9 ms·

> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits. All of which is factual in

> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits. All of which is factual information available to the public and even the media has to admit these things are facts. Oh please. You can disclaim the disgusting statements made all over reddit recently as not part of a coherent community or whatever, but don't pretend they didn't exist at all. As for the rest of this nonsense, the statement quoted had nothing to do with "clickbait media and various groups" (I seriously feel like we're in talking points memos territory with this stuff), this is a statement from Sam Altman, so take it up with him. > There is zero accountability in the media today and zero ethics. Everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations. I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to?

badsock 11y ago
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.
- axlprose 11y ago
  So questioning ethics in any kind of journalism anywhere is automatically BS now because of some random highly-opinionated internet drama? Way to discourage critical thinking. Orwell and Huxley would be proud.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    No, abruptly trying to turn a conversation about disgusting comments made on reddit into one on the "clickbait media has to be called out" is like a parody of the parodies of gamergate. I mean, it's like well into Poe's law territory.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      Did you even follow the original parent's argument? He didn't just bring up "clickbait media" as a non-sequitur while defending reddit comments. He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media, and literally none of his analysis+critique has been addressed so far, all that's been done is point out how he sounded like some angry mob person. Please explain to me how that is a logical way to respond to a legitimate argument.
      - dasil003 11y ago
        Saying that online activists are equally to blame as misogynists and racists for the devolution of civil dialog online is sort of like insisting on creationism getting equal media coverage to evolution on the basis of fairness.
        axlprose 11y ago
        One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist". For matters like these, it's better if we stick to the few objective observations we can make, such as deconstructing how arguments are made, and when/where they're propagated, which is exactly what the original comment tried to do.
        douche 11y ago
        If your plan to get rid of the trolls is to feed them by bringing their trolling out of the dark confines of message boards and trying to shame them in public, congratulations, you've fed the trolls, and inspired other proto-trolls (goblins, kobalds, I need a D&D person here...) to snicker in their caverns and sling their troll arrows at you. If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait. People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
  - badsock 11y ago
    The topic at hand is journalism and misogyny. That particular phrasing was often used as a thin veil over many vile attacks on women in visible positions during the gamergate thing. I see a lot of similarities with what happened to Pao (not that I'm defending her in particular, she's pretty dodgy, but the hatred was palpable). And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      > And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me. This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases. You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
      - badsock 11y ago
        It's not elitist to think that the average HN reader doesn't need a reminder that you shouldn't blindly trust the media interjected into any random discussion that involves the media. Most of us read 1984 in high school, just like you probably did. What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
  - vacri 11y ago
    The irony in this comment about not discouraging critical thinking whilst shaming someone drawing a parallel... first overstating the GP's case to extremes, then doing a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum... ... it's just delicious.
    - axlprose 11y ago
      There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.
      - vacri 11y ago
        > So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
        axlprose 11y ago
        Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
        vacri 11y ago
        "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  So now we're dropping random controversies in the middle of discussions to try make a point? This post is really attracting the worst in people.
  - _jal 11y ago
    Seriously. Somehow this topic became a slightly less obnoxious Gamergate twittergasm. So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      > So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    Probably the most agreeable statement here, regardless of which 'side' you stand on.
- tsotha 11y ago
  GG is about ethics in journalism.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
axlprose 11y ago
> I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to? For anyone that's equally confused, I highly recommend reading the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying": http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator/dp/1591846285 http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator... What's happening right now isn't entirely intuitive, so it's understandable to be a bit lost, but what the parent is talking about is a serious, legitimate issue.
- eli 11y ago
  Is it possible to explain it in a few sentences for those of us who are confused but don't wish to read a book?
  - magicalist 11y ago
    I'd also appreciate it. Just note many of our minds won't be blown by the idea that the media is used to manipulate, and maybe focus on explaining what this has to do with nhf's points that this is a good move on reddit's part and that they were glad that Sam explicitly called out recent trends in Reddit discourse.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Pick a topic with many shades of gray. Paint it black and white - preferably around a modern controversial issue (this day and age it's sexism/racism). Frame the narrative to fit the controversy ("50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again!") Ignore the 199,950 shades of gray and all other motivation behind the users and everything else. Zoom in to these 50 people. Cast them in the worst light. Cast Pao as a saint and Reddit as being "in the right" for "standing up to these 50 white male racist misogynist neck beards". Fan the flames and stir the pot to generate traffic (and ad revenue). Keep the fire alive as long as possible. You look good and get money. Reddit looks good and gets money. You both win. Alternatively throw Reddit under the bus as well and find past controversies surrounding Pao. Cover those as well. You'll get more money for this. As for all the users who aren't the 50 being covered? Fuck'em. You're too busy lining your checkbooks.
generic_user 11y ago
The most disgusting posting I have seen is by our good friends the yellow journalists trying to weave there 'Reddit is misogynist' narrative. While Redditors are upset that Pao fires perhaps the most competent and well liked woman working at Reddit. Urinalism is largely discredited at this point due to there bias and agenda.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Protip: it's their, not there.
  - zxcvcxz 11y ago
    Protip: If you have to resort to attacking someones grammar when you're out of counter arguments it means you lost the debate.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      We can't all be winners.
    - Retra 11y ago
      If that isn't a pointlessly antagonistic thing to say, I don't know what is.
  - pvg 11y ago
    Urinalism sounds like a (sadly, apparently discredited) singular, though!
- morbius 11y ago
  Victoria was beloved despite the fact she was a woman, not necessarily because of it. I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't really hold up.
  - blhack 11y ago
    Should somebody be like because of their gender? Isn't that outrageously sexist?

badsock 11y ago

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.

axlprose 11y ago
So questioning ethics in any kind of journalism anywhere is automatically BS now because of some random highly-opinionated internet drama? Way to discourage critical thinking. Orwell and Huxley would be proud.
- magicalist 11y ago
  No, abruptly trying to turn a conversation about disgusting comments made on reddit into one on the "clickbait media has to be called out" is like a parody of the parodies of gamergate. I mean, it's like well into Poe's law territory.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    Did you even follow the original parent's argument? He didn't just bring up "clickbait media" as a non-sequitur while defending reddit comments. He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media, and literally none of his analysis+critique has been addressed so far, all that's been done is point out how he sounded like some angry mob person. Please explain to me how that is a logical way to respond to a legitimate argument.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      Saying that online activists are equally to blame as misogynists and racists for the devolution of civil dialog online is sort of like insisting on creationism getting equal media coverage to evolution on the basis of fairness.
      - axlprose 11y ago
        One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist". For matters like these, it's better if we stick to the few objective observations we can make, such as deconstructing how arguments are made, and when/where they're propagated, which is exactly what the original comment tried to do.
      - douche 11y ago
        If your plan to get rid of the trolls is to feed them by bringing their trolling out of the dark confines of message boards and trying to shame them in public, congratulations, you've fed the trolls, and inspired other proto-trolls (goblins, kobalds, I need a D&D person here...) to snicker in their caverns and sling their troll arrows at you. If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait. People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
- badsock 11y ago
  The topic at hand is journalism and misogyny. That particular phrasing was often used as a thin veil over many vile attacks on women in visible positions during the gamergate thing. I see a lot of similarities with what happened to Pao (not that I'm defending her in particular, she's pretty dodgy, but the hatred was palpable). And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    > And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me. This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases. You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
    - badsock 11y ago
      It's not elitist to think that the average HN reader doesn't need a reminder that you shouldn't blindly trust the media interjected into any random discussion that involves the media. Most of us read 1984 in high school, just like you probably did. What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
- vacri 11y ago
  The irony in this comment about not discouraging critical thinking whilst shaming someone drawing a parallel... first overstating the GP's case to extremes, then doing a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum... ... it's just delicious.
  - axlprose 11y ago
    There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > So if you feel up to it, please do so. Uh, I just did. Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
      - axlprose 11y ago
        Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip. Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
        vacri 11y ago
        "this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere" It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate. I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
scrollaway 11y ago
So now we're dropping random controversies in the middle of discussions to try make a point? This post is really attracting the worst in people.
- _jal 11y ago
  Seriously. Somehow this topic became a slightly less obnoxious Gamergate twittergasm. So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    > So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  Probably the most agreeable statement here, regardless of which 'side' you stand on.
tsotha 11y ago
GG is about ethics in journalism.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

axlprose 11y ago

> I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to? For anyone that's equally confused, I highly recommend reading the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying": http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator/dp/1591846285 http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator... What's happening right now isn't entirely intuitive, so it's understandable to be a bit lost, but what the parent is talking about is a serious, legitimate issue.

eli 11y ago
Is it possible to explain it in a few sentences for those of us who are confused but don't wish to read a book?
- magicalist 11y ago
  I'd also appreciate it. Just note many of our minds won't be blown by the idea that the media is used to manipulate, and maybe focus on explaining what this has to do with nhf's points that this is a good move on reddit's part and that they were glad that Sam explicitly called out recent trends in Reddit discourse.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Pick a topic with many shades of gray. Paint it black and white - preferably around a modern controversial issue (this day and age it's sexism/racism). Frame the narrative to fit the controversy ("50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again!") Ignore the 199,950 shades of gray and all other motivation behind the users and everything else. Zoom in to these 50 people. Cast them in the worst light. Cast Pao as a saint and Reddit as being "in the right" for "standing up to these 50 white male racist misogynist neck beards". Fan the flames and stir the pot to generate traffic (and ad revenue). Keep the fire alive as long as possible. You look good and get money. Reddit looks good and gets money. You both win. Alternatively throw Reddit under the bus as well and find past controversies surrounding Pao. Cover those as well. You'll get more money for this. As for all the users who aren't the 50 being covered? Fuck'em. You're too busy lining your checkbooks.

generic_user 11y ago

The most disgusting posting I have seen is by our good friends the yellow journalists trying to weave there 'Reddit is misogynist' narrative. While Redditors are upset that Pao fires perhaps the most competent and well liked woman working at Reddit. Urinalism is largely discredited at this point due to there bias and agenda.

tedunangst 11y ago
Protip: it's their, not there.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  Protip: If you have to resort to attacking someones grammar when you're out of counter arguments it means you lost the debate.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    We can't all be winners.
  - Retra 11y ago
    If that isn't a pointlessly antagonistic thing to say, I don't know what is.
- pvg 11y ago
  Urinalism sounds like a (sadly, apparently discredited) singular, though!
morbius 11y ago
Victoria was beloved despite the fact she was a woman, not necessarily because of it. I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't really hold up.
- blhack 11y ago
  Should somebody be like because of their gender? Isn't that outrageously sexist?