4 ms·

I see your point, however, the level of vitriol I see is beyond reasonable. The poster is clearly offended beyond any sense of reasonableness by this story. A

I see your point, however, the level of vitriol I see is beyond reasonable. The poster is clearly offended beyond any sense of reasonableness by this story. And he is attacking these two as if they are some master criminals at work. They haven't asked for money as far as I can tell, and they don't even claim to be victims of very much except their own ineptitude. She even says she didn't feel like her life was at risk for any 24 hr period. And yet, the blogger feels obsessed with going over the minutiae of this and trying to prove how these two are con artists, but I don't see the con. I feel like the anger is completely out of place, given the lack of crime, which is fascinating to me. And I've seen several posts like this, which is why it's something I've noticed specifically with this story.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
I think the missing piece is that you can't see what assumptions the author is holding. I could imagine that the author is assuming that they will ask for or get some sort of movie or book deal, and they will get money for this event, while "knowing" that it is a giant lie or "con." The author may be trying to protect my fictional 'Bob' from being taken in by what he sees as their poor attempt at deception. As for the minutiae, it seems to be a familiar response to the others who come to the defense with either implausible or improbable defensive statements like "while it is unlikely all of their radios died at once they could have." The author has gone apoplectic and wants people to know that the only facts he feels have the weight of truth are that these women were on a boat, the boat was originally in Hawaii, and that the Navy picked them up off the boat. He is just that offended by what he perceives as lies that others are "believing." I would guess that his outrage is being fueled by his own experiences and what he sees as people being "gullible."
- mannykannot 9y ago
  I think you are basically right, though I don't think the explanation needs a specific hypothetical victim. Lying, like violence, is often used to advance the perpetrators' interests at the expense of others. When there are victims, most of us, I think, empathize with them and regard the perpetrators with at least distaste, even if we are at no risk of being victims ourselves, and even when the victims are unknown to us. If this were not the case - if we were only concerned with our immediate self-interest - ethical society probably could not exist. Furthermore, knowing that someone has lied in the past leads us to distrust them, and even warn others about their behavior, even if there is no apparent victim, or even without clear evidence that they are currently being deceptive. Reputation is an important part of the network of trust that an ethical society depends on, and furthermore, we have probably all learned to be wary of deception even when we cannot immediately see the harm. Liars are suspected of being up to no good, and for good reason in general. It also seems to be that blatant lying provokes more anger, even though subtle, minimal lying is often more effective, perhaps because blatant lying signals confidence in the perpetrator that he will prevail. In this case, the lying is blatant from the perspective of the author, who is knowledgable about the domain. I recall a study from years ago - some sort of game-theoretic simulation - which showed, given its assumptions, that it was not enough that rule-breakers be punished for the society to remain whole, but so also should those who were tolerant of antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, I have lost track of it so I cannot check the plausibility of its assumptions, but note that someone getting away with something sometimes provokes more anger than the original offense, and then it often extends to those who permitted it. To the author, the lame rationalizations of the womens' defenders probably feels like collusion. Also, I see that in this thread, pfarnsworth's 'but there is no victim here' comment has been downvoted, while khazhou's 'no quarter' comment goes unremarked.
cjslep 9y ago
I think it's simply for the same reason people find Chris McCandless [0] polarizing. Communities don't like the media glorifying the grossly inexperienced among them. In this case, it happens to be the cross-ocean sailing community, which is not known for its eloquent lovey-dovey use of language. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless
- pattisapu 9y ago
  Yeah, it was kind of funny seeing this sailor, well, cursing like a sailor.
michaelcampbell 9y ago
> And he is attacking these two as if they are some master criminals at work. It sounds to me as if he's saying they are simply liars. And for what reason, no one can yet figure out. Not quite "masters" of anything.
khazhou 9y ago
Liars must be ruthlessly exposed, because they threaten our ability to trust each other.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

I think the missing piece is that you can't see what assumptions the author is holding. I could imagine that the author is assuming that they will ask for or get some sort of movie or book deal, and they will get money for this event, while "knowing" that it is a giant lie or "con." The author may be trying to protect my fictional 'Bob' from being taken in by what he sees as their poor attempt at deception. As for the minutiae, it seems to be a familiar response to the others who come to the defense with either implausible or improbable defensive statements like "while it is unlikely all of their radios died at once they could have." The author has gone apoplectic and wants people to know that the only facts he feels have the weight of truth are that these women were on a boat, the boat was originally in Hawaii, and that the Navy picked them up off the boat. He is just that offended by what he perceives as lies that others are "believing." I would guess that his outrage is being fueled by his own experiences and what he sees as people being "gullible."

mannykannot 9y ago
I think you are basically right, though I don't think the explanation needs a specific hypothetical victim. Lying, like violence, is often used to advance the perpetrators' interests at the expense of others. When there are victims, most of us, I think, empathize with them and regard the perpetrators with at least distaste, even if we are at no risk of being victims ourselves, and even when the victims are unknown to us. If this were not the case - if we were only concerned with our immediate self-interest - ethical society probably could not exist. Furthermore, knowing that someone has lied in the past leads us to distrust them, and even warn others about their behavior, even if there is no apparent victim, or even without clear evidence that they are currently being deceptive. Reputation is an important part of the network of trust that an ethical society depends on, and furthermore, we have probably all learned to be wary of deception even when we cannot immediately see the harm. Liars are suspected of being up to no good, and for good reason in general. It also seems to be that blatant lying provokes more anger, even though subtle, minimal lying is often more effective, perhaps because blatant lying signals confidence in the perpetrator that he will prevail. In this case, the lying is blatant from the perspective of the author, who is knowledgable about the domain. I recall a study from years ago - some sort of game-theoretic simulation - which showed, given its assumptions, that it was not enough that rule-breakers be punished for the society to remain whole, but so also should those who were tolerant of antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, I have lost track of it so I cannot check the plausibility of its assumptions, but note that someone getting away with something sometimes provokes more anger than the original offense, and then it often extends to those who permitted it. To the author, the lame rationalizations of the womens' defenders probably feels like collusion. Also, I see that in this thread, pfarnsworth's 'but there is no victim here' comment has been downvoted, while khazhou's 'no quarter' comment goes unremarked.

cjslep 9y ago

I think it's simply for the same reason people find Chris McCandless [0] polarizing. Communities don't like the media glorifying the grossly inexperienced among them. In this case, it happens to be the cross-ocean sailing community, which is not known for its eloquent lovey-dovey use of language. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless

pattisapu 9y ago
Yeah, it was kind of funny seeing this sailor, well, cursing like a sailor.

michaelcampbell 9y ago

> And he is attacking these two as if they are some master criminals at work. It sounds to me as if he's saying they are simply liars. And for what reason, no one can yet figure out. Not quite "masters" of anything.

khazhou 9y ago

Liars must be ruthlessly exposed, because they threaten our ability to trust each other.