6 ms·

>it's also a site I haven't spent much time at in recent years. This sums up all I can really muster as a response. I used to visit Metafilter long ago, but I

>it's also a site I haven't spent much time at in recent years. This sums up all I can really muster as a response. I used to visit Metafilter long ago, but I've completely abandoned it for at least a few years. The submissions just lost their way at some point, and the archaic comment system was completely surpassed by reddit/HN.

seekingtruth 12y ago
> The submissions just lost their way at some point, The Trigger Warning crowd clearly rules the site these days, has for some time, and act as though it has always been thus.
walterbell 12y ago
Responding to sibling comment: > The Trigger Warning crowd clearly rules the site these days, has for some time, and act as though it has always been thus. What's the "Trigger Warning crowd"?
- lurknomore 12y ago
  People who post "trigger warnings" before endeavoring upon a topic that might cause a special snowflake somewhere to experience a flareup of their fake PTSD. (Because some people are just too sensitive to be exposed to reality.) It's a common trope among those in the throes of "social justice" identity politics and you are doing well to not have caught the allusion.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    It must be terrible for you to have to look at those fourteen letters when you didn't want to. Someone should give you a warning of some kind.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Thanks, I only found a Neil Gaiman sci-fi book in a google search :)
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  It's another dismissive slur in the same vein as "Social Justice Warrior". The basic idea behind it is that anyone who has a problem with racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language or behavior just needs to get over it and STFU. It is mostly said by angry young white dudes on the Internet.
  - FranklinD1932 12y ago
    Whereas declaiming someone a "racist sexist homophobe" at the first indication of heterodoxy is nothing like using "dismissive slurs" to hand-wave away another's statements, especially if the culprit is one of those young white dudes whose thoughts no one should ever pay any attention to anyway.
    - SwellJoe 12y ago
      Interesting that you read what I wrote as calling someone a "racist sexist homophobe", when what I wrote about racism, sexism, and homophobia, was specifically and emphatically about language and behavior, and made no mention of people. The people in question aren't what I have a problem with, only the language and behavior that contributes to social norms in some communities on the Internet that are exclusionary of women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks. The only thing I said that was about people was "mostly said by angry young white dudes on the Internet". Which was, in fact, intended to be dismissive of some people's words. I believe it is a boringly predictable and reactionary display of privilege that deserves nothing other than to be dismissed. It is not merely coincidence that it is almost universally angry young white men who make these kinds of statements.
      - derefr 12y ago
        Note that one side of this debate presumes semantic-semiotic equivalence (that any discussion of a subject X will come with the same connotations) while the other side presumes linguistic relativism (that you can talk about X using word Y or word Z, and the connotations are attached to the words, not the subject.) "Political correctness" (and the concept of a "trigger warning", and a few other things) is only a coherent concept under the assumptions of linguistic relativism. Since the two sides have different axioms, they can't really engage in a debate.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
archagon 12y ago
That's because Metafilter doesn't have a comment system. It has a discussion system. The only way to "discuss" anything on Reddit/HN is to yell at each other from your respective soapboxes. In my experience, linear discussion — being far closer to in-person conversation — can lead to more interesting places and actually has the ability to change hearts and minds. The only places online where I feel a strong sense of community exclusively have linear discussion.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  How much of that comes from the linearity limiting participation (glibly, an exclusive community)? I hope people don't do too much deciding about what does and does not work at this early date, we've only had about 20 years of large scale internet participation, and much less of (in the English sphere) near total participation (total participation matters because people faced with the novelty of spraying their thoughts at strangers tend to behave somewhat differently than people who are used to it).
  - archagon 12y ago
    Yes, it's good not to lock ourselves into a particular model, and I'm glad that companies like Discourse are exploring new models of community discussion. However, from my own personal experience, I have to say that discussions become a lot more interesting when they happen in real-time between small numbers of people. Comments tend to be brief. Topics shift around. People respond to each other. Interjections happen frequently. Opinions can freely mix and mingle in this environment, and the end result is a conversation that can actually go somewhere new. In threaded discussions, it feels more like people posting their pet walls-of-text at each other. In some ways, the "discussion" is already set in stone from the very start. Furthermore, there's a significant penalty to the upvote/downvote model. It incentivizes groupthink; promotes giant screeds and quippy jokes; keeps topics firmly segregated; prevents the discussion from branching out past an initial point.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I tend to think of this in terms of high context and low context. In that framework, you are identifying high context conversations as preferable. Given that the vast majority of human socialization has been high context (Between people who know much about each other), I don't think this is surprising. It satisfies our instincts and benefits from our habits. I don't explicitly talk about it above, but part of what I am getting at there is that you can't force a high context situation; it either exists, or it does not. Maybe the solution is simply to facilitate small groups that discuss things, I don't know. I think I would be disappointed if that is the case, because it would make it more difficult for me to access a wide range of viewpoints. The seemingly overly serious moderation here can probably be described as an attempt at getting people to acknowledge a little bit of extra shared context.

seekingtruth 12y ago

> The submissions just lost their way at some point, The Trigger Warning crowd clearly rules the site these days, has for some time, and act as though it has always been thus.

walterbell 12y ago

Responding to sibling comment: > The Trigger Warning crowd clearly rules the site these days, has for some time, and act as though it has always been thus. What's the "Trigger Warning crowd"?

lurknomore 12y ago
People who post "trigger warnings" before endeavoring upon a topic that might cause a special snowflake somewhere to experience a flareup of their fake PTSD. (Because some people are just too sensitive to be exposed to reality.) It's a common trope among those in the throes of "social justice" identity politics and you are doing well to not have caught the allusion.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  It must be terrible for you to have to look at those fourteen letters when you didn't want to. Someone should give you a warning of some kind.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Thanks, I only found a Neil Gaiman sci-fi book in a google search :)
SwellJoe 12y ago
It's another dismissive slur in the same vein as "Social Justice Warrior". The basic idea behind it is that anyone who has a problem with racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language or behavior just needs to get over it and STFU. It is mostly said by angry young white dudes on the Internet.
- FranklinD1932 12y ago
  Whereas declaiming someone a "racist sexist homophobe" at the first indication of heterodoxy is nothing like using "dismissive slurs" to hand-wave away another's statements, especially if the culprit is one of those young white dudes whose thoughts no one should ever pay any attention to anyway.
  - SwellJoe 12y ago
    Interesting that you read what I wrote as calling someone a "racist sexist homophobe", when what I wrote about racism, sexism, and homophobia, was specifically and emphatically about language and behavior, and made no mention of people. The people in question aren't what I have a problem with, only the language and behavior that contributes to social norms in some communities on the Internet that are exclusionary of women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks. The only thing I said that was about people was "mostly said by angry young white dudes on the Internet". Which was, in fact, intended to be dismissive of some people's words. I believe it is a boringly predictable and reactionary display of privilege that deserves nothing other than to be dismissed. It is not merely coincidence that it is almost universally angry young white men who make these kinds of statements.
    - derefr 12y ago
      Note that one side of this debate presumes semantic-semiotic equivalence (that any discussion of a subject X will come with the same connotations) while the other side presumes linguistic relativism (that you can talk about X using word Y or word Z, and the connotations are attached to the words, not the subject.) "Political correctness" (and the concept of a "trigger warning", and a few other things) is only a coherent concept under the assumptions of linguistic relativism. Since the two sides have different axioms, they can't really engage in a debate.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

archagon 12y ago

That's because Metafilter doesn't have a comment system. It has a discussion system. The only way to "discuss" anything on Reddit/HN is to yell at each other from your respective soapboxes. In my experience, linear discussion — being far closer to in-person conversation — can lead to more interesting places and actually has the ability to change hearts and minds. The only places online where I feel a strong sense of community exclusively have linear discussion.

maxerickson 12y ago
How much of that comes from the linearity limiting participation (glibly, an exclusive community)? I hope people don't do too much deciding about what does and does not work at this early date, we've only had about 20 years of large scale internet participation, and much less of (in the English sphere) near total participation (total participation matters because people faced with the novelty of spraying their thoughts at strangers tend to behave somewhat differently than people who are used to it).
- archagon 12y ago
  Yes, it's good not to lock ourselves into a particular model, and I'm glad that companies like Discourse are exploring new models of community discussion. However, from my own personal experience, I have to say that discussions become a lot more interesting when they happen in real-time between small numbers of people. Comments tend to be brief. Topics shift around. People respond to each other. Interjections happen frequently. Opinions can freely mix and mingle in this environment, and the end result is a conversation that can actually go somewhere new. In threaded discussions, it feels more like people posting their pet walls-of-text at each other. In some ways, the "discussion" is already set in stone from the very start. Furthermore, there's a significant penalty to the upvote/downvote model. It incentivizes groupthink; promotes giant screeds and quippy jokes; keeps topics firmly segregated; prevents the discussion from branching out past an initial point.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I tend to think of this in terms of high context and low context. In that framework, you are identifying high context conversations as preferable. Given that the vast majority of human socialization has been high context (Between people who know much about each other), I don't think this is surprising. It satisfies our instincts and benefits from our habits. I don't explicitly talk about it above, but part of what I am getting at there is that you can't force a high context situation; it either exists, or it does not. Maybe the solution is simply to facilitate small groups that discuss things, I don't know. I think I would be disappointed if that is the case, because it would make it more difficult for me to access a wide range of viewpoints. The seemingly overly serious moderation here can probably be described as an attempt at getting people to acknowledge a little bit of extra shared context.