6 ms·

Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems l

Great post, as usual. Lots of good advice for me. However it makes me sad that she blocked people for defending the author's meaning of "dig". Ignoring seems like a better path. I've often heard grope used in a non-sexual way, as in "groping in the dark" for something. This kind of over-reaction to language is a sore spot for me; like the Stanford language guidelines, telling people not to use the word "field" because it implies slavery. In the same way, she assumes someone defending the word is in favor of sexual assault. This is wrong and harmful, both to others and herself. To others because now they can't follow her posts; to herself because she's cut herself off from people who take the risk to argue something unpopular in good faith. This is how echo chambers form.

NelsonMinar 3y ago
Of all the good advice you say you read, why do you dwell on this one thing you don't like?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
justin_oaks 3y ago
What you say makes a lot of sense. It would do us all well to seek to ask more questions and seek to understand before reaching for the block button. On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We don't have to assume EVERYONE is innocent, especially if they're mixed in a crowd of hecklers. Each person has the option of using the block functionality as an automatic way to ignore sets of people, even if it catches the innocent.
- javajosh 3y ago
  >I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Nor would I. But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism. It concerns me how easily we ostracize, how it cheapens people. This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? She's human, just like everyone else. It matters precisely because of "internet fame": you become an incessant target. Anonymous randos love to take down people who are more famous than them. From the article: "I realize this section makes me sound like a Perfectly Logical Person who does not get upset by negative public criticism, I promise this is not at all the case and I have 100000 feelings about everything that happens on the internet and get upset all the time." > But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it. I guarantee it doesn't. In my long experience of blocking people on social media, I can't recall the blocked person ever being sad or repentant. They're mostly self-righteous or vindictive.
    - javajosh 3y ago
      >I can't recall the blocked person ever being sad or repentant. How would you know?
      - lapcat 3y ago
        There are ways of knowing. ;-) Technically, a block mostly just prevents an account from replying to you again — which is the primary goal when someone writes a nasty or annoying reply — but there are various ways of seeing another account's posts, such as private windows. And if it's not a mutual block, it may be even easier.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    Julian Evans isn't obligated to welcome people who wish her harm or want to make her life worse by arguing in bad faith. No one is obligated to welcome people who treat them poorly. I don't care if someone is hurt by my blocking them if they shout slurs at me, for example, and I don't think I should be morally obligated to consider if someone had their feelings hurt by ostracized for shouting slurs at people.
    - 3y ago
hathchip 3y ago
Julia Evans has written some of the best articles and zines about UNIX/networking and about how to learn technical topics in general. The people she blocked are not arguing in good faith, they are vexatious commenters who have no interest in discussing all the other things she has written about, but just want to pursue a very specific identity politics debate over and over again. Not having those people in the discussion isn't an 'echo chamber', any more than asking a belligerent drunk gatecrasher to leave your birthday party creates an echo chamber. Note that it doesn't matter whether or not these people are factually correct or not about the etymology of 'dig' for this to be the right conclusion for Julia to draw.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andai 3y ago
  >The people she blocked are not arguing in good faith You speak on their behalf?

NelsonMinar 3y ago

Of all the good advice you say you read, why do you dwell on this one thing you don't like?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

justin_oaks 3y ago

What you say makes a lot of sense. It would do us all well to seek to ask more questions and seek to understand before reaching for the block button. On the other hand, we all have limited time and patience for those who are likely arguing in bad faith. I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Even if the others may be arguing in good faith, this isn't a court of law here. We don't have to assume EVERYONE is innocent, especially if they're mixed in a crowd of hecklers. Each person has the option of using the block functionality as an automatic way to ignore sets of people, even if it catches the innocent.

javajosh 3y ago
>I won't fault someone for taking the quick route to defend their time and sanity. Nor would I. But there has to be a better solution than blocking, which is ostracism. It concerns me how easily we ostracize, how it cheapens people. This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > This is especially true for someone internet famous like Julia Evans - she has so many followers, what does it matter to her? She's human, just like everyone else. It matters precisely because of "internet fame": you become an incessant target. Anonymous randos love to take down people who are more famous than them. From the article: "I realize this section makes me sound like a Perfectly Logical Person who does not get upset by negative public criticism, I promise this is not at all the case and I have 100000 feelings about everything that happens on the internet and get upset all the time." > But I guarantee it mattered to the ones she blocked. It probably really hurt them, even if they wouldn't admit it. I guarantee it doesn't. In my long experience of blocking people on social media, I can't recall the blocked person ever being sad or repentant. They're mostly self-righteous or vindictive.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    >I can't recall the blocked person ever being sad or repentant. How would you know?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      There are ways of knowing. ;-) Technically, a block mostly just prevents an account from replying to you again — which is the primary goal when someone writes a nasty or annoying reply — but there are various ways of seeing another account's posts, such as private windows. And if it's not a mutual block, it may be even easier.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  Julian Evans isn't obligated to welcome people who wish her harm or want to make her life worse by arguing in bad faith. No one is obligated to welcome people who treat them poorly. I don't care if someone is hurt by my blocking them if they shout slurs at me, for example, and I don't think I should be morally obligated to consider if someone had their feelings hurt by ostracized for shouting slurs at people.
  - 3y ago

hathchip 3y ago

Julia Evans has written some of the best articles and zines about UNIX/networking and about how to learn technical topics in general. The people she blocked are not arguing in good faith, they are vexatious commenters who have no interest in discussing all the other things she has written about, but just want to pursue a very specific identity politics debate over and over again. Not having those people in the discussion isn't an 'echo chamber', any more than asking a belligerent drunk gatecrasher to leave your birthday party creates an echo chamber. Note that it doesn't matter whether or not these people are factually correct or not about the etymology of 'dig' for this to be the right conclusion for Julia to draw.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andai 3y ago
>The people she blocked are not arguing in good faith You speak on their behalf?