3 ms·

As a total stranger on The Inernet, I'll reply. So, people saying things on the internet, in the press, out in the world, in many ways are permitted to speak f

As a total stranger on The Inernet, I'll reply. So, people saying things on the internet, in the press, out in the world, in many ways are permitted to speak freely. Anecdotes and personal opinions are permitted in civilized discourse, when the context is not a legal court of law. All this is just so much gossip, and it's people blowing off pent up steam, and airing out frustration. Big deal. Reputations are on the line, and not much else. this "creating facts on the ground" That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That person says what they saw. That they've claimed facts to be true, is a fact on its own, and there's nothing earth shattering in any of these sour grapes getting squished. The real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. Not all statements are clinical diagnostics. As a dippy-doo in the peanut gallery, I don't feel very polarized. The internet flops about, and flippity floops, and so what?

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That's hardly describes all that is going on here. > Reputations are on the line, and not much else. "Not much else", right. Can you tell me what would be at stake for the people to actually argue like adults, instead of ignoring and downvoting and handwaving? With any random technical subject any remotely valid question gets discussed, and now you're trying to tell me this is normal, that this isn't a shit show? > he real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. So you're essentially saying you don't care because you don't care. You can call that a reply, if you want. Something you signed up for with a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself, "inspiring" a wave of suicides. The only signal sending is a bit of creepyness, the rest is just noise. > Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. What does that even mean? Is it really so much to ask to have at least the plagiarism claims backed up? You see, ignoring that, while claiming he ruined so many people, including someone who killed themselves (as a result? as result of completely unrelated things?), that also says something. > People get over it. People would also get over having haven answered in earnest, or not not downvoting things they can't or don't want to address. HN would totally survive having one story about this that doesn't get flagged, you know? So don't tell me to take this virtual lynching lightly, while you don't mind people apparently having huge issues with very simple questions.
- werthersOrigin 10y ago
  a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself Ha! Oh man, talk about a stay-puft marshmallow moment. The name was supposed to be borrowed from an absolutely harmless carmel candy. Something that could do no wrong, but I had to truncate it into something that would fit into HN's 15 character namespace. No good deed goes unpunished.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    Stay puft? You just commented to say you don't care, you addressed nothing, and if that's the only thing you respond to, that also is another signal. No good deed, right.
    - werthersOrigin 10y ago
      That's the only thing I responded to, because it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. I've rarely seen other people attribute malice to my actions at times when I know I'm being anything but, but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, and it won't be possible to do anything right for them, regardless of any objective, rational information one might try to present. In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him.
      - PavlovsCat 10y ago
        > but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. I responded to a comment and to a "personal account". Zilch replies, downvotes instead. I moan about that, I get your non-replies. So yeah, excuse me for lashing out at a throwaway who doesn't care about something I care about, and feels the need to tell me that. > Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, Awww, I'm so hurt. From whom though? From people I'm criticizing who can't deal with that honestly? From a throwaway? From "peers" who don't bat an eye to join a mob, all with their own plausible deniability? I never joined, you could not pay me enough to not want to distance myself from that kind of stuff. So you're exactly right, int he meaning of the word, I am isolating myself, putting on an ABC suit, say "whoa wtf is this, are you people crazy? well, I spoke my piece, the rest is on you." > In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him. That explains that then, thanks, but I don't find it so terribly monstrous to "lash out" at something needlessly during adressing everything else in a comment, too. That's just a bonus you can ignore, instead of fixate on. > it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. Right, and you're telling yourself that being slightly annoyed by getting essentially mocked with a non-reply, and to then make ONE demonstrably false guess, that this somehow can be applied to everything else, and of course retroactively, too? You're simply demonstrating the "type of character" kind of stuff I'm denouncing. Read Arendt, that's exactly how totalitarianism "thinks". Jake's a "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", the victims are "victims", I'm someone who "is looking for things where they don't exist", and you're someone who is being "anything but malicious". Nothing of substance at all. The punishment "proves" the "guilt" for the thoughtcrimes, the type-of-person-crimes, as well as bestowing the appropriate immunity from criticism to others, and the sentences are nilly-willy and the hands of the executioners free of all guilt. Instead of me asking some valid and uncomfortable questions, which don't get good responses because nobody HAS a good answer, it's now my fault, obviously because mentioning that I got no responses, and noticing that you then respond with nothing but "I personally don't care, that's how it is, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen [which you'd never say about some of these stories about a creeper even in cases where he stopped when asked to, then tried again, am I correct?]", and getting something about your throwaway handle wrong, which is the only thing you respond to -- all that somehow means I'm "looking for things that aren't there" and "isolating myself" and ladiblah. It's not you avoiding things and blaming that on me, nah. It's not you who prefers to talk about people rather than facts, and then looks kind of bad even when talking about people, in your mind. Anyone who has ever been mobbed or dealt with a narcissist will find that kind of strategy very, very familiar. You saying you're not malicious is just you saying things. But this string of comments, in content, for those paying attention, is what it is.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> That's how it works, when a person is telling their own tale, about their own experiences. That's hardly describes all that is going on here. > Reputations are on the line, and not much else. "Not much else", right. Can you tell me what would be at stake for the people to actually argue like adults, instead of ignoring and downvoting and handwaving? With any random technical subject any remotely valid question gets discussed, and now you're trying to tell me this is normal, that this isn't a shit show? > he real world doesn't actually operate on justice and ratios. Shit floats by. People get over it. So you're essentially saying you don't care because you don't care. You can call that a reply, if you want. Something you signed up for with a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself, "inspiring" a wave of suicides. The only signal sending is a bit of creepyness, the rest is just noise. > Dialog is not transactional. Conversations are not permanent and destroying. What does that even mean? Is it really so much to ask to have at least the plagiarism claims backed up? You see, ignoring that, while claiming he ruined so many people, including someone who killed themselves (as a result? as result of completely unrelated things?), that also says something. > People get over it. People would also get over having haven answered in earnest, or not not downvoting things they can't or don't want to address. HN would totally survive having one story about this that doesn't get flagged, you know? So don't tell me to take this virtual lynching lightly, while you don't mind people apparently having huge issues with very simple questions.

werthersOrigin 10y ago
a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself Ha! Oh man, talk about a stay-puft marshmallow moment. The name was supposed to be borrowed from an absolutely harmless carmel candy. Something that could do no wrong, but I had to truncate it into something that would fit into HN's 15 character namespace. No good deed goes unpunished.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  Stay puft? You just commented to say you don't care, you addressed nothing, and if that's the only thing you respond to, that also is another signal. No good deed, right.
  - werthersOrigin 10y ago
    That's the only thing I responded to, because it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. I've rarely seen other people attribute malice to my actions at times when I know I'm being anything but, but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, and it won't be possible to do anything right for them, regardless of any objective, rational information one might try to present. In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him.
    - PavlovsCat 10y ago
      > but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. I responded to a comment and to a "personal account". Zilch replies, downvotes instead. I moan about that, I get your non-replies. So yeah, excuse me for lashing out at a throwaway who doesn't care about something I care about, and feels the need to tell me that. > Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, Awww, I'm so hurt. From whom though? From people I'm criticizing who can't deal with that honestly? From a throwaway? From "peers" who don't bat an eye to join a mob, all with their own plausible deniability? I never joined, you could not pay me enough to not want to distance myself from that kind of stuff. So you're exactly right, int he meaning of the word, I am isolating myself, putting on an ABC suit, say "whoa wtf is this, are you people crazy? well, I spoke my piece, the rest is on you." > In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him. That explains that then, thanks, but I don't find it so terribly monstrous to "lash out" at something needlessly during adressing everything else in a comment, too. That's just a bonus you can ignore, instead of fixate on. > it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. Right, and you're telling yourself that being slightly annoyed by getting essentially mocked with a non-reply, and to then make ONE demonstrably false guess, that this somehow can be applied to everything else, and of course retroactively, too? You're simply demonstrating the "type of character" kind of stuff I'm denouncing. Read Arendt, that's exactly how totalitarianism "thinks". Jake's a "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", the victims are "victims", I'm someone who "is looking for things where they don't exist", and you're someone who is being "anything but malicious". Nothing of substance at all. The punishment "proves" the "guilt" for the thoughtcrimes, the type-of-person-crimes, as well as bestowing the appropriate immunity from criticism to others, and the sentences are nilly-willy and the hands of the executioners free of all guilt. Instead of me asking some valid and uncomfortable questions, which don't get good responses because nobody HAS a good answer, it's now my fault, obviously because mentioning that I got no responses, and noticing that you then respond with nothing but "I personally don't care, that's how it is, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen [which you'd never say about some of these stories about a creeper even in cases where he stopped when asked to, then tried again, am I correct?]", and getting something about your throwaway handle wrong, which is the only thing you respond to -- all that somehow means I'm "looking for things that aren't there" and "isolating myself" and ladiblah. It's not you avoiding things and blaming that on me, nah. It's not you who prefers to talk about people rather than facts, and then looks kind of bad even when talking about people, in your mind. Anyone who has ever been mobbed or dealt with a narcissist will find that kind of strategy very, very familiar. You saying you're not malicious is just you saying things. But this string of comments, in content, for those paying attention, is what it is.