5 ms·

The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues, and they tend to get shouted down for it. Then the real issues persist, decade after decade, but

by asdf21 7y ago

The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues, and they tend to get shouted down for it. Then the real issues persist, decade after decade, but they cannot be talked about, it's too politically incorrect. A few more people try, get shouted down, rinse and repeat the process. Then people wonder why a segment of the population is extremely cynical and bitter and polarized when it comes to any sort of debate on controversial issues... >I've found that when I actually talk to so-called "toxic" people politely, they are willing to listen. It's not them that are causing the polarization. Agree 100%.

oneplane 7y ago
Hardly; toxic isn't a word for 'people speaking their minds' or 'speaking up about problems'. It's someone who is abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves. Or so the dictionaries say.
- asdf21 7y ago
  As someone who had a seven year account banned from YC previously for debating against socialism, you're wrong. Regular debate is labeled toxic all the time if you are anywhere to the right of pure Marxism on the political scale.
  - oneplane 7y ago
    Just because people mislabel things doesn't mean the meaning of the word suddenly changes. While languages evolve, it's not as simple as having a bunch of people on a website re-declare a word at will. Regarding debate or YC or socialism: unless people get abusive I find it hard to believe that it would be called toxic. If you could link to it or provide an except of content that would be called 'toxic' without that content being 'abusive' that would be helpful.
    - asdf21 7y ago
      I debated against socialism / expanding government in a thread about UBI or something similar. I was told by a mod that my comments were deleted and that they were "tedious" and "idealogical flamebait". When I complained about his moderation by saying this: >A moderator just a hair left of your current moderation approach on the authoritarianism scale would "flag and remove" PG's entire recent article about income inequality with a note calling it "tedious ideological posturing." For that comment, my entire six-year account was banned and I was told to email ycombinator to have it restored. When I emailed to have my account restored, I was told this: >We're happy to unban accounts when people give us reason to believe that they won't repeat the things that led us to ban them. In your case it's a little less clear what that reason might be, since you've expressed how much you dislike a bunch of things about HN, our moderation, and me. But if there's something we could do to help you have a change of heart about those things, let me know. So basically, since I complained about his moderation, he took it personally, and only if I was willing to revoke my criticism of his moderation could I be unbanned..? I was never able to get clarification on what exactly needed to happen for me to get unbanned. The gist was, if you argue consistently in favor of free-market approaches to anything economic, you will be accused of "tedious idealogical flamebait" and eventually be banned. Take it for what it's worth, but I was never what you would call toxic by any standard definition, and those were my results.
      - oneplane 7y ago
        I can't find a recent article on HN containing debates on/against/about/for socialism with banned accounts in them, so it's hard to see the content/context that would then be called toxic, but I do see in your reply that you mention "tedious" and "idealogical flamebait" which is not mutually exclusive to toxic behaviour. I suppose someone could write flamebait or be tedious without being toxic.
        asdf21 7y ago
        How would you know? You can't see any of the comments because the mods generally remove them all.. The reason why YC seems more left-leaning nowadays compared to a few years ago, is exactly what the grandparent of this thread suggested, anyone right-leaning (or libertarian) has been harassed off the site / strongly discouraged from sharing their perspectives.
  - 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
    Haven’t been banned yet, but there is definitely a brigade that will instantly downvote you if you try to explain libertarian/free market ideas. Never thought that would happen, since Silicon Valley was founded with similar ideas.
  - richk449 7y ago
    > As someone who had a seven year account banned from YC previously for debating against socialism... Did you win?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online. Here is an example of how these persuasion techniques are deployed, albeit a slightly offensive one. This particular example (spread across 3 pages) aims toward recruitment of people for the 'Qanon' conspiracy which is popular among some right-leaning people. While it's orthogonal to other far-right extremist movements, it is a useful example of a developing militant ideology. https://centipedenation.com/library/red-pilling-a-general-guide-to-enlightening-people-by-centipede-nation/ https://centipedenation.com/library/red-pilling-a-general-gu...
    - oneplane 7y ago
      It makes you wonder what cool stuff we could have done with the time and resources that are currently being put in to that. But I suppose that the people that are putting their time and resources in to that are categorising it internally as 'cool stuff' already.
    - creato 7y ago
      > Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online. I think an equally large problem is reasonable-seeming left-leaning people who hold some opinions so spectacularly absurd in the name of ideology that it generates very fertile ground for right wing commentary to resonate.
      - watwut 7y ago
        Maybe the part of problem is blaming left wing for right wing actions and opinions, bit never blaming right wing for left wing opinions. Some peoples actions are excused and excused and explained, others are not.
- kabouseng 7y ago
  Or... toxic might be someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view...
  - oneplane 7y ago
    I have not seen that definition anywhere, or a definition like that for any other specific word.
    - Disruptive_Dave 7y ago
      The world does not operate on definitions.
      - oneplane 7y ago
        Communication and language works on shared concepts and wording, which can be collected as a set of definitions. If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. Or at least, that is what I have seen and experienced so far.
        awb 7y ago
        > If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. You're right, but we misunderstand each other and disagree all the time because language can be subjective. Take your definition of toxicity: "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves". All of those words are subjective. Abusive is in the dictionary as "harsh or insulting". Harsh is defined as "excessively critical". Excessive means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit". Now define "usual". Language is a circular logic that at some point you just have to know for yourself what you mean. When someone labels someone else as "toxic", they're using their own subjective interpretation of "normal", "harsh" and "abusive". And in these situations language doesn't work very well like you mention. What can help is something less subjective like "I felt angry when you did X". It's more vulnerable and takes more responsibility, but it is less subjective than calling someone "toxic" and can't really be argued, which leads to better understanding and better discussions.

by asdf21 7y ago

oneplane 7y ago

Hardly; toxic isn't a word for 'people speaking their minds' or 'speaking up about problems'. It's someone who is abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves. Or so the dictionaries say.

asdf21 7y ago
As someone who had a seven year account banned from YC previously for debating against socialism, you're wrong. Regular debate is labeled toxic all the time if you are anywhere to the right of pure Marxism on the political scale.
- oneplane 7y ago
  Just because people mislabel things doesn't mean the meaning of the word suddenly changes. While languages evolve, it's not as simple as having a bunch of people on a website re-declare a word at will. Regarding debate or YC or socialism: unless people get abusive I find it hard to believe that it would be called toxic. If you could link to it or provide an except of content that would be called 'toxic' without that content being 'abusive' that would be helpful.
  - asdf21 7y ago
    I debated against socialism / expanding government in a thread about UBI or something similar. I was told by a mod that my comments were deleted and that they were "tedious" and "idealogical flamebait". When I complained about his moderation by saying this: >A moderator just a hair left of your current moderation approach on the authoritarianism scale would "flag and remove" PG's entire recent article about income inequality with a note calling it "tedious ideological posturing." For that comment, my entire six-year account was banned and I was told to email ycombinator to have it restored. When I emailed to have my account restored, I was told this: >We're happy to unban accounts when people give us reason to believe that they won't repeat the things that led us to ban them. In your case it's a little less clear what that reason might be, since you've expressed how much you dislike a bunch of things about HN, our moderation, and me. But if there's something we could do to help you have a change of heart about those things, let me know. So basically, since I complained about his moderation, he took it personally, and only if I was willing to revoke my criticism of his moderation could I be unbanned..? I was never able to get clarification on what exactly needed to happen for me to get unbanned. The gist was, if you argue consistently in favor of free-market approaches to anything economic, you will be accused of "tedious idealogical flamebait" and eventually be banned. Take it for what it's worth, but I was never what you would call toxic by any standard definition, and those were my results.
    - oneplane 7y ago
      I can't find a recent article on HN containing debates on/against/about/for socialism with banned accounts in them, so it's hard to see the content/context that would then be called toxic, but I do see in your reply that you mention "tedious" and "idealogical flamebait" which is not mutually exclusive to toxic behaviour. I suppose someone could write flamebait or be tedious without being toxic.
      - asdf21 7y ago
        How would you know? You can't see any of the comments because the mods generally remove them all.. The reason why YC seems more left-leaning nowadays compared to a few years ago, is exactly what the grandparent of this thread suggested, anyone right-leaning (or libertarian) has been harassed off the site / strongly discouraged from sharing their perspectives.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  Haven’t been banned yet, but there is definitely a brigade that will instantly downvote you if you try to explain libertarian/free market ideas. Never thought that would happen, since Silicon Valley was founded with similar ideas.
- richk449 7y ago
  > As someone who had a seven year account banned from YC previously for debating against socialism... Did you win?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online. Here is an example of how these persuasion techniques are deployed, albeit a slightly offensive one. This particular example (spread across 3 pages) aims toward recruitment of people for the 'Qanon' conspiracy which is popular among some right-leaning people. While it's orthogonal to other far-right extremist movements, it is a useful example of a developing militant ideology. https://centipedenation.com/library/red-pilling-a-general-guide-to-enlightening-people-by-centipede-nation/ https://centipedenation.com/library/red-pilling-a-general-gu...
  - oneplane 7y ago
    It makes you wonder what cool stuff we could have done with the time and resources that are currently being put in to that. But I suppose that the people that are putting their time and resources in to that are categorising it internally as 'cool stuff' already.
  - creato 7y ago
    > Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online. I think an equally large problem is reasonable-seeming left-leaning people who hold some opinions so spectacularly absurd in the name of ideology that it generates very fertile ground for right wing commentary to resonate.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Maybe the part of problem is blaming left wing for right wing actions and opinions, bit never blaming right wing for left wing opinions. Some peoples actions are excused and excused and explained, others are not.
kabouseng 7y ago
Or... toxic might be someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view...
- oneplane 7y ago
  I have not seen that definition anywhere, or a definition like that for any other specific word.
  - Disruptive_Dave 7y ago
    The world does not operate on definitions.
    - oneplane 7y ago
      Communication and language works on shared concepts and wording, which can be collected as a set of definitions. If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. Or at least, that is what I have seen and experienced so far.
      - awb 7y ago
        > If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. You're right, but we misunderstand each other and disagree all the time because language can be subjective. Take your definition of toxicity: "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves". All of those words are subjective. Abusive is in the dictionary as "harsh or insulting". Harsh is defined as "excessively critical". Excessive means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit". Now define "usual". Language is a circular logic that at some point you just have to know for yourself what you mean. When someone labels someone else as "toxic", they're using their own subjective interpretation of "normal", "harsh" and "abusive". And in these situations language doesn't work very well like you mention. What can help is something less subjective like "I felt angry when you did X". It's more vulnerable and takes more responsibility, but it is less subjective than calling someone "toxic" and can't really be argued, which leads to better understanding and better discussions.