4 ms·

Loud Twitter voices are hardly "neighbors". What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next t

Loud Twitter voices are hardly "neighbors". What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next to it in a hood and robe? You might think I'm being alarmist, but for a lot of people that use these tools this is what they are blocking from their timeline - hatred, anger, and vitriol to the very fibre of their being and existence. What to you is a dialogue, and democratic expression of freedom of speech, is to another person a threat on their very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not every position is worth engaging in "dialogue" about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance P.S. We're not talking about "harassment" here by the way - not the way you think it is - where you could report someone to Twitter, or any authorities. We're talking about politicians, celebrities, and news media with an audience who can abstractly debate someone's right to existence or happiness without overtly attacking any one specific person.

eftychis 5y ago
> What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next to it in a hood and robe? Jokingly: Then I would want to know that to get them to fix the rest of my lawn. (Seriously: I would definitely prefer to know who might want to stab me in the back or face: keep your enemies close. I prefer life that ignorance; keeps you alive longer.) I 10^10% agree with you about the paradox of tolerance; my 2c is that mass banning ends up causing more damage. Please read below. > What to you is a dialogue, and democratic expression of freedom of speech, is to another person a threat on their very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, history has shown that not listening to dissenting opinions damages a society by forcing the dissenters to clique together leading to more extreme views and peer pressuring rational out of the window. Essentially, if you want to stay apart of the community and you want as they are the only that listened you on A, you have to agree on B and C. That is what keeps e.g. flat earthers or e.g. political extremist movements alive and growing. You just force them underground and trying harder and in violent ways to be heard. Showing that you are ignoring some opinion can be more powerful tool, as you are broadcasting a message. (Of course you could try to de-escalate actively, but that is a whole science and needs energy.) To sum up, the biggest disservice to yourself only is simply escalating on the anger that is now hidden away from you. #harassment: I understand that is why I added the per case clause. P.S. We are a large world and by the pigeonhole principle we are going to disagree on some stuff. Also we have a pretty pretty bleak historical record, that makes twitter trolling and bullying sound like paradise.

eftychis 5y ago

> What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next to it in a hood and robe? Jokingly: Then I would want to know that to get them to fix the rest of my lawn. (Seriously: I would definitely prefer to know who might want to stab me in the back or face: keep your enemies close. I prefer life that ignorance; keeps you alive longer.) I 10^10% agree with you about the paradox of tolerance; my 2c is that mass banning ends up causing more damage. Please read below. > What to you is a dialogue, and democratic expression of freedom of speech, is to another person a threat on their very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, history has shown that not listening to dissenting opinions damages a society by forcing the dissenters to clique together leading to more extreme views and peer pressuring rational out of the window. Essentially, if you want to stay apart of the community and you want as they are the only that listened you on A, you have to agree on B and C. That is what keeps e.g. flat earthers or e.g. political extremist movements alive and growing. You just force them underground and trying harder and in violent ways to be heard. Showing that you are ignoring some opinion can be more powerful tool, as you are broadcasting a message. (Of course you could try to de-escalate actively, but that is a whole science and needs energy.) To sum up, the biggest disservice to yourself only is simply escalating on the anger that is now hidden away from you. #harassment: I understand that is why I added the per case clause. P.S. We are a large world and by the pigeonhole principle we are going to disagree on some stuff. Also we have a pretty pretty bleak historical record, that makes twitter trolling and bullying sound like paradise.