5 ms·

They should change their youtube channel next, to impersonate official google staff and services and see what happens. You know, for lolz and likes.

nullstyle 4y ago
- maxbond 4y ago
  I don't think it's okay to call someone a bootlicker, or to reference their views from one thread in another (especially without reference to something specific they've said, as that essentializes their views). Both of these apply scrutiny to a person rather than to an idea. That results in toxic conversation where no one learns anything and everyone walks away unhappy.
  - nullstyle 4y ago
    Nah, I'd rather say my piece. There isn't anything but toxicity to be had in conversation with someone who unironically takes the position that people changing their screen names to Elon Musk are impersonating him. Those banned are trolling him, plain and simple, and if you comment as though you can't see that, you deserve some judgement and scorn.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      People with infuriating views still deserve respect. That's something Musk doesn't seem to understand. If you express yourself the way you just did, lurkers and people on the fence will read your comment. If you employ thought terminating cliches ("bootlicker") then they'll filter you out as noise.
      - nullstyle 4y ago
        No, people deserve respect in the absence of behavior that earns disrespect.
        maxbond 4y ago
        I disagreed with your behavior, but I engaged with you in an open minded way, and I think our conversation has been productive and respectful. I'd guess you probably feel you deserve that respect (and I'd agree).
    - exodust 4y ago
      > "Those banned are trolling him, plain and simple" And...what's wrong with banning trolls? The nature of trolling isn't about "speech", it's about disruption of the platform that provides the chance for speech. And who uses the term "bootlicker" who isn't juvenile or suffering unknown issues? "You are now about to witness the strength of redditor knowledge..." Awesome, but your comment is a pile of ashes on the ground.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Trolling Musk on Twitter because you do not like his takeover is an act of protest & is patently speech. If I stated commenting on HN as "dang_sucks", and I was banned for it, I'd call it an overreach. You probably shouldn't throw stones about juvenile antics, seeing as you're inside that glass house.
        exodust 4y ago
        Didn't the person in question also use Musk's profile pic? > overreach Do that in any forum on the internet, that is, troll using the Mod's name and profile picture, and see what happens. You might be lucky, but if you called your resulting ban an "overreach", it would be your error of judgement. In this case, the Twitter user clearly was breaking shit on the way out, then celebrated her own antics on the new platform. "Act of protest"? It's generous of you to equate trolling with protesting. Protesting is usually obvious what the protest is. What was hers about? The $8? Musk in general? It wasn't clear. It wasn't a protest. I think her banning is a good thing for Twitter. Impersonate someone, bye bye. They want a trusted platform. I have no skin in this at all. Not American, not a Twitter user, and I object to extreme left and right, but would like to see platforms like reddit and Twitter accommodate all sides. Rather than dwell in the echo chambers they gravitate towards. At least Musk is giving it a shot, if somewhat a messy shot. It's a messy world.
        nullstyle 4y ago
        Musk is in no way "giving it a shot"
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    There is nothing at all wrong with referencing someone's recently posted views on the same subject. It gives more detail to the ideas they are saying.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I think there are times when it's appropriate, but I've only once seen it done in a productive manner (in the context of forum threads). Usually, and in this case specifically, it's just a way to say, "You are an undesirable type of person, so you shouldn't be listened to." Forum posters, by and large, aren't public figures and shouldn't be subjected to personal scrutiny. Their views should be debated in isolation, because we should be discussing ideas and not each other. Otherwise you just get into mud flinging and dissections of hypocrisy, neither of which are informative or productive; it's just toxicity. Sometimes someone is sort of a limited purpose public figure in that forum, and they cause problems across multiple threads with repetitive, disruptive behavior. In that case, the only way to challenge them on it is to call a spade a spade and to show the receipts. But it's a delicate criticism to make which readily devolves into mud flinging.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        This case specifically isn't saying they're undesirable therefore wrong. Do you think it's a coincidence the views cited are on the same topic? The purpose of mentioning other comments here is to fill in a bigger picture of the views they are expressing right now, not to mention anything else about the person. This is not violating the idea of looking at views in isolation. It's only violating the idea of looking at posts in isolation, which is a worse goal. We should want to look at someone's entire view on a specific topic. You may not find that comment productive, and that's fine, but the reference to other posts about their view is not the problem with it.
        maxbond 4y ago
        I think you simply misunderstand the comment. I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be disregarded, or why you don't think "bootlicker" is an undesirable category. Please note that I'm not saying you shouldn't read a comment history. I'm saying, you shouldn't weaponize a comment history. If you examine the sibling thread to this one, I think you'll find that the commenter clarifies that they do, in fact, hold this person's views in contempt. Frankly when I skimmed the comment history in question I did find comments that made me go "yikes!", but that doesn't mean we engage in a no holds barred rhetorical cage match. As I've argued, that does harm to the conversation and community and fails to reach the people who should be reached.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nullstyle 4y ago

maxbond 4y ago
I don't think it's okay to call someone a bootlicker, or to reference their views from one thread in another (especially without reference to something specific they've said, as that essentializes their views). Both of these apply scrutiny to a person rather than to an idea. That results in toxic conversation where no one learns anything and everyone walks away unhappy.
- nullstyle 4y ago
  Nah, I'd rather say my piece. There isn't anything but toxicity to be had in conversation with someone who unironically takes the position that people changing their screen names to Elon Musk are impersonating him. Those banned are trolling him, plain and simple, and if you comment as though you can't see that, you deserve some judgement and scorn.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    People with infuriating views still deserve respect. That's something Musk doesn't seem to understand. If you express yourself the way you just did, lurkers and people on the fence will read your comment. If you employ thought terminating cliches ("bootlicker") then they'll filter you out as noise.
    - nullstyle 4y ago
      No, people deserve respect in the absence of behavior that earns disrespect.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        I disagreed with your behavior, but I engaged with you in an open minded way, and I think our conversation has been productive and respectful. I'd guess you probably feel you deserve that respect (and I'd agree).
  - exodust 4y ago
    > "Those banned are trolling him, plain and simple" And...what's wrong with banning trolls? The nature of trolling isn't about "speech", it's about disruption of the platform that provides the chance for speech. And who uses the term "bootlicker" who isn't juvenile or suffering unknown issues? "You are now about to witness the strength of redditor knowledge..." Awesome, but your comment is a pile of ashes on the ground.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Trolling Musk on Twitter because you do not like his takeover is an act of protest & is patently speech. If I stated commenting on HN as "dang_sucks", and I was banned for it, I'd call it an overreach. You probably shouldn't throw stones about juvenile antics, seeing as you're inside that glass house.
      - exodust 4y ago
        Didn't the person in question also use Musk's profile pic? > overreach Do that in any forum on the internet, that is, troll using the Mod's name and profile picture, and see what happens. You might be lucky, but if you called your resulting ban an "overreach", it would be your error of judgement. In this case, the Twitter user clearly was breaking shit on the way out, then celebrated her own antics on the new platform. "Act of protest"? It's generous of you to equate trolling with protesting. Protesting is usually obvious what the protest is. What was hers about? The $8? Musk in general? It wasn't clear. It wasn't a protest. I think her banning is a good thing for Twitter. Impersonate someone, bye bye. They want a trusted platform. I have no skin in this at all. Not American, not a Twitter user, and I object to extreme left and right, but would like to see platforms like reddit and Twitter accommodate all sides. Rather than dwell in the echo chambers they gravitate towards. At least Musk is giving it a shot, if somewhat a messy shot. It's a messy world.
        nullstyle 4y ago
        Musk is in no way "giving it a shot"
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  There is nothing at all wrong with referencing someone's recently posted views on the same subject. It gives more detail to the ideas they are saying.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I think there are times when it's appropriate, but I've only once seen it done in a productive manner (in the context of forum threads). Usually, and in this case specifically, it's just a way to say, "You are an undesirable type of person, so you shouldn't be listened to." Forum posters, by and large, aren't public figures and shouldn't be subjected to personal scrutiny. Their views should be debated in isolation, because we should be discussing ideas and not each other. Otherwise you just get into mud flinging and dissections of hypocrisy, neither of which are informative or productive; it's just toxicity. Sometimes someone is sort of a limited purpose public figure in that forum, and they cause problems across multiple threads with repetitive, disruptive behavior. In that case, the only way to challenge them on it is to call a spade a spade and to show the receipts. But it's a delicate criticism to make which readily devolves into mud flinging.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      This case specifically isn't saying they're undesirable therefore wrong. Do you think it's a coincidence the views cited are on the same topic? The purpose of mentioning other comments here is to fill in a bigger picture of the views they are expressing right now, not to mention anything else about the person. This is not violating the idea of looking at views in isolation. It's only violating the idea of looking at posts in isolation, which is a worse goal. We should want to look at someone's entire view on a specific topic. You may not find that comment productive, and that's fine, but the reference to other posts about their view is not the problem with it.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        I think you simply misunderstand the comment. I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be disregarded, or why you don't think "bootlicker" is an undesirable category. Please note that I'm not saying you shouldn't read a comment history. I'm saying, you shouldn't weaponize a comment history. If you examine the sibling thread to this one, I think you'll find that the commenter clarifies that they do, in fact, hold this person's views in contempt. Frankly when I skimmed the comment history in question I did find comments that made me go "yikes!", but that doesn't mean we engage in a no holds barred rhetorical cage match. As I've argued, that does harm to the conversation and community and fails to reach the people who should be reached.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]