7 ms·

> Call me crazy, but this does sound like... This comment reveals what the current social climate is most lacking: open-mindedness and the willingness to consi

> Call me crazy, but this does sound like... This comment reveals what the current social climate is most lacking: open-mindedness and the willingness to consider the nuance of an argument before labeling the person giving it as a villain. For every opinion someone has, they have to qualify it and proclaim allegiance to the in-group, lest their opinion be stripped of nuance in an effort to ascribe that person to the out-group. The end result is a gradual dulling of social discourse amongst an increasingly, inevitably polarized electorate.

freehunter 8y ago
I agree, but it's a bit necessary online. Psuedo-anonymity means no one really knows who you are or what you believe. You could be trolling. You could be sarcastic. You could be serious. There's tons of bad actors who seek to sow discord or steer a conversation through subtle manipulation, and it works. It doesn't even have to be politics: for the longest time here saying something negative about Rails was a death sentence for your comment score. These days suggesting Rails as an answer might have that effect. And it doesn't even have to be an entire group: some threads commenting positively about Android will bring the wrath of the people. Other threads draw a pro-iPhone crowd. If someone mentions they're excited about the new Samsung phone and I say "yeah but isn't Android known for a malware problem?" how does anyone know if I'm seriously asking a question, if I'm trolling, or even more effective: if I'm spreading FUD by just putting the tiniest little bug in someone's ear? Someone who might see that statement enough times to say "I don't know if that's true, but a lot of people are saying it", and then they repeat it and the snowball keeps rolling. The only way to survive in that world is to wear your allegiance on your sleeve. "I use Android, but even I've had a couple of malware issues". But now that's being co-opted too, so you have to go deeper sometimes. "I've used Android since it came out and I hate iPhone and would never use an Apple product but Google should do more about the malware issue". Forums are weaponized now. By nations, by corporations, by interest groups of all shapes and sizes and means and goals. If something is the least bit controversial, you have no way of knowing what the person (if it was a person) actually meant by it. Which leads to people going out of their way to convince you of their sincerity. Rarely will you find this happening in the real world, unless there is a serious threat that the person's comments might be taken out of context and put on the Internet for judgement.
- freedomben 8y ago
  Brilliant point, thanks for sharing (it's insightful, well-articulated comments like yours that make me love HN btw). Had never thought about it that deeply before reading your comment. I do have one minor disagreement tho, purely based on anecdata: > Rarely will you find this happening in the real world I've been seeing this a ton in the real world lately (mostly at work but also in some social situations among people that don't know each other really well). This is especially true if the person is going to compliment or agree with Trump in some way (but by no means limited to Trump). "I don't like him but <insert thing> is a good idea." I have in a few cases felt like it was clear virtue signalling, but most of the time now I think people view it as required in order to have credibility with what is about to be said.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The key is to distinguish between reasoning and data. If someone argues that, as a matter of logic, housing prices can't continue increase as a linear percentage of wages indefinitely, that's reasoning. It doesn't matter who they are because you don't have to trust them to validate whether it's true. You can evaluate the reasoning yourself. Then if there are holes in it you can identify them and point them out, and if there aren't, it doesn't matter if they're biased or self-interested because what they're saying is nevertheless the truth. Whereas if someone says that Android is terrible because they got malware that one time, it still doesn't matter who they are, because they should be ignored/chastised for providing useless information in any case. At worst it's a complete fabrication, but even at best it's an anecdote with no statistical foundation. Because data needs to come from someone who both has enough of it to draw reasonable conclusions from and is known and trusted enough for you to be willing to accept that they aren't fabricating it, which is almost never the case for a rando on a message board, regardless of what disclaimers they provide.
- belorn 8y ago
  As a counter weight, communities are built on the assuming of good faith. If we assume a psuedo-anonymous stranger is a bad actor then it is impossible to have functional open community online. Open communities must balance the risk of bad actors with the health of the community, and most does so through a few selected moderators which job it is to screen for bad actors. This only work as long as the remaining members continue to assume good faith in each other, including the moderators. I would say that wearing your allegiance on your sleeve kills open communities. Dissenting views are eliminated and thus we get echo chambers. Anything slightly dissenting is seen as bad actor, and we get a oppressive environment where the perceived risk of weaponized accounts becomes a tool for control.
peteretep 8y ago
> This comment reveals what the current social climate is most lacking: open-mindedness and the willingness to consider the nuance of an argument Strongly disagree. The current social climate has people pushing fringe and discredited theories in droves (anti-vaccination, non-belief in climate change, white nationalism, etc, and even flat earthers seem to be making a come-back) and I do not believe I need to be willing to be open-minded or consider the nuance of those arguments. More insidiously, the tendency to shroud poorly reasoned arguments in flowery language and pass it off as good-faith or intellectual (cf: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson) seems to be growing. The most powerful man in the world is currently doubling-down on an anti-scientific anti-climate-change platform; I'm not sure what being open-minded here or listening to his arguments is meant to achieve.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  See here's the problem one points out Germany has been storming, weaseling and sidestepping the EU governance to push whatever legislation they needed from outside to bypass their legislative blocks at home, of which testimony is ample and wide, and suddenly the internet community bundles him with flat earthers and climate deniers
  - peteretep 8y ago
    > one points out Germany has been A comment points it out, a child comment generalizes that to a different point, and a child comment _to that_ points out what's wrong with the generalization. Where's the problem?
beezischillin 8y ago
Thank you for this. I have been trying to consciously put in effort into explicitly delineating my actual opinion and a statement of fact. I found that adding that tiny bit of flavor into it helps spark a conversation in better online communities rather than just getting derision or down-votes. Even if it involves a bit of self-deprecation. Sometimes you have to show that you're imperfect or else I found that people don't really assume the obvious, even though they would in real life. If I didn't add something like that then I found that an entire comment just comes off like I'm trying to communicate some sort of universal truth, only to me is it self-evident that it's an opinion. I'm trying to leave less of that to subtext, to reading between the lines as a lot of that tends to get lost online. And since in a lot of these cases we can only guess at the truth to the best of our knowledge since the facts will likely remain hidden from us.

freehunter 8y ago

I agree, but it's a bit necessary online. Psuedo-anonymity means no one really knows who you are or what you believe. You could be trolling. You could be sarcastic. You could be serious. There's tons of bad actors who seek to sow discord or steer a conversation through subtle manipulation, and it works. It doesn't even have to be politics: for the longest time here saying something negative about Rails was a death sentence for your comment score. These days suggesting Rails as an answer might have that effect. And it doesn't even have to be an entire group: some threads commenting positively about Android will bring the wrath of the people. Other threads draw a pro-iPhone crowd. If someone mentions they're excited about the new Samsung phone and I say "yeah but isn't Android known for a malware problem?" how does anyone know if I'm seriously asking a question, if I'm trolling, or even more effective: if I'm spreading FUD by just putting the tiniest little bug in someone's ear? Someone who might see that statement enough times to say "I don't know if that's true, but a lot of people are saying it", and then they repeat it and the snowball keeps rolling. The only way to survive in that world is to wear your allegiance on your sleeve. "I use Android, but even I've had a couple of malware issues". But now that's being co-opted too, so you have to go deeper sometimes. "I've used Android since it came out and I hate iPhone and would never use an Apple product but Google should do more about the malware issue". Forums are weaponized now. By nations, by corporations, by interest groups of all shapes and sizes and means and goals. If something is the least bit controversial, you have no way of knowing what the person (if it was a person) actually meant by it. Which leads to people going out of their way to convince you of their sincerity. Rarely will you find this happening in the real world, unless there is a serious threat that the person's comments might be taken out of context and put on the Internet for judgement.

freedomben 8y ago
Brilliant point, thanks for sharing (it's insightful, well-articulated comments like yours that make me love HN btw). Had never thought about it that deeply before reading your comment. I do have one minor disagreement tho, purely based on anecdata: > Rarely will you find this happening in the real world I've been seeing this a ton in the real world lately (mostly at work but also in some social situations among people that don't know each other really well). This is especially true if the person is going to compliment or agree with Trump in some way (but by no means limited to Trump). "I don't like him but <insert thing> is a good idea." I have in a few cases felt like it was clear virtue signalling, but most of the time now I think people view it as required in order to have credibility with what is about to be said.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The key is to distinguish between reasoning and data. If someone argues that, as a matter of logic, housing prices can't continue increase as a linear percentage of wages indefinitely, that's reasoning. It doesn't matter who they are because you don't have to trust them to validate whether it's true. You can evaluate the reasoning yourself. Then if there are holes in it you can identify them and point them out, and if there aren't, it doesn't matter if they're biased or self-interested because what they're saying is nevertheless the truth. Whereas if someone says that Android is terrible because they got malware that one time, it still doesn't matter who they are, because they should be ignored/chastised for providing useless information in any case. At worst it's a complete fabrication, but even at best it's an anecdote with no statistical foundation. Because data needs to come from someone who both has enough of it to draw reasonable conclusions from and is known and trusted enough for you to be willing to accept that they aren't fabricating it, which is almost never the case for a rando on a message board, regardless of what disclaimers they provide.
belorn 8y ago
As a counter weight, communities are built on the assuming of good faith. If we assume a psuedo-anonymous stranger is a bad actor then it is impossible to have functional open community online. Open communities must balance the risk of bad actors with the health of the community, and most does so through a few selected moderators which job it is to screen for bad actors. This only work as long as the remaining members continue to assume good faith in each other, including the moderators. I would say that wearing your allegiance on your sleeve kills open communities. Dissenting views are eliminated and thus we get echo chambers. Anything slightly dissenting is seen as bad actor, and we get a oppressive environment where the perceived risk of weaponized accounts becomes a tool for control.

peteretep 8y ago

> This comment reveals what the current social climate is most lacking: open-mindedness and the willingness to consider the nuance of an argument Strongly disagree. The current social climate has people pushing fringe and discredited theories in droves (anti-vaccination, non-belief in climate change, white nationalism, etc, and even flat earthers seem to be making a come-back) and I do not believe I need to be willing to be open-minded or consider the nuance of those arguments. More insidiously, the tendency to shroud poorly reasoned arguments in flowery language and pass it off as good-faith or intellectual (cf: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson) seems to be growing. The most powerful man in the world is currently doubling-down on an anti-scientific anti-climate-change platform; I'm not sure what being open-minded here or listening to his arguments is meant to achieve.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
See here's the problem one points out Germany has been storming, weaseling and sidestepping the EU governance to push whatever legislation they needed from outside to bypass their legislative blocks at home, of which testimony is ample and wide, and suddenly the internet community bundles him with flat earthers and climate deniers
- peteretep 8y ago
  > one points out Germany has been A comment points it out, a child comment generalizes that to a different point, and a child comment _to that_ points out what's wrong with the generalization. Where's the problem?

beezischillin 8y ago

Thank you for this. I have been trying to consciously put in effort into explicitly delineating my actual opinion and a statement of fact. I found that adding that tiny bit of flavor into it helps spark a conversation in better online communities rather than just getting derision or down-votes. Even if it involves a bit of self-deprecation. Sometimes you have to show that you're imperfect or else I found that people don't really assume the obvious, even though they would in real life. If I didn't add something like that then I found that an entire comment just comes off like I'm trying to communicate some sort of universal truth, only to me is it self-evident that it's an opinion. I'm trying to leave less of that to subtext, to reading between the lines as a lot of that tends to get lost online. And since in a lot of these cases we can only guess at the truth to the best of our knowledge since the facts will likely remain hidden from us.