4 ms·

"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversa

"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.

kstrauser 1y ago
Well, of course we’re not going to block them due to anyone else’s standards. Thanks! We’ve been online for 8 years and it’s been a lot of fun, other than dealing with moderation of bad actors. Like the one above who called me an n-word, for instance. Although that was one of the easier mod decisions we had to make, to be sure!
pixl97 1y ago
Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist. The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left.
- blueflow 1y ago
  The trick is not being an ass towards someone you disagree with. If you quote Popper on this, you failed that and are rationalizing your behavior because you know its not good.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    The trick is the other person doing that too. Simply put a lot, if not most people don't want a rational debate where they discuss the many sides of an issue. They want to win. Take religion for example, seemingly most people that have one tend to believe not only they are right about it (if you debate it's correctness it shows your lack of faith), they are trying to convert you and if they fail you are an enemy.
    - blueflow 1y ago
      Nah, this approach is not good because it kinda starts with the frontiers already drawn. You don't even need to assert your own position, just ask question like "What is your intent behind saying that" or "Why does it have to be this specific way?" to derail them into some status quo. Provoke them into explaining their "great plan" until they tumble.
  - Moomoomoo309 1y ago
    Can you think of a forum that isn't tiny that does not do this kind of moderation that isn't a cesspool? Your theory seems sound, but I don't know if I have ever seen it implemented such that the theory is correct.
    - blueflow 1y ago
      I believe HN does it pretty well.
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        I agree. HN has a strong moderation policy against trolling and other awful behavior. Forums that aren’t as moderated as HN don’t tend to last as long, or at least don’t tend to maintain this level of civil communication.
      - pixl97 1y ago
        HN weeds out/flags a massive number of topics very quickly. Especially political topics that lead to flame wars. It also weeds out the unnecessarily argumentative posters pretty quickly. But at the same time because of this there are some that say that this limits conversations and topics that can be discussed on HN. So, no you can't make everyone happy, but you can attempt to at least make the atmosphere pleasant.
- throwaway095775 1y ago
  > Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist So are we just not supposed to debate anything ever? Just find a convenient excuse to ban/block/mute and move on? > The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left Too bad everyone has a different idea of who an "extremist" is, and conveniently ignores the ones on their side.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Sigh.... Does HN have diverse opinions? Some say yes, others will say no. It depends on the topic. Now the moment you start acting like a jerk on HN you'll get a message from Dang or one of the other mods, and if you keep it up you'll be banned. Diverse opinions are fine. The problem is there are a lot of people that get way too wound up in the rightness of their opinion, and there are others that are just trolls that live on the conflict. When you start banning the trolls/extremists they go off and make articles like "Site X bans any difference of opinion because they are big meanies" Then other groups like free speech extremists show up to complain about how the site is authoritarian in the most annoying and offensive ways possible, and it's not long after that admins block entire topics to make the problem FOAGA. Being an admin/moderator of places where people can post will quickly drain you of understanding and compassion. The frog and the scorpion is a good fable here. You get tired of the scorpions asking for a ride then stabbing you in the back on your forums.
- account42 1y ago
  The "paradox" of tolerance is a weak excuse to enact your own tyranny and nothing more.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Cool story bro. Me: "let's hang anybody with account in their username" You: "why don't you come over to my house, I wouldn't want to seem like a tyrant!" You see how this might not work out in your favor.
RankingMember 1y ago
> "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. Calling someone the "n-word" doesn't really need a lot of cultural translation to be considered offensive.
- blueflow 1y ago
  Its less a translation thing, but: I do not consider it offensive, yet i have to accommodate these sensitivities while the reverse is not considered.
  - lovich 1y ago
    There is zero real world scenarios where someone who is communicating in English in the modern day, call someone an n-word and does not mean for it to be offensive. You mean, you personally weren’t the target of an insult and you apparently are mystified as to why any other people’s feelings are taken into consideration
    - blueflow 1y ago
      s/there is/i don't know/
    - watwut 1y ago
      Nazi and KKK consider it proper valid word, the only one that actually expresses who and what they have in mind. Their goal is not directly to offend, just to express how they feel about some people. As far as they are concerned, the worst offense against propriety you can do is to ... call them racists. That is totally always unfair.
lovich 1y ago
Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?
- blueflow 1y ago
  My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay
    - blueflow 1y ago
      Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.
      - lovich 1y ago
        What exactly are you advocating for? This sounds entirely like the systems working as intended, it’s just not exactly how you personally would prefer. You’re using words like you’re pro liberty but the implications of you’re sentences is hyper authoritarian
      - KittenInABox 1y ago
        Forgive me if I am not understanding: Doesn't this mean you can just go to an instance that has mutual open communication with both other instances and then have access to both feeds? This is what happens IRL when I have two friend groups that don't engage, I engage with them both as a separate person.

"behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. I understand your position and wish you and your instance a future of diverse and fruitful conversations.

kstrauser 1y ago

Well, of course we’re not going to block them due to anyone else’s standards. Thanks! We’ve been online for 8 years and it’s been a lot of fun, other than dealing with moderation of bad actors. Like the one above who called me an n-word, for instance. Although that was one of the easier mod decisions we had to make, to be sure!

pixl97 1y ago

Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist. The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left.

blueflow 1y ago
The trick is not being an ass towards someone you disagree with. If you quote Popper on this, you failed that and are rationalizing your behavior because you know its not good.
- pixl97 1y ago
  The trick is the other person doing that too. Simply put a lot, if not most people don't want a rational debate where they discuss the many sides of an issue. They want to win. Take religion for example, seemingly most people that have one tend to believe not only they are right about it (if you debate it's correctness it shows your lack of faith), they are trying to convert you and if they fail you are an enemy.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    Nah, this approach is not good because it kinda starts with the frontiers already drawn. You don't even need to assert your own position, just ask question like "What is your intent behind saying that" or "Why does it have to be this specific way?" to derail them into some status quo. Provoke them into explaining their "great plan" until they tumble.
- Moomoomoo309 1y ago
  Can you think of a forum that isn't tiny that does not do this kind of moderation that isn't a cesspool? Your theory seems sound, but I don't know if I have ever seen it implemented such that the theory is correct.
  - blueflow 1y ago
    I believe HN does it pretty well.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      I agree. HN has a strong moderation policy against trolling and other awful behavior. Forums that aren’t as moderated as HN don’t tend to last as long, or at least don’t tend to maintain this level of civil communication.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      HN weeds out/flags a massive number of topics very quickly. Especially political topics that lead to flame wars. It also weeds out the unnecessarily argumentative posters pretty quickly. But at the same time because of this there are some that say that this limits conversations and topics that can be discussed on HN. So, no you can't make everyone happy, but you can attempt to at least make the atmosphere pleasant.
throwaway095775 1y ago
> Diverse conversations are actually pretty rare in reality when conflicting opinions exist So are we just not supposed to debate anything ever? Just find a convenient excuse to ban/block/mute and move on? > The paradox of tolerance pretty much demands you weed out the extremists or they will be all that's left Too bad everyone has a different idea of who an "extremist" is, and conveniently ignores the ones on their side.
- pixl97 1y ago
  Sigh.... Does HN have diverse opinions? Some say yes, others will say no. It depends on the topic. Now the moment you start acting like a jerk on HN you'll get a message from Dang or one of the other mods, and if you keep it up you'll be banned. Diverse opinions are fine. The problem is there are a lot of people that get way too wound up in the rightness of their opinion, and there are others that are just trolls that live on the conflict. When you start banning the trolls/extremists they go off and make articles like "Site X bans any difference of opinion because they are big meanies" Then other groups like free speech extremists show up to complain about how the site is authoritarian in the most annoying and offensive ways possible, and it's not long after that admins block entire topics to make the problem FOAGA. Being an admin/moderator of places where people can post will quickly drain you of understanding and compassion. The frog and the scorpion is a good fable here. You get tired of the scorpions asking for a ride then stabbing you in the back on your forums.
account42 1y ago
The "paradox" of tolerance is a weak excuse to enact your own tyranny and nothing more.
- pixl97 1y ago
  Cool story bro. Me: "let's hang anybody with account in their username" You: "why don't you come over to my house, I wouldn't want to seem like a tyrant!" You see how this might not work out in your favor.

RankingMember 1y ago

> "behaving like a jerk" by your cultural norms and standards. Calling someone the "n-word" doesn't really need a lot of cultural translation to be considered offensive.

blueflow 1y ago
Its less a translation thing, but: I do not consider it offensive, yet i have to accommodate these sensitivities while the reverse is not considered.
- lovich 1y ago
  There is zero real world scenarios where someone who is communicating in English in the modern day, call someone an n-word and does not mean for it to be offensive. You mean, you personally weren’t the target of an insult and you apparently are mystified as to why any other people’s feelings are taken into consideration
  - blueflow 1y ago
    s/there is/i don't know/
  - watwut 1y ago
    Nazi and KKK consider it proper valid word, the only one that actually expresses who and what they have in mind. Their goal is not directly to offend, just to express how they feel about some people. As far as they are concerned, the worst offense against propriety you can do is to ... call them racists. That is totally always unfair.

lovich 1y ago

Do you believe that people can hold a negative opinion of someone else and choose not to interact with them, or does your world view require that people are compelled to interact with anyone who demands it of them?

blueflow 1y ago
My problem is that the instance admin does the blocking decision for the user, based on their own cultural norms, not the users.
- lovich 1y ago
  Caveat, I haven’t used mastodon or the fed inverse and might be off on the details. Isn’t that how the fediverse works? You sign up for an instance based on if you like how they admin it, and if you don’t, you join a different instance? I’m failing to see how that is a problem for users if they aren’t compelled to stay
  - blueflow 1y ago
    Yes, but the different instance has a different set of blocks (both outgoing and ingoing), so the problem kinda persists even when you change instances. You can't have both A and B people in your feed when they (actually their admins) instance-block each other on sight.
    - lovich 1y ago
      What exactly are you advocating for? This sounds entirely like the systems working as intended, it’s just not exactly how you personally would prefer. You’re using words like you’re pro liberty but the implications of you’re sentences is hyper authoritarian
    - KittenInABox 1y ago
      Forgive me if I am not understanding: Doesn't this mean you can just go to an instance that has mutual open communication with both other instances and then have access to both feeds? This is what happens IRL when I have two friend groups that don't engage, I engage with them both as a separate person.