi.codes

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 15 posts

Re: On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

#2

Post by haasted »

> For years I’ve had a silent policy that I won’t go on any of his shows. I’ve turned down or ignored multiple invitations. I’m making that policy un-silent now.

It is an important, general point that staying "neutral" when seeing a bullying situation is actually tantamount to siding with the bully.

Re: On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

#5

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

haasted wrote: post #2

> For years I’ve had a silent policy that I won’t go on any of his shows. I’ve turned down or ignored multiple invitations. I’m making that policy un-silent now. It is an important, general point that staying "neutral" when seeing a bullying situation is actually tantamount to siding with the bully.

The hard part is deciding who's the bully, since both sides invariably claim (as they did in this case) that they're the one being bullied. Neutrality isn't a claim that bullying is acceptable, just that you don't have the time to figure out who's the real bully or whether the person being bullied deserves it.

Re: On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

#6

Post by wisty »

> His proposed solution is to get John, a man who has publicly stated that he speaks in bad faith, together with the people he attacked for a “conversation”.

I feel like "bad faith" is now a thought-terminating cliche. As long as people can suggest someone is acting in "bad faith" (maybe doing a "Gish Gallop", a "false equivalence" or even just "motivated reasoning") then they can instantly ignore everything they've said.

The purpose of logical fallacies (as a topic to learn about) isn't so we can just shout out "FALLACY" whenever we think we see one, it's so it's easier to find a tool to refute them (if they are indeed fallacies).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Re: On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

#7

Post by tomphoolery »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #5
haasted wrote: post #2

> For years I’ve had a silent policy that I won’t go on any of his shows. I’ve turned down or ignored multiple invitations. I’m making that policy un-silent now. It is an important, general point that staying "neutral" when seeing a bullying situation is actually tantamount to siding with the bully.

The hard part is deciding who's the bully, since both sides invariably claim (as they did in this case) that they're the one being bullied. Neutrality isn't a claim that bullying is acceptable, just that you don't have the time to figure out who's the real bully or whether the person being bullied deserves it.

I mean, when one of them admits to bullying just for the sake of pissing the other party off, I feel like we can determine who the real bully is.

Re: On Gatekeeping, Complicity, and Arrival

#10

Post by shkkmo »

wisty wrote: post #6

> His proposed solution is to get John, a man who has publicly stated that he speaks in bad faith, together with the people he attacked for a “conversation”. I feel like "bad faith" is now a thought-terminating cliche. As long as people can suggest someone is acting in "bad faith" (maybe doing a "Gish Gallop", a "false equivalence" or even just "motivated reasoning") then they can instantly ignore everything they've…

It seems like suggesting someone else is acting in bad faith is different from pointing out that someone has openly acknowledged that behavior in themselves.
Post reply on HN