7 ms·

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their re

by kodah 4y ago

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I just don't want to see. Coincidentally, while I had a conversation with people about the benefits of intersectionality a Robin DiAngelo follower joined. This person masked themselves as "just asking questions" and then proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and subsequent victim position seeking I've ever seen. As much as I'd love to "ostracize" this person and never hear of them again, as much as my day would've been far better without knowing people like this exist, I don't think it's right to ostracize people. That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever.

lzooz 4y ago
>proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and subsequent victim position seeking I read this and I don't know which side of the spectrum this was about :P
- kodah 4y ago
  DiAngelo followers don't generally like intersectionality because their views are incompatible with it.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    How?
    - kodah 4y ago
      DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        phailhaus 4y ago
        This is bottom-of-the-barrel flamebait.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        phailhaus 4y ago
        More flamebait, you should stop. The GOP already used their "groomer panic" card on gay people and failed, so it falls pretty flat today. Some people are trans, get over it.
      - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
        Maybe you're both wrong
      - projektfu 4y ago
        I found "White Fragility" provided an interesting insight into a blind spot in my view of the world but I don't see how her abusive-sounding corporate seminars are supposed to help anything. Even as she described them in the book they sounded disastrous.
christkv 4y ago
Great Chinese social credit system with ever changing goal lines for punishment
giantrobot 4y ago
> That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever. How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? If someone has signed on to some fantastically unrealistic position and made it a part of their personality the only way out is deprogramming. That takes so much effort. It's also not something most people are equipped to handle. It's also not something the general public should be expected to do.
- dinosaurdynasty 4y ago
  Problem is if there are enough of them they end up storming a capitol building
- kodah 4y ago
  > How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? This is probably where our work needs to be, and I agree it's not everyone's burden to undertake. It's taxing and requires a lot of emotional energy that some might not have. My personal experience with people that believed in conspiracies is that with enough normal human contact they eventually adjust. Sometimes there's an underlying issue that leads to conspiratorial thinking; I'm not even necessarily talking about mental health. It could be financial or interpersonal. I'm just saying that the alternative of banishment isn't great. It doesn't dissolve the things we don't want, generally.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > the only way out is deprogramming. The non-propaganda word for this is "convincing."
  - kibwen 4y ago
    As the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
peteradio 4y ago
> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  What’s your uncle like at Thanksgiving?
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.
    - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      I think you underestimate the prevalence of incredulousness in society.
- TheCowboy 4y ago
  NBA player Kyrie Irving has been in the news recently for other comments as well: https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-comments https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-com... Not exactly a nerd.
- kbenson 4y ago
  Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?
  - peteradio 4y ago
    If you can't tell the difference between a troll or a genuine idiot, err on troll. Frankly it's much more flattering for the likely troll.
phailhaus 4y ago
> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so they formed their own communities where they do. There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This is how they spread.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  >They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or had much traction) before massive purges on those platforms
  - wahern 4y ago
    4chan predates all of them. And there were plenty of thriving forums where odd and extreme ideas of all sorts were discussed before 4chan. What mass social media sites like Twitter and Facebook provided was an easier way for the less technologically literate to discover extremist forums (as well as extremist ideas generally) without having to know someone from those circles beforehand. IMO, what happened is that Western culture over the past 60 years became increasingly cynical, including it's intellectual culture (e.g. post-structuralist, deconstructive ideas have come to dominate both the left and the right). So you have a mass of people who simply don't know what to believe, because everything is about "they" coming to get you or oppress you. Anti-corporatism, cultural wars, identity politics etc, etc. Then we take a massive population--educated and uneducated--which has internalized this notion that all "conventional" ideas are inherently suspect, and dumped them into cyberspace. I'm reminded of this quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes, > When the ignorant are taught to doubt they do not know what they safely may believe. And it seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure. Years ago I would have reflexively thought that sentiment oppressively paternalistic. Now not so much, partly because in reflection on my own life I can see how our culture effected how I processed ideas. I've learned (or relearned) to appreciate the fact that simply because Holmes often was oppressively paternalistic does not invalidate the central truths reflected in that sentiment.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not. Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work. It would destroy current social media. And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  This is not really correct. I can create a private group that excludes people who wear purple, because purple wearing is not a protected class under law. I can do the same for people who program in APL, or who have ever ridden a tricycle, or listen to "Freebird". However, I cannot create a private group that excludes on the basis of any protected status (e.g. sex, religion, ethnicity, age).
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Worth noting that this is how you address the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, by enshrining a limited number of rights that even a simple majority cannot revoke, with the goal of protecting the fundamental rights of the minority.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I beg to differ. There are private groups in existence right now, who are excluding protected classes and everyone is perfectly fine with it ( sex ). I don't even have to troll 4chan. They are right there in the open[1] Unless that kind of double standard is ok. [1]https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-girls-only-only-girls https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-gir...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      I will admit to not understanding the scope of the "discrimination" against protected classes that is barred by law. It clearly has some significant extent, but I've never really been able to find a clear description of where the edges are.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
I googled Robin DiAngelo and expected to read about a far-right Jordan Peterson type. Instead I found that she's the person who created the term "white fragility". From her wiki page, I don't see any reason to compare her to a flat earther
- PubliusMI 4y ago
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Peterson is still well within the Overton window, isn't he? He's still very popular (and not banned) on youtube, and would have broadly been considered a social liberal 25 years ago. Or is this me taking "far right" more literally than you meant it? Are you talking merely from your perspective, and not human history and all obscure corners of political thought?
- kodah 4y ago
  She's socially accepted by some groups. If you want to understand why I dislike her book I'd suggest reading it. It's one of those that either makes you a follower or question whether you've traveled into a parallel dimension. Farther up I provide a critique juxtaposed with what I generally follow (intersectionality).
beebmam 4y ago
>That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. What evidence do you have for the causality here? I'm not convinced that's what has fueled the surge of anti-science movements like flatearthism. Please share with us why you are so confident of this assertion!
galaxyLogic 4y ago
> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces I think we must argue against bad and/or crazy ideas. If we don't soon people will attack the Capitol.... A good way to argue against crazy assumptions like flat Earth I think is to realize that while there are only a few consistent thus possibly true physical explanations of the world, there are an infinite number of crazy and untrue and inconsistent explanations. So when someone proposes a crazy idea, we can ask why not these other 10 ideas which are just as crazy as flat Earth? Why not square Earth? Why not Dodecahedron Earth? Why not Triangular Earth? Why not Flat Sun?

by kodah 4y ago

lzooz 4y ago

>proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and subsequent victim position seeking I read this and I don't know which side of the spectrum this was about :P

kodah 4y ago
DiAngelo followers don't generally like intersectionality because their views are incompatible with it.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  How?
  - kodah 4y ago
    DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      - phailhaus 4y ago
        This is bottom-of-the-barrel flamebait.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        phailhaus 4y ago
        More flamebait, you should stop. The GOP already used their "groomer panic" card on gay people and failed, so it falls pretty flat today. Some people are trans, get over it.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
      Maybe you're both wrong
    - projektfu 4y ago
      I found "White Fragility" provided an interesting insight into a blind spot in my view of the world but I don't see how her abusive-sounding corporate seminars are supposed to help anything. Even as she described them in the book they sounded disastrous.

christkv 4y ago

Great Chinese social credit system with ever changing goal lines for punishment

giantrobot 4y ago

> That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever. How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? If someone has signed on to some fantastically unrealistic position and made it a part of their personality the only way out is deprogramming. That takes so much effort. It's also not something most people are equipped to handle. It's also not something the general public should be expected to do.

dinosaurdynasty 4y ago
Problem is if there are enough of them they end up storming a capitol building
kodah 4y ago
> How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? This is probably where our work needs to be, and I agree it's not everyone's burden to undertake. It's taxing and requires a lot of emotional energy that some might not have. My personal experience with people that believed in conspiracies is that with enough normal human contact they eventually adjust. Sometimes there's an underlying issue that leads to conspiratorial thinking; I'm not even necessarily talking about mental health. It could be financial or interpersonal. I'm just saying that the alternative of banishment isn't great. It doesn't dissolve the things we don't want, generally.
pessimizer 4y ago
> the only way out is deprogramming. The non-propaganda word for this is "convincing."
- kibwen 4y ago
  As the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.
- giantrobot 4y ago

peteradio 4y ago

> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
What’s your uncle like at Thanksgiving?
- peteradio 4y ago
  Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    I think you underestimate the prevalence of incredulousness in society.
TheCowboy 4y ago
NBA player Kyrie Irving has been in the news recently for other comments as well: https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-comments https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-com... Not exactly a nerd.
kbenson 4y ago
Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?
- peteradio 4y ago
  If you can't tell the difference between a troll or a genuine idiot, err on troll. Frankly it's much more flattering for the likely troll.

phailhaus 4y ago

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so they formed their own communities where they do. There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This is how they spread.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
>They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or had much traction) before massive purges on those platforms
- wahern 4y ago
  4chan predates all of them. And there were plenty of thriving forums where odd and extreme ideas of all sorts were discussed before 4chan. What mass social media sites like Twitter and Facebook provided was an easier way for the less technologically literate to discover extremist forums (as well as extremist ideas generally) without having to know someone from those circles beforehand. IMO, what happened is that Western culture over the past 60 years became increasingly cynical, including it's intellectual culture (e.g. post-structuralist, deconstructive ideas have come to dominate both the left and the right). So you have a mass of people who simply don't know what to believe, because everything is about "they" coming to get you or oppress you. Anti-corporatism, cultural wars, identity politics etc, etc. Then we take a massive population--educated and uneducated--which has internalized this notion that all "conventional" ideas are inherently suspect, and dumped them into cyberspace. I'm reminded of this quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes, > When the ignorant are taught to doubt they do not know what they safely may believe. And it seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure. Years ago I would have reflexively thought that sentiment oppressively paternalistic. Now not so much, partly because in reflection on my own life I can see how our culture effected how I processed ideas. I've learned (or relearned) to appreciate the fact that simply because Holmes often was oppressively paternalistic does not invalidate the central truths reflected in that sentiment.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not. Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work. It would destroy current social media. And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This is not really correct. I can create a private group that excludes people who wear purple, because purple wearing is not a protected class under law. I can do the same for people who program in APL, or who have ever ridden a tricycle, or listen to "Freebird". However, I cannot create a private group that excludes on the basis of any protected status (e.g. sex, religion, ethnicity, age).
- kibwen 4y ago
  Worth noting that this is how you address the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, by enshrining a limited number of rights that even a simple majority cannot revoke, with the goal of protecting the fundamental rights of the minority.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I beg to differ. There are private groups in existence right now, who are excluding protected classes and everyone is perfectly fine with it ( sex ). I don't even have to troll 4chan. They are right there in the open[1] Unless that kind of double standard is ok. [1]https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-girls-only-only-girls https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-gir...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    I will admit to not understanding the scope of the "discrimination" against protected classes that is barred by law. It clearly has some significant extent, but I've never really been able to find a clear description of where the edges are.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago

I googled Robin DiAngelo and expected to read about a far-right Jordan Peterson type. Instead I found that she's the person who created the term "white fragility". From her wiki page, I don't see any reason to compare her to a flat earther

PubliusMI 4y ago
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Peterson is still well within the Overton window, isn't he? He's still very popular (and not banned) on youtube, and would have broadly been considered a social liberal 25 years ago. Or is this me taking "far right" more literally than you meant it? Are you talking merely from your perspective, and not human history and all obscure corners of political thought?
kodah 4y ago
She's socially accepted by some groups. If you want to understand why I dislike her book I'd suggest reading it. It's one of those that either makes you a follower or question whether you've traveled into a parallel dimension. Farther up I provide a critique juxtaposed with what I generally follow (intersectionality).

beebmam 4y ago

>That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. What evidence do you have for the causality here? I'm not convinced that's what has fueled the surge of anti-science movements like flatearthism. Please share with us why you are so confident of this assertion!

galaxyLogic 4y ago

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces I think we must argue against bad and/or crazy ideas. If we don't soon people will attack the Capitol.... A good way to argue against crazy assumptions like flat Earth I think is to realize that while there are only a few consistent thus possibly true physical explanations of the world, there are an infinite number of crazy and untrue and inconsistent explanations. So when someone proposes a crazy idea, we can ask why not these other 10 ideas which are just as crazy as flat Earth? Why not square Earth? Why not Dodecahedron Earth? Why not Triangular Earth? Why not Flat Sun?