4 ms·

So raising awareness for racism is the problem, not racism itself? Or are you saying that racism isn't real? That all those reports are fake? Something else? I

by dao- 10y ago

So raising awareness for racism is the problem, not racism itself? Or are you saying that racism isn't real? That all those reports are fake? Something else? I can't really tell from your comment. Btw I'm part of a minority and these kind of posts don't make me "feel worse." Please don't speak for me, thank you very much.

throwaway54675 10y ago
The issue is that those stories might be just as fabricated as those macedonian fake news sites. Maybe they're created for different reasons, but how are you supposed to trust a collection of unsourced text snippets? And even if we are charitable and assume that they are grounded in facts they might still be exaggerated because they are more vivid in the memory of the one reporting them than what actually happened.
- dao- 10y ago
  I would argue that they are unlikely to be "just as fabricated as those macedonian fake news sites", because the come from random individuals rather than weird "news outlets" with a business model. Granted, the identities of those random individuals could be fake, the reports could theoretically be orchestrated etc., but unless you have proof for this, that's just a conspiracy theory.
  - throwaway54675 10y ago
    It's not just professional outlets that create fake news. 4chan regularly does false-flagging to create a more heated discussion. And so does the other side, see mattress girl for example or the gas station thing mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Lies are cheap on the internet. And since those stories are a claim that something happened and there is noone to argue the other side my position is that the burden of proof that anything happened at all is on the poster. Otherwise they might be crying wolf.
    - dao- 10y ago
      Sure, 4chan does that. I find it hard to believe that all those reports come from 4chan. Look, saying some reports may be fake, some may be exaggerated, some may be inaccurate is something entirely different than saying they're all bullshit.
      - throwaway54675 10y ago
        But now you have several problems: we don't know: * which reports are fake * which percentage of reports are fake * which side of the argument creates more fakes than other Maybe it's almost entirely a propaganda war with a few traces of facts. Maybe it's mostly real, who knows. This is far away for many of us. So without some hard evidence we don't have much reason to believe any of it. "Someone said something" is not good enough. Even pictures can be easily taken out of context. Hell, some fake stories even use photos from unrelated news, so even photographic evidence needs to be taken with a grain of salt. So really, why should I believe anything that gets reposted over 3 corners in the form of unattributed, cropped screenshots?
        dao- 10y ago
        I'm not saying you should believe them all. Reasonable skepticism is healthy, unfounded conspiracy theories are not. What I'm saying is that one shouldn't make unfounded assertions that all reports about everyday racism are fake.
        throwaway54675 10y ago
        Nobody said that all stories are fake. But if reasonable skepticism tells us that an unknown percentage might be then then they do not "raise awareness". It just tells us something between "one side is just virtue-signalling, things are mostly peachy" and "things are actually getting worse". In other words, I'm not getting much useful information out of random clipped images on facebook. The error bars are way too large.
        10y ago
dictum 10y ago
So what is the complaint against "post-truth" again? (context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12972415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12972415) Is spreading a hoax to make a point ("raise awareness") not post-truth too?
- dao- 10y ago
  > Is spreading a hoax to make a point ("raise awareness") not post-truth too? It would be if there was a hoax, hence my questions about what the OP actually tried to say. If it meant to say that reports about everyday racism are one huge hoax, I'd like to see some evidence to back that claim.
  - obj-g 10y ago
    I rather think the burden of proof is on those making the claims. Why should we accept any of the reports as true without evidence? Since I can't think of any way to prove that some random person on the internet relating an anecdote is lying.
    - dao- 10y ago
      I think it's more nuanced than that. Lack of proof doesn't necessarily make reports false. I wouldn't report every low-threshold hate speech incident to the police, nor do I think it's reasonable to expect every personal report to come with video evidence or a list of named witnesses. If you became a victim, would you refrain from posting it on social media just because you don't have evidence that would hold up in court? There's a difference between being skeptical and making a blanket statement that most/all of the reports are fake. The latter itself is a claim that puts the burden of proof on you.
      - obj-g 10y ago
        I never said a lack of proof necessitated falsity. It simply seems to me that when it's nearly impossible to disprove such claims (it's just someone saying something on the internet), we shouldn't lend them too much credence unless we actually know the person or have a good reason. So, whereas you think we shouldn't doubt them without good reason, I think the opposite. It's like religious people saying, prove that God doesn't exist -- well, I can't do that, but it shouldn't be my burden, it's the believer who should present evidence for belief. We believe people are innocent until proven guilty, these people are making claims against others and it's simply their word against, well, nothing. Also, I never said most or all are fake. But there definitely are claims which proved false.

by dao- 10y ago

throwaway54675 10y ago

The issue is that those stories might be just as fabricated as those macedonian fake news sites. Maybe they're created for different reasons, but how are you supposed to trust a collection of unsourced text snippets? And even if we are charitable and assume that they are grounded in facts they might still be exaggerated because they are more vivid in the memory of the one reporting them than what actually happened.

dao- 10y ago
I would argue that they are unlikely to be "just as fabricated as those macedonian fake news sites", because the come from random individuals rather than weird "news outlets" with a business model. Granted, the identities of those random individuals could be fake, the reports could theoretically be orchestrated etc., but unless you have proof for this, that's just a conspiracy theory.
- throwaway54675 10y ago
  It's not just professional outlets that create fake news. 4chan regularly does false-flagging to create a more heated discussion. And so does the other side, see mattress girl for example or the gas station thing mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Lies are cheap on the internet. And since those stories are a claim that something happened and there is noone to argue the other side my position is that the burden of proof that anything happened at all is on the poster. Otherwise they might be crying wolf.
  - dao- 10y ago
    Sure, 4chan does that. I find it hard to believe that all those reports come from 4chan. Look, saying some reports may be fake, some may be exaggerated, some may be inaccurate is something entirely different than saying they're all bullshit.
    - throwaway54675 10y ago
      But now you have several problems: we don't know: * which reports are fake * which percentage of reports are fake * which side of the argument creates more fakes than other Maybe it's almost entirely a propaganda war with a few traces of facts. Maybe it's mostly real, who knows. This is far away for many of us. So without some hard evidence we don't have much reason to believe any of it. "Someone said something" is not good enough. Even pictures can be easily taken out of context. Hell, some fake stories even use photos from unrelated news, so even photographic evidence needs to be taken with a grain of salt. So really, why should I believe anything that gets reposted over 3 corners in the form of unattributed, cropped screenshots?
      - dao- 10y ago
        I'm not saying you should believe them all. Reasonable skepticism is healthy, unfounded conspiracy theories are not. What I'm saying is that one shouldn't make unfounded assertions that all reports about everyday racism are fake.
        throwaway54675 10y ago
        Nobody said that all stories are fake. But if reasonable skepticism tells us that an unknown percentage might be then then they do not "raise awareness". It just tells us something between "one side is just virtue-signalling, things are mostly peachy" and "things are actually getting worse". In other words, I'm not getting much useful information out of random clipped images on facebook. The error bars are way too large.
        10y ago

dictum 10y ago

So what is the complaint against "post-truth" again? (context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12972415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12972415) Is spreading a hoax to make a point ("raise awareness") not post-truth too?

dao- 10y ago
> Is spreading a hoax to make a point ("raise awareness") not post-truth too? It would be if there was a hoax, hence my questions about what the OP actually tried to say. If it meant to say that reports about everyday racism are one huge hoax, I'd like to see some evidence to back that claim.
- obj-g 10y ago
  I rather think the burden of proof is on those making the claims. Why should we accept any of the reports as true without evidence? Since I can't think of any way to prove that some random person on the internet relating an anecdote is lying.
  - dao- 10y ago
    I think it's more nuanced than that. Lack of proof doesn't necessarily make reports false. I wouldn't report every low-threshold hate speech incident to the police, nor do I think it's reasonable to expect every personal report to come with video evidence or a list of named witnesses. If you became a victim, would you refrain from posting it on social media just because you don't have evidence that would hold up in court? There's a difference between being skeptical and making a blanket statement that most/all of the reports are fake. The latter itself is a claim that puts the burden of proof on you.
    - obj-g 10y ago
      I never said a lack of proof necessitated falsity. It simply seems to me that when it's nearly impossible to disprove such claims (it's just someone saying something on the internet), we shouldn't lend them too much credence unless we actually know the person or have a good reason. So, whereas you think we shouldn't doubt them without good reason, I think the opposite. It's like religious people saying, prove that God doesn't exist -- well, I can't do that, but it shouldn't be my burden, it's the believer who should present evidence for belief. We believe people are innocent until proven guilty, these people are making claims against others and it's simply their word against, well, nothing. Also, I never said most or all are fake. But there definitely are claims which proved false.