4 ms·

I think learning to ignore posts that are or will become toxic is a helpful skill to learn. I have similar feelings about certain newspapers & articles too. A

I think learning to ignore posts that are or will become toxic is a helpful skill to learn. I have similar feelings about certain newspapers & articles too. As for discussion, no one ever wins an argument in my opinion. So whenever a discussion looks like it's heading that way the best thing to do is to drop it. Discussion is at its best when it's two open minded people politely exploring ideas

Viliam1234 6y ago
People have this instict that "silence is consent". Which makes sense in some circumstances. Like, when the whole group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power. This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to respond to all of that. So you see something that was said, publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent nor power. On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are sufficiently obsessed with the topic. Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Another possibility would be to design online interaction so that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50 people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is little financial incentive to explore this, because companies optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.
- specialist 6y ago
  > People have this instinct that "silence is consent". Absolutely. Part of my impulse to speak up IRL comes from the example of the activism to tackle HIV/AIDS. Literally, silence meant death. That left a huge imprint on me. There a few times in my life when I didn't speak up, didn't act. And it fills me with shame. Examples (of failure) help: At a music festival. Mid '90s. Two white guys were harassing two black couples. I thought one of the white guys was going to get physical. I was so flabbergasted. I had no idea what to do. I was also in no physical condition to get into or break up a fight. I saw a young parent assault her kids. Like punches, not spanking, Kids had signature abuse victims response. I should have called the cops. Young gay couple were being harassed in a movie theater. I didn't act. Old white dude at a public townhall talking about "those people" and advocating Jim Crow laws (in Washington State! in the early 2000s!). > Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Absolutely. My IRL impulses are sabotage online. I've been on social media since the late 80s. (BBSs, CompuServe, BIX.) Trolling and smack talk have always been part of the medium. It was fun. But now it isn't. It just keeps getting worse. Next book on my reading list is Adam Grant's Think Again. Some of the recent book promotion interviews (eg Vox Pivot) have been great. Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference, how to use "radical empathy" in tough situations, is really really good. I'm now looking for workbooks, training, or something. Like role playing exercises to practice. Recommendations please.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - a_random_guid 6y ago
    A lot of your examples describe physically violent situations, or at least the threat of one. I also struggle with how to respond. My parents raised me to never engage in physical violence at any cost. I was the scrawny nerd in school and was bullied a lot. My parents encouraged me to talk my way out of these types of things. As an adult, my instinct is to de-escalate verbally and if that fails to withdraw. My wife on the other hand was raised in, how do I say this, a less nurturing environment. Her instinct is to respond to violence with violence. She doesn’t care if it’s a 6’5” club bouncer, she’s down to fight (she’s 5’2” and 110 lbs soaking wet) if she feels threatened physically. We had a situation a while back where a drunken, crazed woman shoved my wife while she was holding our baby. It was completely unprovoked. I got in the middle of them and tried to talk the aggressor down from the ledge. Of course, reasoning with a drunk person is basically useless. The drunken woman then shoved me. My wife knew I wouldn’t restrain the person physically so she handed the baby to me and proceeded to beat this person to the ground. I’d never seen someone get beaten up this badly. All I wanted to do was withdraw, but with this person’s emotional state there was no telling if they would follow us and try to engage physically again, potentially risking harm to our baby. I still don’t know how to reconcile what happened. Like, instinctually, I still think withdrawing was the right choice. But, conversely, there were too many unknown variables in how that could’ve worked out. The best I could do to rationalize what happened is that we all have different reactions to the fight or flight mechanism. I flee, my wife fights. Sometimes maybe there isn’t a “right” answer and it’s all on a spectrum of gray-ness. In the moments after that situation, my wife berated me for failing to engage physically in a physical altercation that threatened our child. I felt an immense amount of shame. In the days that followed, she started to understand my position and reasoning and now says I shouldn’t feel shame. Just wanted you to know that you’re not alone in struggling in how to deal with physically violent situations.
- SunlightEdge 6y ago
  Yeah. I like your way of putting it. It's true that online and how people interact can be quite misleading. It's a really good point on how we can build better systems to match our instincts

Viliam1234 6y ago

People have this instict that "silence is consent". Which makes sense in some circumstances. Like, when the whole group is paying attention to the same speaker, the speaker says something, there is an opportunity to object, and no one objects... you could conclude that either everyone agrees, or perhaps the speaker has so much social power that no one dares to object. -- So the idea is backed by either consent or power. This doesn't work on internet, where millions of people keep saying millions of things, and there is simply no time to respond to all of that. So you see something that was said, publicly, and no one objected... but that doesn't imply consent nor power. On the other hand, you can have an idea that 99% of people agree with, and the 1% would think twice to oppose it under their real name, but with anonymity someone is going to write "lol, if you think this you are a moron", and it's their comment that will likely remain unopposed. And one such person can make such comments on thousand places each day, if they are sufficiently obsessed with the topic. Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Another possibility would be to design online interaction so that it better matches our instincts. (For example, any comment would disappear after one day, or after it was seen by 50 people.) This could potentially be interesting, but there is little financial incentive to explore this, because companies optimise for advertisements and virality, not user experience.

specialist 6y ago
> People have this instinct that "silence is consent". Absolutely. Part of my impulse to speak up IRL comes from the example of the activism to tackle HIV/AIDS. Literally, silence meant death. That left a huge imprint on me. There a few times in my life when I didn't speak up, didn't act. And it fills me with shame. Examples (of failure) help: At a music festival. Mid '90s. Two white guys were harassing two black couples. I thought one of the white guys was going to get physical. I was so flabbergasted. I had no idea what to do. I was also in no physical condition to get into or break up a fight. I saw a young parent assault her kids. Like punches, not spanking, Kids had signature abuse victims response. I should have called the cops. Young gay couple were being harassed in a movie theater. I didn't act. Old white dude at a public townhall talking about "those people" and advocating Jim Crow laws (in Washington State! in the early 2000s!). > Our instincts are built of some assumptions that no longer work on internet. One possible approach is to learn new skills. Absolutely. My IRL impulses are sabotage online. I've been on social media since the late 80s. (BBSs, CompuServe, BIX.) Trolling and smack talk have always been part of the medium. It was fun. But now it isn't. It just keeps getting worse. Next book on my reading list is Adam Grant's Think Again. Some of the recent book promotion interviews (eg Vox Pivot) have been great. Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference, how to use "radical empathy" in tough situations, is really really good. I'm now looking for workbooks, training, or something. Like role playing exercises to practice. Recommendations please.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- a_random_guid 6y ago
  A lot of your examples describe physically violent situations, or at least the threat of one. I also struggle with how to respond. My parents raised me to never engage in physical violence at any cost. I was the scrawny nerd in school and was bullied a lot. My parents encouraged me to talk my way out of these types of things. As an adult, my instinct is to de-escalate verbally and if that fails to withdraw. My wife on the other hand was raised in, how do I say this, a less nurturing environment. Her instinct is to respond to violence with violence. She doesn’t care if it’s a 6’5” club bouncer, she’s down to fight (she’s 5’2” and 110 lbs soaking wet) if she feels threatened physically. We had a situation a while back where a drunken, crazed woman shoved my wife while she was holding our baby. It was completely unprovoked. I got in the middle of them and tried to talk the aggressor down from the ledge. Of course, reasoning with a drunk person is basically useless. The drunken woman then shoved me. My wife knew I wouldn’t restrain the person physically so she handed the baby to me and proceeded to beat this person to the ground. I’d never seen someone get beaten up this badly. All I wanted to do was withdraw, but with this person’s emotional state there was no telling if they would follow us and try to engage physically again, potentially risking harm to our baby. I still don’t know how to reconcile what happened. Like, instinctually, I still think withdrawing was the right choice. But, conversely, there were too many unknown variables in how that could’ve worked out. The best I could do to rationalize what happened is that we all have different reactions to the fight or flight mechanism. I flee, my wife fights. Sometimes maybe there isn’t a “right” answer and it’s all on a spectrum of gray-ness. In the moments after that situation, my wife berated me for failing to engage physically in a physical altercation that threatened our child. I felt an immense amount of shame. In the days that followed, she started to understand my position and reasoning and now says I shouldn’t feel shame. Just wanted you to know that you’re not alone in struggling in how to deal with physically violent situations.
SunlightEdge 6y ago
Yeah. I like your way of putting it. It's true that online and how people interact can be quite misleading. It's a really good point on how we can build better systems to match our instincts