3 ms·
What's nastier: noting that Princeton's a pretty good head start in life, or an admin stating that someone's comment was 'dismayingly nasty' and implicitly thre
by zeveb 10y ago
What's nastier: noting that Princeton's a pretty good head start in life, or an admin stating that someone's comment was 'dismayingly nasty' and implicitly threatening to ban the commenter?
I didn't think it was 'dismayingly nasty' or bilious; I thought it was mildly snarky and made an important substantive point which was not lost.
- dang 10y ago"Noting that Princeton's a pretty good head start" is so angelic a summary of that comment that I'm guessing you happened to agree with it. People judge snark as mild when (i.e. because) they agree with it. That's human, but no basis for moderation, nor for community, since it just leads to tribes of people smacking each other. Btw I didn't threaten to ban. I try to be careful that way, and this was a "please don't", not a "we ban accounts that do this, so please don't".
- Mz 10y agoThe same point could have been made with a completely different tone. You cannot have meaty discussion amongst people with diverse points of view from diverse backgrounds without an expectation of civility and respect. If that isn't enforced, then minority viewpoints have no hope of being taken seriously. It becomes an echo chamber and the oxygen gets sucked out of the community. This can also drive away your most valued contributors and/or make their contributions toxic in a way they can't stop. There is all kinds of problems with saying that it is okay to express a valid point in a nasty fashion.