8 ms·

I don't think I agree with the principle of, if you can ignore the hate speech it's actually a pretty egalitarian place. Like you say, it's not egalitarian tow

by jlebar 3y ago

I don't think I agree with the principle of, if you can ignore the hate speech it's actually a pretty egalitarian place. Like you say, it's not egalitarian towards those who don't have an easy time ignoring the hate speech. And, okay, in principle if the strength of one's stomach for hate speech was randomly distributed to humans with no correlation to anything else, maybe that would not disqualify it as egalitarian. But it's not. People who face discrimination and hate speech IRL will, on average, surely have less tolerance for it online than people who don't. I have to believe that women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and so on, feel much less welcome on a place like 4chan. They've already spent their "ignoring hate speech points" ignoring someone harassing them on the subway. So whatever it's virtues -- and I'm willing to believe you there are some -- I don't think that a place with this much toxicity can rightly be called egalitarian.

hn_thrwn 3y ago
[flagged]
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Why don't you test your theory by walking up to some people and calling them slurs. See if they all shrug it off because at least you're not a cop shooting them.
  - theelous3 3y ago
    That would fall outside the bounds of words on a screen, written indiscriminately.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      It was a claim about hate speech and not "words on a screen." But you could try texting people you know if you think that dimension is important.
  - hn_thrwn 3y ago
    Sure you just need to dress up as a cop and shoot them for the control group.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Except when the people hurling racial abuse are just winding themselves up to committing a murder[1]. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/us/ajike-owens-shooting-death-neighbor-florida-friday/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/us/ajike-owens-shooting-d...
  - hn_thrwn 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - XorNot 3y ago
      You mean another example of someone hurling abuse where it turns out they were not harmless and in fact fully intended to escalate? i.e literally the exact same thing
      - hn_thrwn 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    So let's do Minority Report and ban the things leading up to the crimes! That's totally affordable to a free society, right?
bobsmooth 3y ago
>People who face discrimination and hate speech IRL will, on average, surely have less tolerance for it online than people who don't. Or maybe its the opposite, because we know words on a screen are not violence. 4chan is egalitarian in that everyone is an n-word, everyone is an r-word and anonymity means we are all the same. There's a reason unnecessary tripcodes are frowned upon.
- ace7777 3y ago
  4chan is what I associate with early 2000s internet. It hasn't changed. The only evolution being having newer, more popular insults, like autist, i guess. We all called each other various slurs back then and the only reason you'd get mad or emotional over it is because you hadn't been on the internet for long enough. Or if you're getting rekt in a video game and they're rubbing it in, i guess. The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic. Strip away the identity behind a post and only the content remains. And that's why it works. It shuts down behaviours looking to cultivate a persona, which is bad for engagement, but good for content.
  - mtrower 3y ago
    > The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic. This. I'm not exactly making an argument that slurs increase genuineness, but forcefully stripping them away definitely does not decrease toxicity. Nobody is suddenly a nicer person just because they can't call you a ***. They just find another way to be an asshole, and maybe work a little extra-hard while they're at it. In some ways it seems to make the waters more difficult to navigate. You try to engage with people in earnest and get subtly accused of all sorts of bs. Sometimes it's easier if someone just drops a few choice expletives at you and you both just move on with life.
somedude895 3y ago
> I don't think that a place with this much toxicity can rightly be called egalitarian. You don't make a village by welcoming anyone and everyone. An egalitarian country with strict immigration laws and rampant racism towards foreigners is still egalitarian within its own populace. Likewise, simply because people who disagree with 4chan's abrasive culture don't feel welcome there doesn't make it any less egalitarian within itself.
- Lutger 3y ago
  What does 'egalitarian within itself' mean for an online community where everybody can join? How do you get to have 'rights and opportunities' and how to you keep 'the others' out?
  - somedude895 3y ago
    Egalitarian in the sense that nobody is untouchable and everybody gets shit from everyone else. Rights and opportunities are built into the system by anonymity, minimal moderation and the resulting lack of power structure. Others are kept out by self-selection.
NoRelToEmber 3y ago
[flagged]
- vsnf 3y ago
  Don't be combative. It's an American website, created with Americans in mind, with conversation conducted almost entirely in (American) English. Yes it happens to be owned by a Japanese national now, but that fact doesn't seem to have altered the culture or the discourse much. The minorities in question are clearly minorities to the US, and to a lesser extent minorities to the broader Anglo/English-speaking-Eurosphere.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    If we're arbitrarily limiting scope to just America, why stop there? Let's drill down further, and say HN is aimed at California, which is only 34% white [1]. Does that get them the coveted minority status? I don't see why the only perspective allowed should be one that maximizes apparent white privilege, especially since in other contexts, Eurocentrism is something that is decried. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Racial/ethnic_makeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Rac...
    - torginus 3y ago
      Most internet websites, such as HN only require an email address to register, beyond that they are totally anonymous and indifferent to the country of origin, religion, gender etc. of their poster. The only hard requirement is that you need to speak English somewhat well, and be interested/willing to join in the discussion (of typically nerdy topics). I'm not sure what are the actual demographics of HN, but I'd be curious to see what is the actual national makeup of people who post here. Probably more info isn't really possible to collect considering the limited data the site has to work with.
    - piaste 3y ago
      > Does that get them the coveted minority status? You may have noticed that, over the past few years, the term "minority" has been increasingly often accompanied by qualifications such as "underprivileged", "marginalised", "underrepresented", and I've recently seen "underestimated" popping up as well. I do not think that is a coincidence, especially since how the qualifiers are so exquisitely unfalsifiable. (wer ein Jud' ist, bestimme ich!)
subsistence234 3y ago
[flagged]
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
Usually, egalitarianism is defined by laxity on the axes most used for discrimination, like race. If your race literally matters less than your tolerance of racism (or free expression of other types of hate speech), and what matters more is the quality of your code in /g/ posts, I would say that's "egalitarian". Being absolutely egalitarian is a fantasy. No one does that. The government is not egalitarian on the axis of murdering people. Universities are not egalitarian on the axes of failing all your classes constantly and not being able to pay for them. Workplaces are not egalitarian to open racists or people who post on HN all day instead of getting anything done. There's always some elitism at play, relevant to whatever's being emphasized (being a good student, being a good programmer, being a good worker, etc.). Part of the elitism on 4chan is tolerating horrible cringe banter and opinions. I think that's fair given that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible and mindful of the algorithmic censors to not upset advertisers' spice flow.
- account42 3y ago
  > that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible I strongly disagree - tone policing isn't about being nice but about appearing nice. And lately even that pretense is not required when talking about the right groups.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
I do wonder how much hate speech, especially in the early 4chan years, was a deliberate shield against those _not_ targeted by such speech but still cannot ignore it. Think of white people who would post a "how dare you" rant when they see the n-word or male feminists. It's a way to keep out the moral guardians and cut down on behavior I like to call "dogshitting." Unlike sea-lioning and its "per our previous conversation…" off-topic nature, dogshitters nominally address the parent post… with nitpicks irrelevant to the thread's larger topic.
- yw3410 3y ago
  Really? Would you not think that being anonymous, performative moral actions would be fewer than a social network which was tied to an actual identity? I don't understand why in your example, the point couldn't be made without specifically using crude language. It doesn't seem like that racial slurs would contribute to the threads topic.

by jlebar 3y ago

hn_thrwn 3y ago

[flagged]

emodendroket 3y ago
Why don't you test your theory by walking up to some people and calling them slurs. See if they all shrug it off because at least you're not a cop shooting them.
- theelous3 3y ago
  That would fall outside the bounds of words on a screen, written indiscriminately.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    It was a claim about hate speech and not "words on a screen." But you could try texting people you know if you think that dimension is important.
- hn_thrwn 3y ago
  Sure you just need to dress up as a cop and shoot them for the control group.
XorNot 3y ago
Except when the people hurling racial abuse are just winding themselves up to committing a murder[1]. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/us/ajike-owens-shooting-death-neighbor-florida-friday/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/us/ajike-owens-shooting-d...
- hn_thrwn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - XorNot 3y ago
    You mean another example of someone hurling abuse where it turns out they were not harmless and in fact fully intended to escalate? i.e literally the exact same thing
    - hn_thrwn 3y ago
      [flagged]
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  So let's do Minority Report and ban the things leading up to the crimes! That's totally affordable to a free society, right?

bobsmooth 3y ago

>People who face discrimination and hate speech IRL will, on average, surely have less tolerance for it online than people who don't. Or maybe its the opposite, because we know words on a screen are not violence. 4chan is egalitarian in that everyone is an n-word, everyone is an r-word and anonymity means we are all the same. There's a reason unnecessary tripcodes are frowned upon.

ace7777 3y ago
4chan is what I associate with early 2000s internet. It hasn't changed. The only evolution being having newer, more popular insults, like autist, i guess. We all called each other various slurs back then and the only reason you'd get mad or emotional over it is because you hadn't been on the internet for long enough. Or if you're getting rekt in a video game and they're rubbing it in, i guess. The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic. Strip away the identity behind a post and only the content remains. And that's why it works. It shuts down behaviours looking to cultivate a persona, which is bad for engagement, but good for content.
- mtrower 3y ago
  > The mainstream platforms that have appeared since only brought politically correct faux civility that hid the aggression behind a system of rules that has only made communication less genuine and more toxic. This. I'm not exactly making an argument that slurs increase genuineness, but forcefully stripping them away definitely does not decrease toxicity. Nobody is suddenly a nicer person just because they can't call you a ***. They just find another way to be an asshole, and maybe work a little extra-hard while they're at it. In some ways it seems to make the waters more difficult to navigate. You try to engage with people in earnest and get subtly accused of all sorts of bs. Sometimes it's easier if someone just drops a few choice expletives at you and you both just move on with life.

somedude895 3y ago

> I don't think that a place with this much toxicity can rightly be called egalitarian. You don't make a village by welcoming anyone and everyone. An egalitarian country with strict immigration laws and rampant racism towards foreigners is still egalitarian within its own populace. Likewise, simply because people who disagree with 4chan's abrasive culture don't feel welcome there doesn't make it any less egalitarian within itself.

Lutger 3y ago
What does 'egalitarian within itself' mean for an online community where everybody can join? How do you get to have 'rights and opportunities' and how to you keep 'the others' out?
- somedude895 3y ago
  Egalitarian in the sense that nobody is untouchable and everybody gets shit from everyone else. Rights and opportunities are built into the system by anonymity, minimal moderation and the resulting lack of power structure. Others are kept out by self-selection.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

[flagged]

vsnf 3y ago
Don't be combative. It's an American website, created with Americans in mind, with conversation conducted almost entirely in (American) English. Yes it happens to be owned by a Japanese national now, but that fact doesn't seem to have altered the culture or the discourse much. The minorities in question are clearly minorities to the US, and to a lesser extent minorities to the broader Anglo/English-speaking-Eurosphere.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  If we're arbitrarily limiting scope to just America, why stop there? Let's drill down further, and say HN is aimed at California, which is only 34% white [1]. Does that get them the coveted minority status? I don't see why the only perspective allowed should be one that maximizes apparent white privilege, especially since in other contexts, Eurocentrism is something that is decried. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Racial/ethnic_makeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Rac...
  - torginus 3y ago
    Most internet websites, such as HN only require an email address to register, beyond that they are totally anonymous and indifferent to the country of origin, religion, gender etc. of their poster. The only hard requirement is that you need to speak English somewhat well, and be interested/willing to join in the discussion (of typically nerdy topics). I'm not sure what are the actual demographics of HN, but I'd be curious to see what is the actual national makeup of people who post here. Probably more info isn't really possible to collect considering the limited data the site has to work with.
  - piaste 3y ago
    > Does that get them the coveted minority status? You may have noticed that, over the past few years, the term "minority" has been increasingly often accompanied by qualifications such as "underprivileged", "marginalised", "underrepresented", and I've recently seen "underestimated" popping up as well. I do not think that is a coincidence, especially since how the qualifiers are so exquisitely unfalsifiable. (wer ein Jud' ist, bestimme ich!)

subsistence234 3y ago

[flagged]

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

Usually, egalitarianism is defined by laxity on the axes most used for discrimination, like race. If your race literally matters less than your tolerance of racism (or free expression of other types of hate speech), and what matters more is the quality of your code in /g/ posts, I would say that's "egalitarian". Being absolutely egalitarian is a fantasy. No one does that. The government is not egalitarian on the axis of murdering people. Universities are not egalitarian on the axes of failing all your classes constantly and not being able to pay for them. Workplaces are not egalitarian to open racists or people who post on HN all day instead of getting anything done. There's always some elitism at play, relevant to whatever's being emphasized (being a good student, being a good programmer, being a good worker, etc.). Part of the elitism on 4chan is tolerating horrible cringe banter and opinions. I think that's fair given that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible and mindful of the algorithmic censors to not upset advertisers' spice flow.

account42 3y ago
> that the rest of the Internet is elitist on the basis of being as nice as possible I strongly disagree - tone policing isn't about being nice but about appearing nice. And lately even that pretense is not required when talking about the right groups.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

I do wonder how much hate speech, especially in the early 4chan years, was a deliberate shield against those _not_ targeted by such speech but still cannot ignore it. Think of white people who would post a "how dare you" rant when they see the n-word or male feminists. It's a way to keep out the moral guardians and cut down on behavior I like to call "dogshitting." Unlike sea-lioning and its "per our previous conversation…" off-topic nature, dogshitters nominally address the parent post… with nitpicks irrelevant to the thread's larger topic.

yw3410 3y ago
Really? Would you not think that being anonymous, performative moral actions would be fewer than a social network which was tied to an actual identity? I don't understand why in your example, the point couldn't be made without specifically using crude language. It doesn't seem like that racial slurs would contribute to the threads topic.