4 ms·

Assholery can be relative, but this argument is still true. I.E. you could say, “my website is full of people, who I think are assholes, but I don’t know what

Assholery can be relative, but this argument is still true. I.E. you could say, “my website is full of people, who I think are assholes, but I don’t know what to do!” and this could be a problem. In addition, I find that “people who don’t care when they are told that their actions might be harming others” is a pretty easy way to define an internet asshole.

luckylion 7y ago
> In addition, I find that “people who don’t care when they are told that their actions might be harming others” is a pretty easy way to define an internet asshole. Which is ... everybody? People that argue for purging "assholes" will hurt those people's ability to communicate. Tell them that, they'll say "I don't care, those people aren't people, they are assholes".
- brenschluss 7y ago
  Nope. Saying "removing a person who hurts other people is a form of hurt" is a form of semantic wordplay that hinges around two different social actions that _could_ be described with the same word, "hurt". If you zoom out and understand the overall goal of the community, then this kind of wordplay is easily neutralized by understanding: "What kind of relationships, conversations, and communities do we want to create?"
  - luckylion 7y ago
    "Hurt" is completely subjective, so when you say "I value that person's statement that they are hurt by something, but I don't value this person's statement", you're just saying that "that person good, this person bad". Which is fine, of course, it's your site, it's just not as easy as saying "those who don't care are assholes, and you don't need to care about assholes". > "What kind of relationships, conversations, and communities do we want to create?" You're absolutely right, it's just that the answer to this question is different for most people. There's no objective answer and in the end, you end up saying "these people here are more important than those people there". Which is fine of course, I just prefer that to be clear and not pretend like there's some absolute moral guidance we can turn to.
    - brenschluss 7y ago
      > There's no objective answer Yes, absolutely > and in the end, you end up saying "these people here are more important than those people there". Which is fine of course, I just prefer that to be clear and not pretend like there's some absolute moral guidance we can turn to. If you do not have an answer to the question, then you just use other defaults. It’s like how there’s no such thing as “unbiased journalism” - you either consciously choose your bias or unconsciously use someone else’s.

luckylion 7y ago

> In addition, I find that “people who don’t care when they are told that their actions might be harming others” is a pretty easy way to define an internet asshole. Which is ... everybody? People that argue for purging "assholes" will hurt those people's ability to communicate. Tell them that, they'll say "I don't care, those people aren't people, they are assholes".

brenschluss 7y ago
Nope. Saying "removing a person who hurts other people is a form of hurt" is a form of semantic wordplay that hinges around two different social actions that _could_ be described with the same word, "hurt". If you zoom out and understand the overall goal of the community, then this kind of wordplay is easily neutralized by understanding: "What kind of relationships, conversations, and communities do we want to create?"
- luckylion 7y ago
  "Hurt" is completely subjective, so when you say "I value that person's statement that they are hurt by something, but I don't value this person's statement", you're just saying that "that person good, this person bad". Which is fine, of course, it's your site, it's just not as easy as saying "those who don't care are assholes, and you don't need to care about assholes". > "What kind of relationships, conversations, and communities do we want to create?" You're absolutely right, it's just that the answer to this question is different for most people. There's no objective answer and in the end, you end up saying "these people here are more important than those people there". Which is fine of course, I just prefer that to be clear and not pretend like there's some absolute moral guidance we can turn to.
  - brenschluss 7y ago
    > There's no objective answer Yes, absolutely > and in the end, you end up saying "these people here are more important than those people there". Which is fine of course, I just prefer that to be clear and not pretend like there's some absolute moral guidance we can turn to. If you do not have an answer to the question, then you just use other defaults. It’s like how there’s no such thing as “unbiased journalism” - you either consciously choose your bias or unconsciously use someone else’s.