6 ms·

A good opportunity to point out that "toxic" means exactly "people I disagree with" and absolutely nothing more.

by Smithalicious 8y ago

matz1 8y ago
Agree, and most of the comments in this thread itself is hate speech. Hate towards those deemed "toxic".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
simion314 8y ago
That is not true, we disagree here on HN on many topics like software freedom, is Apple a monopoly, is Tesla autopilot good or bad etc but persons that disagree with my view points can disagree without becoming toxic. For me toxic comments are comments that are int the first place illogical, use false facts or speculation as truth, use personal attacks or aggressive language, generalize one or a few data points to the whole and mainly they are not people that can have a coherent, reasonale logical discussion. My point toxic != someone that I disagree, your are generalizing.
- intertextuality 8y ago
  The word "toxic" has no meaning anymore, because it's all relative to the person using it. For example, in the game Overwatch, "toxic" got mostly used as "this person does not play with the characters currently recognized as the most optimal". Just playing the game differently than the pros/current metagame was literally considered toxic by a non-negligible amount of people. When someone says "ban this person for being toxic", one has no idea what they actually mean. To some people, even respectful trash talk is "toxic". By catering to people calling things "toxic", one encourages witch hunts by people. Your own post is an example of toxic <posts,comments,behavior> not having a standard accepted definition: "For me toxic comments are comments that ...".
  - simion314 8y ago
    You are still using some extreme example and generalizing. Say the word online, troll it has a well known definition, I don't care if you or that dude there is using it wrong, the definition is clear and the majority of humans are using it right. Second if a community decides that behavior X is not allowed then that community will ban X and fck your freedom of speech or whatever , on the community forum,sub-reddits, IRC the community rules apply, you don't like it don't join the forum,sub-reddit
    - intertextuality 8y ago
      It is not trolling. If it was trolling, I would have said "trolling". The reason I used that example is because in someone's arbitrary definition of "toxic" they extended it to mean "not playing exactly how I think someone should play". A normal word with an accepted definition doesn't get randomly abused like this. No, within games and on twitter "toxic" is used in a variety of ways by a variety of people. I used one somewhat common example but not everybody agreed on that, because they had different arbitrary definitions of what being toxic is. It has no standard meaning anymore. What's toxic to me isn't toxic to a random person on reddit or on twitter, and that's what the problem is. I'm not discussing "trolling".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Smithalicious 8y ago
  Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with. Of course, things can also not be agreed with without being considered "toxic".
  - simion314 8y ago
    >Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with Can you give an example because you make no sense or you are stating something obvious, yeah communities do not agree with toxic things because they are bad. The toxic meaning is clear in the context of each community, if you don't agree then don't join, if you want to join follow the rules, if you just want to join and not follow the rules and you want to create harm then you are toxic.
    - Smithalicious 8y ago
      Reddit is notably not a community. I can accept a community deciding that it doesn't want certain opinions to be expressed because they don't fit the communal culture, but this doesn't apply to Reddit, which is explicitly a platform for people to start their own communities. I think there's some room for common sense as to what communities should be given a platform and which shouldn't, for example I don't tihnk /r/coontown should be given a platform in western society which is overwhelmingly anti-racist. But the moment you start banning communities based on criteria that go beyond basic common sense of your society, especially of you do so based on vague and ill-defined rules, you're no longer being a neutral platform. If Reddit wants to be a community as such that's fine, but from my perspective that's explicitly not their branding, and it doesn't seem to be the opinon of Reddit users as agood whole either.
      - simion314 8y ago
        I was referring to sub-reddits and the moderation that happens there where "toxic", trolling , offtopic ares clear terms. Not the full reddit platform, it is a private thing and a business, if keeping toxic sub-reddits on would make them money and good PR then they would keep them , it was a business decision and if it is legal then it is nothing you can do then move your community elsewhere. I also don't like when business ban perfectly legal things like adult content but what can you do? Make a law forcing business and private people host things that they don't want, if you had a forum and someone would spam it with disgusting images don't you want the freedom to remove that? Reddit is not a monopoly, we have forums and they even work better for some content type
thosakwe 8y ago
I find this extremely hard to believe. I disagree with white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, and people who defend sex offenders. I also disagree with think that JSON is more readable than YAML, that C++ is a good language to teach beginners, and that Apache is more user-friendly than nginx. Only one of these groups is "toxic" to me. But just "people I disagree with" is not an accurate representation as to why I find them toxic. i.e. They cause actual harm to the general public.
- Smithalicious 8y ago
  I don't think "causing harm to the general public" is at all a good metric to decide "toxic". I've had to deal with more trouble caused by people who insist on using Apache than I've had caused by white supremacists, and I don't think I've ever met someone who "defends sex offenders" (as a general position). To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not.
  - thosakwe 8y ago
    > To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not. It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Anti-vaxxers have led to the resurgence of diseases once thought to be extinct. White supremacists carry out acts of terrorism/violence against people of color, and lobby against laws that would improve the quality of life for minority groups (sometimes, they are actually the elected officials voting on these laws). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. People who defend sex offenders let alleged rapists get elected to the highest legal office in the land just because of party affiliation. That is in no way comparable to using Apache over nginx.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Not my personal view but I will point out that from the point of view of a vegan or PETA, raising animals and slaughtering them for meat and other animal products is causing harm. And you cannot objectively deny that the deaths and incidental suffering of those animals is not harm. Are they justified in considering you (assuming you consume animal products) toxic and immoral? Your heuristic is not meaningful.
jancsika 8y ago
"Toxic" means "I may have common ground with this person but I can't tell because this private square keeps giving megaphones to trolls who are drowning both of us out." The article, GaTech, and HN seem to be skirting around that issue.

A good opportunity to point out that "toxic" means exactly "people I disagree with" and absolutely nothing more.

matz1 8y ago

Agree, and most of the comments in this thread itself is hate speech. Hate towards those deemed "toxic".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

simion314 8y ago

That is not true, we disagree here on HN on many topics like software freedom, is Apple a monopoly, is Tesla autopilot good or bad etc but persons that disagree with my view points can disagree without becoming toxic. For me toxic comments are comments that are int the first place illogical, use false facts or speculation as truth, use personal attacks or aggressive language, generalize one or a few data points to the whole and mainly they are not people that can have a coherent, reasonale logical discussion. My point toxic != someone that I disagree, your are generalizing.

intertextuality 8y ago
The word "toxic" has no meaning anymore, because it's all relative to the person using it. For example, in the game Overwatch, "toxic" got mostly used as "this person does not play with the characters currently recognized as the most optimal". Just playing the game differently than the pros/current metagame was literally considered toxic by a non-negligible amount of people. When someone says "ban this person for being toxic", one has no idea what they actually mean. To some people, even respectful trash talk is "toxic". By catering to people calling things "toxic", one encourages witch hunts by people. Your own post is an example of toxic <posts,comments,behavior> not having a standard accepted definition: "For me toxic comments are comments that ...".
- simion314 8y ago
  You are still using some extreme example and generalizing. Say the word online, troll it has a well known definition, I don't care if you or that dude there is using it wrong, the definition is clear and the majority of humans are using it right. Second if a community decides that behavior X is not allowed then that community will ban X and fck your freedom of speech or whatever , on the community forum,sub-reddits, IRC the community rules apply, you don't like it don't join the forum,sub-reddit
  - intertextuality 8y ago
    It is not trolling. If it was trolling, I would have said "trolling". The reason I used that example is because in someone's arbitrary definition of "toxic" they extended it to mean "not playing exactly how I think someone should play". A normal word with an accepted definition doesn't get randomly abused like this. No, within games and on twitter "toxic" is used in a variety of ways by a variety of people. I used one somewhat common example but not everybody agreed on that, because they had different arbitrary definitions of what being toxic is. It has no standard meaning anymore. What's toxic to me isn't toxic to a random person on reddit or on twitter, and that's what the problem is. I'm not discussing "trolling".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Smithalicious 8y ago
Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with. Of course, things can also not be agreed with without being considered "toxic".
- simion314 8y ago
  >Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with Can you give an example because you make no sense or you are stating something obvious, yeah communities do not agree with toxic things because they are bad. The toxic meaning is clear in the context of each community, if you don't agree then don't join, if you want to join follow the rules, if you just want to join and not follow the rules and you want to create harm then you are toxic.
  - Smithalicious 8y ago
    Reddit is notably not a community. I can accept a community deciding that it doesn't want certain opinions to be expressed because they don't fit the communal culture, but this doesn't apply to Reddit, which is explicitly a platform for people to start their own communities. I think there's some room for common sense as to what communities should be given a platform and which shouldn't, for example I don't tihnk /r/coontown should be given a platform in western society which is overwhelmingly anti-racist. But the moment you start banning communities based on criteria that go beyond basic common sense of your society, especially of you do so based on vague and ill-defined rules, you're no longer being a neutral platform. If Reddit wants to be a community as such that's fine, but from my perspective that's explicitly not their branding, and it doesn't seem to be the opinon of Reddit users as agood whole either.
    - simion314 8y ago
      I was referring to sub-reddits and the moderation that happens there where "toxic", trolling , offtopic ares clear terms. Not the full reddit platform, it is a private thing and a business, if keeping toxic sub-reddits on would make them money and good PR then they would keep them , it was a business decision and if it is legal then it is nothing you can do then move your community elsewhere. I also don't like when business ban perfectly legal things like adult content but what can you do? Make a law forcing business and private people host things that they don't want, if you had a forum and someone would spam it with disgusting images don't you want the freedom to remove that? Reddit is not a monopoly, we have forums and they even work better for some content type

thosakwe 8y ago

I find this extremely hard to believe. I disagree with white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, and people who defend sex offenders. I also disagree with think that JSON is more readable than YAML, that C++ is a good language to teach beginners, and that Apache is more user-friendly than nginx. Only one of these groups is "toxic" to me. But just "people I disagree with" is not an accurate representation as to why I find them toxic. i.e. They cause actual harm to the general public.

Smithalicious 8y ago
I don't think "causing harm to the general public" is at all a good metric to decide "toxic". I've had to deal with more trouble caused by people who insist on using Apache than I've had caused by white supremacists, and I don't think I've ever met someone who "defends sex offenders" (as a general position). To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not.
- thosakwe 8y ago
  > To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not. It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Anti-vaxxers have led to the resurgence of diseases once thought to be extinct. White supremacists carry out acts of terrorism/violence against people of color, and lobby against laws that would improve the quality of life for minority groups (sometimes, they are actually the elected officials voting on these laws). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. People who defend sex offenders let alleged rapists get elected to the highest legal office in the land just because of party affiliation. That is in no way comparable to using Apache over nginx.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Not my personal view but I will point out that from the point of view of a vegan or PETA, raising animals and slaughtering them for meat and other animal products is causing harm. And you cannot objectively deny that the deaths and incidental suffering of those animals is not harm. Are they justified in considering you (assuming you consume animal products) toxic and immoral? Your heuristic is not meaningful.

jancsika 8y ago

"Toxic" means "I may have common ground with this person but I can't tell because this private square keeps giving megaphones to trolls who are drowning both of us out." The article, GaTech, and HN seem to be skirting around that issue.