7 ms·

Why does anyone owe you their eyes and ears? If somebody doesn’t want to read what you have to say, it’s fine that they block you. It’s fine. Stop worrying abo

Why does anyone owe you their eyes and ears? If somebody doesn’t want to read what you have to say, it’s fine that they block you. It’s fine. Stop worrying about it, it’s not “cancel culture”, it’s just human beings being overwhelmed by the number of people that piss them off.

rektide 5y ago
It's pathetic beyond words that there's no other moderation systems available. To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. This is a technical fault, heartlessness is built in by design. It's remarkable how callouslness & cruelty, how "fuck these people why should i give them any slack" options like you present run roughshod over civility. It's beyond words to me that such absolutely dejectable, hostile, negative, piss-off-and-die fucking-you attitude as you present is allowed to ride so high & mighty, that we believe that tension & disagreement, that some occasional fuckery means all those fuckers can all just fuck off and die. This is never going to beget a rising up, a better society. It will lead only to tension. And it's built in, at the deepest technical layers: an increased amplification of tension & pissery. It is cancel culture. And it's amplified enormously by technical systems which don't have options like digital juries, don't have options for justice to be enacted, which afford only digital death to the other. Fuck this times a million. This is callous bullshit we exist in, and the enormousness of people being bad online isn't some weak-kneed shit ass justification for being bastards to one another like you claim: it's part of the fucking problem, and it is cancel culture. 100%. Saying that the fucker deserved it, that there's so many fuckers about, doesn't make it less so. We do need defense. But fucking a!!! Not like this.
- volkk 5y ago
  somewhere underneath all of this vulgarity, i see your point and it's quite interesting. really wonder whether the whole "block" attitude is actually detrimental. never really thought about it that way, and have always imagined it is the only way to "be" on the internet. but maybe something better exists, but nobody imaginative or powerful enough has yet uncovered it. thanks for your POV.
  - Psychlist 5y ago
    Some forums used to have a "block for a while" option, usually hours or days. But that dropped out of fashion for reasons I am not sure of - I suspect most users discovered that actually it was just annoying to repeatedly re-block the same people. Stross blog has a user known as "the seagull" who creates new accounts frequently and spams vulgarity daily. She knows Stross personally and apparently he has decreed that she is allowed to do that. So a lot of his readers install plugins to suppress her comments... and have to regularly block new accounts that she creates (she has a very distinctive posting style)
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. Even if they were, they aren't inherently infinite or remorseless; they aren't permanent and irrevocable. (And, on some platforms, they aren't even total when in place.) And, as most algorithms require a certain level of positive engagement to retain the baseline visibility even of something you aren't actively following, most platforms have at least one more, less extreme, negative signal—don’t positively engage with the content you don't like.
- imiric 5y ago
  Humans never had the capacity to communicate via text with hundreds and thousands of other humans until very recently. We're just not wired to take in random thoughts from inanimate blinking lights. This is partly why social media is such a shit show, where civil discussion is next to impossible, and platforms are ripe for abuse by anyone who wishes to influence how entire segments of society think and act. So, no, blocking accounts is not only acceptable, but the only line of defense for someone who still wishes to engage in honest discourse on those platforms.
- ninkendo 5y ago
  I would recommend deleting your twitter account. In all sincerity it seems to be having a negative effect on your mental health.
- throwaway2331 5y ago
  Buddy, you're missing the forest for the trees. This is not technology thoughtlessly trampling over human dignity; this is human nature expressing itself within a certain environment. This is me realizing I cannot suckle off the financial teet of my parents and the state; and I actually must go out, make money, and keep my "work life" balance in-check -- because I'm a bag of meat with a reward-behavior system that needs certain things to remain functioning. Online discussion is where I get my "fix." It's one source of stimulation that keeps me functioning at my best, and prevents me from degrading into a certain state of being that my biology considers "not good" -- one where I cannot meet the goals my entire mind and body have decided are "to be done." I'm not some nobleman's son living in utter luxury and leisure. I do not have the resources available to live in an "ideal" world where I can spend my time worrying about the ultimate repercussions of blocking someone. I live in the "real" world, where I have to manage the repercussions of my own actions against my goals, and take into account how seriously engaging some nitwit on an online shit-flinging message board is going to affect my goals, and therefore my feelings and behaviors. One could make an argument here that material inequality (and its great disparity between the two ends) has lead us to such a state of affairs; and that man's greatest faults are caused by his greatest sufferings: a system that breaks him down, and grinds away at this soul, preventing him from living a life predicated on ideals, and some greater cultural values. But to disparage the tools which man made to try and adapt to the circumstances of his environment is silly. I could choose to become a hermit, and live a life of anarchist pacifism, in order to live an exemplified life of idealism; but I don't want to.
  - rektide 5y ago
    - throwaway2331 5y ago
      Your characterization of my self, my views, and my soul are correct. I am a disintegrated man -- lacking any boundary or inkling of personality. I do not have any sense of ego, or self. I do not feel anything. I am an animal; a beast that cares for nothing more than primal urges. My caricature of "the way things are" is only bleak, fatalistic, and sad if you allow it to be. I don't consider it to be any of those things. I've watched people of all sorts go about life. I've seen the decisions they make, the things they've said, and the consequences of all their actions. My base inclinations were towards optimistic naivete. After watching humanity, I believe it's foolish to go down that line of being. People are self-interested, and their self-interests do not stray further than "feel good, don't feel bad." Any higher cause, nobility, or substance within people is a mirage: a collection of ideas that only exist in your head, and are forced into "shape" by your mind looking for patterns. If you strip away the doe-eyed idealism, the youthful fervor that preaches life, and all the human emotion from your words: there is nothing there. You have strung along a very pleasing-to-the-eye harangue (I do like your style. I could read it for days); but it's carried only by your emotion, and not by innate observations or intuitions that stand up on their own two feet. I do not disagree with anything you've written. I agree with all of it -- except your sense of possibility and your still clinging to emotion. You are someone whose temperament is full of emotion. It drives you, colors your world, and dictates how you act. It also means you're more likely to gravitate towards the things and thoughts that make you feel good (humanistic, life-affirming, etc.) and away from the the things and thoughts that make you feel bad (pathetic, unimaginative, all that is shit). This gives you much greater power for feats of will and sustained stamina. But this leaves you towards and action bias, and the world becomes painted with your emotions. My temperament is naturally cool. I'm not driven by much, but rational understanding of the things I must do to keep my homeostasis -- my health, my soundness of mind, and so on. I do not gravitate to things, nor am I repelled from things. Things don't make me feel much, and I do not color them. They appear to me as they are: without assigned incorporeal qualities, and simply as they exist. Knowing this, I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance, emotional disturbances, or other blockages and ailments of the mind. If something is truly fait-accompli, then I tacitly accept it. People are driven by self-interest. They are driven by their emotions, those little daemons that have them fritter about, trying to make sense of everything. Your thoughts and feelings are no different. You are a critter, chittering on and on, trying to make sense of the world, and orient yourself. Why? Because you feel like you must -- that is your temperament; you're "holding on" to your emotions, still seeing them as some source of truth -- that they must be satisfied, else (it feels) something terrible will happen. I have experienced different. I have found a tranquility of soul and mind, by letting go. My emotions are simply biological products of my nervous system -- nothing more. If I don't humor them, they will go away. If I humor them, I most likely drift into the realm of "spiritual violence" against others, trying to influence and touch their souls (as you have here). The way I view the world does not make me feel anything. I accept the world as it is. I also accept that any "action" I try and take will simply be for the benefit of my emotional state (and not actually result in anything but a temporary shifting of the pressure from one area of society to another -- which will inevitably rebound). Yet, I am at peace. Can you say the same?

rektide 5y ago

It's pathetic beyond words that there's no other moderation systems available. To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. This is a technical fault, heartlessness is built in by design. It's remarkable how callouslness & cruelty, how "fuck these people why should i give them any slack" options like you present run roughshod over civility. It's beyond words to me that such absolutely dejectable, hostile, negative, piss-off-and-die fucking-you attitude as you present is allowed to ride so high & mighty, that we believe that tension & disagreement, that some occasional fuckery means all those fuckers can all just fuck off and die. This is never going to beget a rising up, a better society. It will lead only to tension. And it's built in, at the deepest technical layers: an increased amplification of tension & pissery. It is cancel culture. And it's amplified enormously by technical systems which don't have options like digital juries, don't have options for justice to be enacted, which afford only digital death to the other. Fuck this times a million. This is callous bullshit we exist in, and the enormousness of people being bad online isn't some weak-kneed shit ass justification for being bastards to one another like you claim: it's part of the fucking problem, and it is cancel culture. 100%. Saying that the fucker deserved it, that there's so many fuckers about, doesn't make it less so. We do need defense. But fucking a!!! Not like this.

volkk 5y ago
somewhere underneath all of this vulgarity, i see your point and it's quite interesting. really wonder whether the whole "block" attitude is actually detrimental. never really thought about it that way, and have always imagined it is the only way to "be" on the internet. but maybe something better exists, but nobody imaginative or powerful enough has yet uncovered it. thanks for your POV.
- Psychlist 5y ago
  Some forums used to have a "block for a while" option, usually hours or days. But that dropped out of fashion for reasons I am not sure of - I suspect most users discovered that actually it was just annoying to repeatedly re-block the same people. Stross blog has a user known as "the seagull" who creates new accounts frequently and spams vulgarity daily. She knows Stross personally and apparently he has decreed that she is allowed to do that. So a lot of his readers install plugins to suppress her comments... and have to regularly block new accounts that she creates (she has a very distinctive posting style)
dragonwriter 5y ago
> To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. Even if they were, they aren't inherently infinite or remorseless; they aren't permanent and irrevocable. (And, on some platforms, they aren't even total when in place.) And, as most algorithms require a certain level of positive engagement to retain the baseline visibility even of something you aren't actively following, most platforms have at least one more, less extreme, negative signal—don’t positively engage with the content you don't like.
imiric 5y ago
Humans never had the capacity to communicate via text with hundreds and thousands of other humans until very recently. We're just not wired to take in random thoughts from inanimate blinking lights. This is partly why social media is such a shit show, where civil discussion is next to impossible, and platforms are ripe for abuse by anyone who wishes to influence how entire segments of society think and act. So, no, blocking accounts is not only acceptable, but the only line of defense for someone who still wishes to engage in honest discourse on those platforms.
ninkendo 5y ago
I would recommend deleting your twitter account. In all sincerity it seems to be having a negative effect on your mental health.
throwaway2331 5y ago
Buddy, you're missing the forest for the trees. This is not technology thoughtlessly trampling over human dignity; this is human nature expressing itself within a certain environment. This is me realizing I cannot suckle off the financial teet of my parents and the state; and I actually must go out, make money, and keep my "work life" balance in-check -- because I'm a bag of meat with a reward-behavior system that needs certain things to remain functioning. Online discussion is where I get my "fix." It's one source of stimulation that keeps me functioning at my best, and prevents me from degrading into a certain state of being that my biology considers "not good" -- one where I cannot meet the goals my entire mind and body have decided are "to be done." I'm not some nobleman's son living in utter luxury and leisure. I do not have the resources available to live in an "ideal" world where I can spend my time worrying about the ultimate repercussions of blocking someone. I live in the "real" world, where I have to manage the repercussions of my own actions against my goals, and take into account how seriously engaging some nitwit on an online shit-flinging message board is going to affect my goals, and therefore my feelings and behaviors. One could make an argument here that material inequality (and its great disparity between the two ends) has lead us to such a state of affairs; and that man's greatest faults are caused by his greatest sufferings: a system that breaks him down, and grinds away at this soul, preventing him from living a life predicated on ideals, and some greater cultural values. But to disparage the tools which man made to try and adapt to the circumstances of his environment is silly. I could choose to become a hermit, and live a life of anarchist pacifism, in order to live an exemplified life of idealism; but I don't want to.
- rektide 5y ago
  - throwaway2331 5y ago
    Your characterization of my self, my views, and my soul are correct. I am a disintegrated man -- lacking any boundary or inkling of personality. I do not have any sense of ego, or self. I do not feel anything. I am an animal; a beast that cares for nothing more than primal urges. My caricature of "the way things are" is only bleak, fatalistic, and sad if you allow it to be. I don't consider it to be any of those things. I've watched people of all sorts go about life. I've seen the decisions they make, the things they've said, and the consequences of all their actions. My base inclinations were towards optimistic naivete. After watching humanity, I believe it's foolish to go down that line of being. People are self-interested, and their self-interests do not stray further than "feel good, don't feel bad." Any higher cause, nobility, or substance within people is a mirage: a collection of ideas that only exist in your head, and are forced into "shape" by your mind looking for patterns. If you strip away the doe-eyed idealism, the youthful fervor that preaches life, and all the human emotion from your words: there is nothing there. You have strung along a very pleasing-to-the-eye harangue (I do like your style. I could read it for days); but it's carried only by your emotion, and not by innate observations or intuitions that stand up on their own two feet. I do not disagree with anything you've written. I agree with all of it -- except your sense of possibility and your still clinging to emotion. You are someone whose temperament is full of emotion. It drives you, colors your world, and dictates how you act. It also means you're more likely to gravitate towards the things and thoughts that make you feel good (humanistic, life-affirming, etc.) and away from the the things and thoughts that make you feel bad (pathetic, unimaginative, all that is shit). This gives you much greater power for feats of will and sustained stamina. But this leaves you towards and action bias, and the world becomes painted with your emotions. My temperament is naturally cool. I'm not driven by much, but rational understanding of the things I must do to keep my homeostasis -- my health, my soundness of mind, and so on. I do not gravitate to things, nor am I repelled from things. Things don't make me feel much, and I do not color them. They appear to me as they are: without assigned incorporeal qualities, and simply as they exist. Knowing this, I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance, emotional disturbances, or other blockages and ailments of the mind. If something is truly fait-accompli, then I tacitly accept it. People are driven by self-interest. They are driven by their emotions, those little daemons that have them fritter about, trying to make sense of everything. Your thoughts and feelings are no different. You are a critter, chittering on and on, trying to make sense of the world, and orient yourself. Why? Because you feel like you must -- that is your temperament; you're "holding on" to your emotions, still seeing them as some source of truth -- that they must be satisfied, else (it feels) something terrible will happen. I have experienced different. I have found a tranquility of soul and mind, by letting go. My emotions are simply biological products of my nervous system -- nothing more. If I don't humor them, they will go away. If I humor them, I most likely drift into the realm of "spiritual violence" against others, trying to influence and touch their souls (as you have here). The way I view the world does not make me feel anything. I accept the world as it is. I also accept that any "action" I try and take will simply be for the benefit of my emotional state (and not actually result in anything but a temporary shifting of the pressure from one area of society to another -- which will inevitably rebound). Yet, I am at peace. Can you say the same?