4 ms·

That comment: "The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushi

by nhangen 16y ago

That comment: "The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity." Is exactly the type of thing that comes from the hive mind, and is why it's impossible to be a dissenter. It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home.

ominous_prime 16y ago
The "hive mind" works both ways though. You can find examples of posts with a correct position being bullied and forced out by a mass of self-confirming, yet incorrect posts. "Geeks", who often can't let inaccurate statements stand unchallenged for fear of it self perpetuating in this manner, will fight back in kind. Public forums are often very democratic, in that the majority wins even when the majority is ill-informed. (I'm not justifying the behavior, just proposing a theory as to why this seems perfectly acceptable to many "geeks")
Alex3917 16y ago
"...bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home." And that's often a good outcome. Consider for example this article published recently by a Connecticut state senator on why she wants to put people in jail for having 'fake weed'. http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to-children-and-parents http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to... The entire article was riddled with sloppy thinking, and thoroughly plagiarized, so I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her until she deleted all of her comments and wrote a followup stating that the issue was no longer a top priority of hers. I tried to engage her respectfully first, but since she wasn't willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate then going out and fucking up her day seemed like the second best option. Overall I'd consider it a win. Sure it would have been better to get her to change her opinion, but once it becomes clear that no amount of facts or logic her will persuade her then embarrassing her until she shuts the fuck up becomes the best option left on the table.
- nmaio 16y ago
  I'm probably in the minority with this, but... If someone's ignorance cannot be altered or at least reasonably discussed, I think that's perfectly okay. That just means it's time for me to move on. I don't see how attacking or embarrassing someone would make you feel better about your side of things. I'd much rather let that person enjoy their own ignorance. Note: I tend to lack/block out very strong emotions
  - khafra 16y ago
    Non-infectious ignorance can be left alone. A state senator with a PR platform, using it to spread ignorance of a sort that ruins millions of lives, cannot be left alone in good conscience. You have a moral obligation to be less wrong: http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-imperative/ http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-...
    - nmaio 16y ago
      Regardless of reach, I still don't believe attacking or embarrassing someone is the answer. My conscience is better off letting someone have a right to their own opinion (albeit a poor one), rather than attacking them for it. In other words, I'd rather choose to understand where their point of view is coming from and accept it, than to try and change it.
      - danparsonson 16y ago
        I agree with you in the sense of allowing people the space to disagree, but in this particular case, someone's bad opinion, if left unchallenged, could result in other people going to jail. It's the principle of reciprocity.
      - Dylanlacey 16y ago
        But unfortunately points of view aren't innocent things that everyone is entitled to. They can cause SERIOUS damage to the lives of other people. If I have a point of view that binder clips should be made illegal because they're hideous, and manage to make that a law, then A: My point of view is making regular stationers criminals, and B: I might have put people who make binder clips out of work. Everyone has a point of view, but not all of them are reasonable, and simply having them can screw other people up.
derleth 16y ago
> It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home. I agree that if it's just that kind of content-free junk, it's pointless. However, if the beatdown comes with a factual and logical refutation of the idiot's points, or at least a link to a site that has such a refutation, then it performs the inestimable service of educating the lurkers. For example, let's say we had an anti-vaccinationist come here and start spreading lies about vaccines. We would, rightly, be dismayed at such utter lunacy at work in our forum, and we would (hopefully) post multiple refutations of that dangerous nonsense. Ideally, the lunatic would find that we are not amenable to that kind of idiocy and would leave, sadly uneducated (most likely) but at least doing less damage. The real benefit to such actions may come months later, when someone unsure of the facts about vaccines discovers a dead thread that has all of this wonderful information we used to refute the idiot. (And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen.)
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen. To do so, make sure you only crush the the mistake, without beating the person down. Not easy to do without de-emphasising your point though: "You say that 2+2=5, but I think you might be misinformed…" The more direct "No, 2+2=4. II+II=IIII. 1,2,3,4." might be perceived as too blunt, especially if the context is emotional (children, programming languages…).

by nhangen 16y ago

ominous_prime 16y ago

The "hive mind" works both ways though. You can find examples of posts with a correct position being bullied and forced out by a mass of self-confirming, yet incorrect posts. "Geeks", who often can't let inaccurate statements stand unchallenged for fear of it self perpetuating in this manner, will fight back in kind. Public forums are often very democratic, in that the majority wins even when the majority is ill-informed. (I'm not justifying the behavior, just proposing a theory as to why this seems perfectly acceptable to many "geeks")

Alex3917 16y ago

"...bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home." And that's often a good outcome. Consider for example this article published recently by a Connecticut state senator on why she wants to put people in jail for having 'fake weed'. http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to-children-and-parents http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to... The entire article was riddled with sloppy thinking, and thoroughly plagiarized, so I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her until she deleted all of her comments and wrote a followup stating that the issue was no longer a top priority of hers. I tried to engage her respectfully first, but since she wasn't willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate then going out and fucking up her day seemed like the second best option. Overall I'd consider it a win. Sure it would have been better to get her to change her opinion, but once it becomes clear that no amount of facts or logic her will persuade her then embarrassing her until she shuts the fuck up becomes the best option left on the table.

nmaio 16y ago
I'm probably in the minority with this, but... If someone's ignorance cannot be altered or at least reasonably discussed, I think that's perfectly okay. That just means it's time for me to move on. I don't see how attacking or embarrassing someone would make you feel better about your side of things. I'd much rather let that person enjoy their own ignorance. Note: I tend to lack/block out very strong emotions
- khafra 16y ago
  Non-infectious ignorance can be left alone. A state senator with a PR platform, using it to spread ignorance of a sort that ruins millions of lives, cannot be left alone in good conscience. You have a moral obligation to be less wrong: http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-imperative/ http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-...
  - nmaio 16y ago
    Regardless of reach, I still don't believe attacking or embarrassing someone is the answer. My conscience is better off letting someone have a right to their own opinion (albeit a poor one), rather than attacking them for it. In other words, I'd rather choose to understand where their point of view is coming from and accept it, than to try and change it.
    - danparsonson 16y ago
      I agree with you in the sense of allowing people the space to disagree, but in this particular case, someone's bad opinion, if left unchallenged, could result in other people going to jail. It's the principle of reciprocity.
    - Dylanlacey 16y ago
      But unfortunately points of view aren't innocent things that everyone is entitled to. They can cause SERIOUS damage to the lives of other people. If I have a point of view that binder clips should be made illegal because they're hideous, and manage to make that a law, then A: My point of view is making regular stationers criminals, and B: I might have put people who make binder clips out of work. Everyone has a point of view, but not all of them are reasonable, and simply having them can screw other people up.

derleth 16y ago

> It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home. I agree that if it's just that kind of content-free junk, it's pointless. However, if the beatdown comes with a factual and logical refutation of the idiot's points, or at least a link to a site that has such a refutation, then it performs the inestimable service of educating the lurkers. For example, let's say we had an anti-vaccinationist come here and start spreading lies about vaccines. We would, rightly, be dismayed at such utter lunacy at work in our forum, and we would (hopefully) post multiple refutations of that dangerous nonsense. Ideally, the lunatic would find that we are not amenable to that kind of idiocy and would leave, sadly uneducated (most likely) but at least doing less damage. The real benefit to such actions may come months later, when someone unsure of the facts about vaccines discovers a dead thread that has all of this wonderful information we used to refute the idiot. (And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen.)

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen. To do so, make sure you only crush the the mistake, without beating the person down. Not easy to do without de-emphasising your point though: "You say that 2+2=5, but I think you might be misinformed…" The more direct "No, 2+2=4. II+II=IIII. 1,2,3,4." might be perceived as too blunt, especially if the context is emotional (children, programming languages…).