4 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
- ausbah 7y ago
  "Causing harm" is subjective until you can demonstrably show that whatever activity is causally linked to increased harm towards some group of people. Yeah an anti-vaxxer won't think they're "causing harm", but they are. They're the reason we've had a major resurgence in measles cases for the first time in 20 years.

Smithalicious 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
ausbah 7y ago
"Causing harm" is subjective until you can demonstrably show that whatever activity is causally linked to increased harm towards some group of people. Yeah an anti-vaxxer won't think they're "causing harm", but they are. They're the reason we've had a major resurgence in measles cases for the first time in 20 years.