4 ms·

So you think that calling out someone who makes (very) public, demonstrably false statements for pretty clear personal gain is internet bullying? I would call i

by axman6 9y ago

So you think that calling out someone who makes (very) public, demonstrably false statements for pretty clear personal gain is internet bullying? I would call it being held to account - what sane society would listen to such a ridiculous story and not call it the bullshit it obviously is? Allowing that to happen would lead to a society where fantastic lies are the norm and you’d never know if you could trust anything anyone would say. If I made statements saying that not only did I discover, but also made love to and raised the children of a dragon to international media, do you think it would be bullying for people to tell me it’s nonsense? If so, you’d have a pretty spectacular definition of bullying if you ask me. We should not allow liars to go unchecked.

forapurpose 9y ago
The article objectifies and abuses its targets (which is what the author's motive is, per their own about page). The way bullying and abuse work, especially in the Internet age, is that people find a target they feel is justified or merely vulnerable (because everyone else is attacking them) and viciously act out against them. Having a crowd do it allows humans to ignore their better sense and to do horrible things; it's an angry mob and people hide in it as they act badly. As most people on HN probably know, there are many, many such incidents; the abuse does real harm to real people. Hurting other people is wrong; engaging in it for some self-righteous motive is obviously a bad, as is doing it because of 'something I read on the Internet'. > We should not allow liars to go unchecked. There are many ways to address deceit; none of the good ones include abusing people. No matter what these women did or didn't do, I think the people that abuse them, including the author, are doing much worse. Where is the check on them? But more importantly, this article is just 'something I read on the Internet', by someone who announces on their about page the intent to abuse people the author thinks is "stupid" (an ironic statement). Surely we are well beyond trusting such things by now. Where is the check on the liars and, more importantly, the abusers of the Internet? > Allowing that to happen would lead to a society where fantastic lies are the norm and you’d never know if you could trust anything anyone would say. A great point.

by axman6 9y ago

forapurpose 9y ago

The article objectifies and abuses its targets (which is what the author's motive is, per their own about page). The way bullying and abuse work, especially in the Internet age, is that people find a target they feel is justified or merely vulnerable (because everyone else is attacking them) and viciously act out against them. Having a crowd do it allows humans to ignore their better sense and to do horrible things; it's an angry mob and people hide in it as they act badly. As most people on HN probably know, there are many, many such incidents; the abuse does real harm to real people. Hurting other people is wrong; engaging in it for some self-righteous motive is obviously a bad, as is doing it because of 'something I read on the Internet'. > We should not allow liars to go unchecked. There are many ways to address deceit; none of the good ones include abusing people. No matter what these women did or didn't do, I think the people that abuse them, including the author, are doing much worse. Where is the check on them? But more importantly, this article is just 'something I read on the Internet', by someone who announces on their about page the intent to abuse people the author thinks is "stupid" (an ironic statement). Surely we are well beyond trusting such things by now. Where is the check on the liars and, more importantly, the abusers of the Internet? > Allowing that to happen would lead to a society where fantastic lies are the norm and you’d never know if you could trust anything anyone would say. A great point.