7 ms·

Had me for a while, then unfortunately lost me at the quote of Scott Adams. Adams is EXACTLY who I think anyone should avoid quoting at all costs, when you’re r

Had me for a while, then unfortunately lost me at the quote of Scott Adams. Adams is EXACTLY who I think anyone should avoid quoting at all costs, when you’re rightfully criticizing the Internet Morality Hordes. If you wanna know why, just scroll his Twitter timeline.

notacoward 5y ago
I've lost as much respect for Scott Adams as anyone, so I'd agree that quoting him is ill advised, but the underlying sentiment is not wrong. Mobs do cause harm, not least because they make redemption harder than it already is. In a way, treating a Scott Adams quote as an automatic disqualifier is only making the OP's point.
- pstuart 5y ago
  The quote presents as self-deprecation but reads as a non-apology (at least to me, and I too must confess having lost respect for Adams as well). Edit: for fun I checked out Adam's twitter posts -- and have no respect left at all.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    Adams is very much not trying for an apology here he is mocking cancel culture and the inevitable non-apology that public figures will distribute.
- tootie 5y ago
  They cause harm when they're wrong. Not when they're right. A mob went after Harvey Weinstein because after the first few accusations they rest realized they weren't alone.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Same is true of lynch mobs in real life. Sometimes they do kill actual baddies. It's the tendency to be wrong that makes vigilante justice a problem.
    - tootie 5y ago
      Maybe take a minute to think about this comment one more time.
    - tootie 5y ago
      Alright since this is still here and I'm being down voted, I'll explain what should be really obvious. Lynch mobs were expressly racist. They also typically resulted in death. They would lay an accusation of something that was either not an offense (like mixing with white people) or maybe sometimes an actual crime that could have been handed to the criminal justice system. Twitter mobs are just talking. Fully protected first amendment speech about things that happened to them that they dislike. Nobody gets harmed. Typically these are things like harassment or bullying that is socially unacceptable but not grounds for any type of legal action.
      - notacoward 5y ago
        > Nobody gets harmed. That is very obviously untrue, and makes me wonder whether you read OP at all. Do you think only physical harm matters? The public nature of accusations and ensuing arguments can have a very significant effect on business/career prospects, personal relationships, etc. Even if you successfully prove that the accusations are false, people's impressions are colored by the acrimony itself. There's another story on HN right now about collusion rings in academic reviewing, which demonstrates this effect. This could do huge damage to many people's academic careers, regardless of guilt or innocence or which side they're on. If you have never known anyone that this happened to, count yourself lucky. Most people who have reached any level of prominence in any field have probably seen it happen to a friend. Pretending that things aren't real unless they've happened to you is kind of noxious.
        tootie 5y ago
        Sorry, yes, I meant physical harm. Physical and irreparable harm. Sure a misdirected twitter mob can cause emotional or professional harm. I indirectly know a few people it happened to and they deserved it.
  - mkishi 5y ago
    What's your point? As long as they're right sometimes, it makes the unfortunate casualties worth it? A needed sacrifice for the greater good?
    - tootie 5y ago
      That's not what I said. The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded.
      - mkishi 5y ago
        > The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. That's not what I gathered from the parent comment and it's not what "mobs do cause harm" mean, which is why I was confused by your rebuttal. > I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded. That might be the case, but we still have to deal with the times they aren't.
        tootie 5y ago
        I think the statement that they "do cause harm" is pretty one sided. The fact is, they are intended to cause harm. The question is if they target someone who deserves it.
        mkishi 5y ago
        They didn't speak in the absolutes you're reading into. Mobs do cause harm. Cars do kill.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  Exactly because of that, you shouldn't let people like Scott Adams snatch that sentiment and make it theirs. So express that sentiment, if you want, but don't do it through the words of someone that is actively contributing to disqualify its validity in the public discourse.
dhosek 5y ago
I was thinking the same thing.
whatshisface 5y ago
On the ground level of actually quality, Scott Adams is not great. On the meta-level of continuing to live one's life when hated by the internet, he's really something.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Seriously, the dude is admittedly creepy, didn't he claim he has the power to hypnotize women...? wow, let's admit you violate consent.
mkishi 5y ago
> Had me for a while, then unfortunately lost me at the quote of Scott Adams. It's interesting to me you didn't just say "quoting Scott Adams is a mistake," instead you "were with them until they quoted Adams," implying a single quote you disagree with invalidates all their points. Are you saying you believe they deserved it because those were consequences for being the person they are, ie. someone who quotes Adams? If that's not the case, why did you phrase it like that? At best, it sounds like because of the "affiliation" you suddenly don't care for something you were inclined to care, regardless of whether they have other points or not. This seems similar to the dynamics that made it happen in the first place, people who didn't care about specifics or nuance speaking out with the most dismissive light on the situation, furthering the idea that they deserve the consequences because they are inherently bad people. I'm not saying those were your intentions, but sometimes wording matters, and the multiplying effect of social media doesn't care about intentions.
- camillomiller 5y ago
  I can see the nuance you read in the way I wrote it, you're right. Let me explain better. I'm worried about what I call Internet Morality Hordes, and I think that's a very complex issue. Anytime you criticize this phenomenon (which is important to do, like with everything) there's a flurry of things you can be accused of by the Court of The People of The Internet: victim blaming; not being able to recognize your mistakes; involuntary sexism/racism; inability to recognize your own privilege. Now, the problem is that all these accusations can be right in some cases. What we see is that the morality hordes tend to flip the tables the opposite way, and they use this accusation to condemn anyone based often on the victim's report. Saying that an accusation of a victim of anything should be carefully waged before taking it for granted (as it should be in a society that lives by the rule of law) you can be accused of defending the alleged perpetrator, and so on. You dare say the victim should explain better what happened? Monster! You've never hit a woman, but you have conservative views about marriage? Bigot! Just to clarify: my views are full-on progressive, pro-LGBTQ (I'm part of that), and mostly socialist-leaning. Yet I want a world where my conservative neighbor can argue for its view of the world in a democratic way, trough debate and peaceful confrontation. That's not what the hordes want. Back to the D'Silva story. The guy who's writing the story started doing exactly what I describe, strategically framing the discourse the right way. Then boom, he quotes one of the more controversial, misogynistic, "cancel culture will kill us all" assholes you can find on Twitter. Someone who's exactly the perfect explainer of how, in this day and age, you should NOT talk about the issues he raises. I want to live in a world where people like Scott Adams are free to say things that I consider to be bullshit. But I also know that we live in a world where, if you want to bring your point across in a productive way about this issues, you don't quote someone backward-thinking like Scott Adams. Therefore: he got me until he quoted Scott Adams. Sorry if this all sounds a bit confusing, it's a complex issue I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I also want to point out that nobody deserves Internet Mob Attacks, whether they are guilty of what they were accused of or not. Just don't quote friggin' Scott Adams.
prezjordan 5y ago
+1. Unfortunately saw that and couldn’t help but the think the author was also warm to Adams’s “red pill” content.
driverdan 5y ago
It's not just Adams. Search for Joseph Massey and you'll find his article is posted on the far right sites Quillette (former employers of Andy Ngo) and The American Mind (publishers of trash like "Defend America-Defeat Multiculturalism"). I don't know anything about Massey but publishing on these sites makes me think a lot less about his credibility.

notacoward 5y ago

I've lost as much respect for Scott Adams as anyone, so I'd agree that quoting him is ill advised, but the underlying sentiment is not wrong. Mobs do cause harm, not least because they make redemption harder than it already is. In a way, treating a Scott Adams quote as an automatic disqualifier is only making the OP's point.

pstuart 5y ago
The quote presents as self-deprecation but reads as a non-apology (at least to me, and I too must confess having lost respect for Adams as well). Edit: for fun I checked out Adam's twitter posts -- and have no respect left at all.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  Adams is very much not trying for an apology here he is mocking cancel culture and the inevitable non-apology that public figures will distribute.
tootie 5y ago
They cause harm when they're wrong. Not when they're right. A mob went after Harvey Weinstein because after the first few accusations they rest realized they weren't alone.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Same is true of lynch mobs in real life. Sometimes they do kill actual baddies. It's the tendency to be wrong that makes vigilante justice a problem.
  - tootie 5y ago
    Maybe take a minute to think about this comment one more time.
  - tootie 5y ago
    Alright since this is still here and I'm being down voted, I'll explain what should be really obvious. Lynch mobs were expressly racist. They also typically resulted in death. They would lay an accusation of something that was either not an offense (like mixing with white people) or maybe sometimes an actual crime that could have been handed to the criminal justice system. Twitter mobs are just talking. Fully protected first amendment speech about things that happened to them that they dislike. Nobody gets harmed. Typically these are things like harassment or bullying that is socially unacceptable but not grounds for any type of legal action.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      > Nobody gets harmed. That is very obviously untrue, and makes me wonder whether you read OP at all. Do you think only physical harm matters? The public nature of accusations and ensuing arguments can have a very significant effect on business/career prospects, personal relationships, etc. Even if you successfully prove that the accusations are false, people's impressions are colored by the acrimony itself. There's another story on HN right now about collusion rings in academic reviewing, which demonstrates this effect. This could do huge damage to many people's academic careers, regardless of guilt or innocence or which side they're on. If you have never known anyone that this happened to, count yourself lucky. Most people who have reached any level of prominence in any field have probably seen it happen to a friend. Pretending that things aren't real unless they've happened to you is kind of noxious.
      - tootie 5y ago
        Sorry, yes, I meant physical harm. Physical and irreparable harm. Sure a misdirected twitter mob can cause emotional or professional harm. I indirectly know a few people it happened to and they deserved it.
- mkishi 5y ago
  What's your point? As long as they're right sometimes, it makes the unfortunate casualties worth it? A needed sacrifice for the greater good?
  - tootie 5y ago
    That's not what I said. The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded.
    - mkishi 5y ago
      > The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad. That's not what I gathered from the parent comment and it's not what "mobs do cause harm" mean, which is why I was confused by your rebuttal. > I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded. That might be the case, but we still have to deal with the times they aren't.
      - tootie 5y ago
        I think the statement that they "do cause harm" is pretty one sided. The fact is, they are intended to cause harm. The question is if they target someone who deserves it.
        mkishi 5y ago
        They didn't speak in the absolutes you're reading into. Mobs do cause harm. Cars do kill.
camillomiller 5y ago
Exactly because of that, you shouldn't let people like Scott Adams snatch that sentiment and make it theirs. So express that sentiment, if you want, but don't do it through the words of someone that is actively contributing to disqualify its validity in the public discourse.

dhosek 5y ago

I was thinking the same thing.

whatshisface 5y ago

On the ground level of actually quality, Scott Adams is not great. On the meta-level of continuing to live one's life when hated by the internet, he's really something.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Seriously, the dude is admittedly creepy, didn't he claim he has the power to hypnotize women...? wow, let's admit you violate consent.

mkishi 5y ago

> Had me for a while, then unfortunately lost me at the quote of Scott Adams. It's interesting to me you didn't just say "quoting Scott Adams is a mistake," instead you "were with them until they quoted Adams," implying a single quote you disagree with invalidates all their points. Are you saying you believe they deserved it because those were consequences for being the person they are, ie. someone who quotes Adams? If that's not the case, why did you phrase it like that? At best, it sounds like because of the "affiliation" you suddenly don't care for something you were inclined to care, regardless of whether they have other points or not. This seems similar to the dynamics that made it happen in the first place, people who didn't care about specifics or nuance speaking out with the most dismissive light on the situation, furthering the idea that they deserve the consequences because they are inherently bad people. I'm not saying those were your intentions, but sometimes wording matters, and the multiplying effect of social media doesn't care about intentions.

camillomiller 5y ago
I can see the nuance you read in the way I wrote it, you're right. Let me explain better. I'm worried about what I call Internet Morality Hordes, and I think that's a very complex issue. Anytime you criticize this phenomenon (which is important to do, like with everything) there's a flurry of things you can be accused of by the Court of The People of The Internet: victim blaming; not being able to recognize your mistakes; involuntary sexism/racism; inability to recognize your own privilege. Now, the problem is that all these accusations can be right in some cases. What we see is that the morality hordes tend to flip the tables the opposite way, and they use this accusation to condemn anyone based often on the victim's report. Saying that an accusation of a victim of anything should be carefully waged before taking it for granted (as it should be in a society that lives by the rule of law) you can be accused of defending the alleged perpetrator, and so on. You dare say the victim should explain better what happened? Monster! You've never hit a woman, but you have conservative views about marriage? Bigot! Just to clarify: my views are full-on progressive, pro-LGBTQ (I'm part of that), and mostly socialist-leaning. Yet I want a world where my conservative neighbor can argue for its view of the world in a democratic way, trough debate and peaceful confrontation. That's not what the hordes want. Back to the D'Silva story. The guy who's writing the story started doing exactly what I describe, strategically framing the discourse the right way. Then boom, he quotes one of the more controversial, misogynistic, "cancel culture will kill us all" assholes you can find on Twitter. Someone who's exactly the perfect explainer of how, in this day and age, you should NOT talk about the issues he raises. I want to live in a world where people like Scott Adams are free to say things that I consider to be bullshit. But I also know that we live in a world where, if you want to bring your point across in a productive way about this issues, you don't quote someone backward-thinking like Scott Adams. Therefore: he got me until he quoted Scott Adams. Sorry if this all sounds a bit confusing, it's a complex issue I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I also want to point out that nobody deserves Internet Mob Attacks, whether they are guilty of what they were accused of or not. Just don't quote friggin' Scott Adams.

prezjordan 5y ago

+1. Unfortunately saw that and couldn’t help but the think the author was also warm to Adams’s “red pill” content.

driverdan 5y ago

It's not just Adams. Search for Joseph Massey and you'll find his article is posted on the far right sites Quillette (former employers of Andy Ngo) and The American Mind (publishers of trash like "Defend America-Defeat Multiculturalism"). I don't know anything about Massey but publishing on these sites makes me think a lot less about his credibility.