3 ms·

There’s that combativeness again.

grayhatter 2y ago
I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling. I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you responded to. If you think he's being combative, I'd hope you'd defuse it with redirection, instead of overt hostility. Especially if one of the issues you care about is how harmful proana, anorexia, S/SH and adjacent issues are, I'd assume you knew you need to start with compassion and understanding.
- jackvalentine 2y ago
  He’s not concern trolling he’s just being contrary with the inputs because he fundamentally disagrees with law that is the topic here. First, question the existence of EVERYTHING in a bad faith way. I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’ rather than I dunno, googling it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
nomilk 2y ago
No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”. If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.
- adolph 2y ago
  > challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach I would bet ignoring dubious claims is the default. Challenging and questioning any claims is a better default but I don’t think it is a common default reaction by many people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jackvalentine 2y ago
  Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist? I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Traditionally the method is there are some things that people just assume exist and for things outside that circle they require some smidgen of evidence to believe in. It is a bit like me saying I believe there are people in the Arctic (never really seen evidence of it, but seems reasonable) vs. pixies (if I'm being asked to believe in pixies, I'd like to see some evidence). The idea that there are sites promoting eating disorders does seem to me plausible by default, but nomilk does allude to a good point that without examples it is hard to talk about harms. These sites, if they exist, might be quite difficult to find without going and looking for them. I don't remember ever seeing a hint of such a site.
  - benj111 2y ago
    I suppose the difference for me is I've not seen any examples of Child sexual abuse online. Its obviously a bad thing, so steps taken to prevent that directly are a good thing. When you start restricting everyone, in order to stop that harm, then you need to start quantifying risks. This isn't arresting murderers, this is restricting the sale of rope that murderers might use on their victims. or to get more specific. this isn't banning clubs where murderers can get together. this is imposing checks on all clubs to make sure there aren't any murderers in them. If it reasonable for the boy scouts to do checks on their members to make sure that a few of them aren't planning a murder? should the boy scouts be responsible if a few boys do go and murder someone? a murder that was planned in the scout hut?

I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling. I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you responded to. If you think he's being combative, I'd hope you'd defuse it with redirection, instead of overt hostility. Especially if one of the issues you care about is how harmful proana, anorexia, S/SH and adjacent issues are, I'd assume you knew you need to start with compassion and understanding.

jackvalentine 2y ago
He’s not concern trolling he’s just being contrary with the inputs because he fundamentally disagrees with law that is the topic here. First, question the existence of EVERYTHING in a bad faith way. I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’ rather than I dunno, googling it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

nomilk 2y ago

No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”. If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.

adolph 2y ago
> challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach I would bet ignoring dubious claims is the default. Challenging and questioning any claims is a better default but I don’t think it is a common default reaction by many people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jackvalentine 2y ago
Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist? I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Traditionally the method is there are some things that people just assume exist and for things outside that circle they require some smidgen of evidence to believe in. It is a bit like me saying I believe there are people in the Arctic (never really seen evidence of it, but seems reasonable) vs. pixies (if I'm being asked to believe in pixies, I'd like to see some evidence). The idea that there are sites promoting eating disorders does seem to me plausible by default, but nomilk does allude to a good point that without examples it is hard to talk about harms. These sites, if they exist, might be quite difficult to find without going and looking for them. I don't remember ever seeing a hint of such a site.
- benj111 2y ago
  I suppose the difference for me is I've not seen any examples of Child sexual abuse online. Its obviously a bad thing, so steps taken to prevent that directly are a good thing. When you start restricting everyone, in order to stop that harm, then you need to start quantifying risks. This isn't arresting murderers, this is restricting the sale of rope that murderers might use on their victims. or to get more specific. this isn't banning clubs where murderers can get together. this is imposing checks on all clubs to make sure there aren't any murderers in them. If it reasonable for the boy scouts to do checks on their members to make sure that a few of them aren't planning a murder? should the boy scouts be responsible if a few boys do go and murder someone? a murder that was planned in the scout hut?