18 ms·

I stopped short of flagging it myself, but I disagree that it "raises many valid points". At best it seems to miss the forest for the trees, and at worst reads

I stopped short of flagging it myself, but I disagree that it "raises many valid points". At best it seems to miss the forest for the trees, and at worst reads far worse intentions into the Propublica article than I can see. However, it does so in a way that takes a disproportionate amount of effort to refute, where it's not just a subjective judgment call. This is a pretty decent definition of toxicity. Silencing it is really the only effective way to deal with it.

wallawe 5y ago
It's frankly scary that this line of thinking has become so in vogue. Let's exacerbate the definition of something to the point that it must be censored. Example: "takes a disproportionate amount of effort to refute" -> This is a pretty decent definition of toxicity -> Silencing it is really the only effective way to deal with it.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Once you've admitted it's toxic, and not just a dissenting opinion, the alternative is to allow the quality of discussion to fall until it arrives at the unmoderated mean, where no intellectual or valuable conversation occurs. There are infinite places online to engage at that level. Edit: I'm not asserting that this particular case is in fact toxic. Anyway, it's subjective.
- andrewflnr 5y ago
  I'm understand. I'm generally in favor of people being able to express controversial opinions held in good faith. But I've been forced to accept that some people just need to be shut up however possible. In this case I'm not saying he should have his blog taken away, but I am saying no one should amplify content like this. In the abstract, something is toxic if it disrupts or makes impossible desired processes even in very small amounts. Trolling is obvious, conspiracy theories are closer. Some things inherently generate more heat than light, suck oxygen out of productive conversation. You don't have to be a radical leftist (I'm really not at all), you can just watch it happen here or any other forum.
- md_ 5y ago
  IMO, Arnold's article is just not very good. I come here for the good articles.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> and at worst reads far worse intentions into the Propublica article than I can see. The ProPublica article calls out Warren Buffett for tax avoidance, even though he simply had less income. I question the integrity of the writers who want to slander Buffett, who has been extremely outspoken about increasing the taxes rich people pay. There exists no tax on unrealized gains, and Buffett did not realize gains, so why would they try to make an example out of him by falsely accusing him of hypocrisy? How do you claim someone is avoiding a tax that does not even exist? While they might have a point about needing to tax unrealized gains, they certainly went about it in an inappropriate manner, more suited for a tabloid rather than a respectable outlet for journalism.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wallawe 5y ago

It's frankly scary that this line of thinking has become so in vogue. Let's exacerbate the definition of something to the point that it must be censored. Example: "takes a disproportionate amount of effort to refute" -> This is a pretty decent definition of toxicity -> Silencing it is really the only effective way to deal with it.

happytoexplain 5y ago
Once you've admitted it's toxic, and not just a dissenting opinion, the alternative is to allow the quality of discussion to fall until it arrives at the unmoderated mean, where no intellectual or valuable conversation occurs. There are infinite places online to engage at that level. Edit: I'm not asserting that this particular case is in fact toxic. Anyway, it's subjective.
andrewflnr 5y ago
I'm understand. I'm generally in favor of people being able to express controversial opinions held in good faith. But I've been forced to accept that some people just need to be shut up however possible. In this case I'm not saying he should have his blog taken away, but I am saying no one should amplify content like this. In the abstract, something is toxic if it disrupts or makes impossible desired processes even in very small amounts. Trolling is obvious, conspiracy theories are closer. Some things inherently generate more heat than light, suck oxygen out of productive conversation. You don't have to be a radical leftist (I'm really not at all), you can just watch it happen here or any other forum.
md_ 5y ago
IMO, Arnold's article is just not very good. I come here for the good articles.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> and at worst reads far worse intentions into the Propublica article than I can see. The ProPublica article calls out Warren Buffett for tax avoidance, even though he simply had less income. I question the integrity of the writers who want to slander Buffett, who has been extremely outspoken about increasing the taxes rich people pay. There exists no tax on unrealized gains, and Buffett did not realize gains, so why would they try to make an example out of him by falsely accusing him of hypocrisy? How do you claim someone is avoiding a tax that does not even exist? While they might have a point about needing to tax unrealized gains, they certainly went about it in an inappropriate manner, more suited for a tabloid rather than a respectable outlet for journalism.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]