4 ms·

This, I can't disagree with. But moralistically I'm still at odds with the coddling.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.
dpark 5y ago
Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  > Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.
  - dpark 5y ago
    > other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Yeah, because arguing with loud racists is a good use of time.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    It's probably worth noting that arguments on the Internet don't show majority and minority opinion. If anything, they might proxy to the opinions espoused by those with the most free time to argue on the Internet. It is, hypothetically, possible that one will find fringe opinions there more often because those on the fringe tend to be detached from other uses of time (i.e. if you're unemployed, you have a lot of time to argue with strangers online, for example).

Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.

dpark 5y ago

Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
> Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.
- dpark 5y ago
  > other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Yeah, because arguing with loud racists is a good use of time.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's probably worth noting that arguments on the Internet don't show majority and minority opinion. If anything, they might proxy to the opinions espoused by those with the most free time to argue on the Internet. It is, hypothetically, possible that one will find fringe opinions there more often because those on the fringe tend to be detached from other uses of time (i.e. if you're unemployed, you have a lot of time to argue with strangers online, for example).