6 ms·

From what i've seen on reddit, twitter, and sometimes even on hn, some are quick to label people whose opinion differs from theirs as trolls. It doesn't matter

• lingben 11y ago
  "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." - Ralph Waldo Emerson edit: although tangentially relevant, this case in Canada is hair raising: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchfor...
  • seivan 11y ago
    I love that quote, especially since some claim vulgarity is harassment, abuse and bigotry. You're just going to alienate people with that kind of thinking. How do you define hate, abuse and trolls? In certain countries atheists are considered terrorists. Those who blog about atheism are haters and a bigot. It's justified to hack them to death, imprison them or whip them. In other countries female drivers are abusing the sensibilities of men. Who is to say which ones are doing the censorship right, lol.
  • keedot 11y ago
    Christie Blatchford's skew is quite heavy in this reporting. I've seen the other side of the argument with some of the behaviours and tweets in question, and it's not so clear cut. I would definitely feel harassed by this individual, and in Canada, we do not claim to have the free speech as defined in America. Hate speech is not tolerated here, and most Canadians are in agreement with this. You can have a difference of opinion, but if you attack someone with words, there are legal consequences.
    • danielweber 11y ago
      > if you attack someone with words, there are legal consequences. What a horrible country. I hate it deeply.
      • keedot 11y ago
        You're fully within your rights to do so. It's a pretty great place to live, to be honest.
    • lingben 11y ago
      'hate speech' has a very high bar and from the court details there is zero evidence that the defendant engaged in anything remotely approaching harrassment, never mind hate speech. by their own admission and by the evidence, the plaintiffs however did engage in a pattern of behavior and organized others into the same pattern which resulted in a person not only being harassed but also losing their job. it is not enough to say, 'I feel harrassed' or 'I feel hurt' - that does not meet the legal test. You have no right not to be offended. by the token of 'feelings', I could say that your response is 'hate speech' towards me and that I 'felt' harrassed and I 'felt' that my personal safety was in jeopardy. If I were to claim that, I should rightfully be pointed in the direction of a mental health professional, not a court of law.
      • keedot 11y ago
        Right, which is why we have courts to determine the validity of the claims.
        • lingben 11y ago
          Sure, but some things are self evident and it makes no sense to waste public funds on them. If you hurt my feelings, that's neither a criminal nor civil offense. "Sticks and stones..." silly me, I thought we all learned this in elementary school
          • keedot 11y ago
• brotoss 11y ago
  You just defined SJW
  • tdees40 11y ago
    SJW is just a lazy slur. It's time to retire it.
    • lemevi 11y ago
      It's too bad that this type of comment and the one above it are going to kill any meaningful discussion about this interesting and important topic. To quote Sam Altman[1]: > Most smart people I know have decided to just not discuss anything sensitive because of the internet lynchmob looking for any slight mistake > This seems unlikely to be a good development. At some point the conversations will only have the extremists left. We need to talk about this, but without heavy moderation which will introduce a different set of problems, I don't see how. [1] https://twitter.com/sama/status/610494599526641665 https://twitter.com/sama/status/610494599526641665
      • boomshucka 11y ago
        Well, in Sam's case, he has a tendency to talk about many things which he has no expertise. I'd guess he and his friends sit around talking about things which they don't really understand and think they have "insight". So do my friends and I. This is fine to the extent one is chatting with friends. It's the silicon valley thing to do, think we know waaaay more than we do. However I don't think it's a great idea to put forth one's amateurish "insight" as discussion worthy in a public forum. It promotes the idea that any position is "valid" when many simply aren't. Having a "discussion", which everyone seems to think is oh so important, is absolutely useless if it's between people who don't have any clue about the topic they are discussing. So, if the "internet lynchmob" has stopped people speaking publicly about things which they have no business doing, I can't say I feel sad about it.
    • jon-wood 11y ago
      If being a warrier of social justice is a slur then bring them on. Could the people who are against speaking out for women and other minorities have picked a more ridiculous phrase to try and make an insult?
• DanBC 11y ago
  Pao had thousands of people calling her a ching-chong cunt. Why do you think your comment is relevant to this thread?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • lcswi 11y ago
    Thousands of people? Where did you get that number from? Also, there were (misguided) reasons for people to be upset, which does not justify the racism, but hey, extreme insults are normal if you are very angry (no, not just on the Internet but also outside tech filter bubbles).
    • ewzimm 11y ago
      Nobody is debating that extreme insults are normal when people get angry. What people are saying is that it needs to stop being normal.
      • lcswi 11y ago
        I totally support that, but the Internet is probably the worst and hardest place to try initiate that change. Opposed to the real world, wannabe bullies have zero chance of seeing a reaction from their victims if those do not react. Online bullies like there DO lose their interest. Just look at past outrages on reddit to see. People need to despise that these short-term hype shitstorms are not worth reacting to'. Maybe ask PR campaigners how they handle it, there should be decades of research. I am obviously excluding actual stalkers, sociopaths etc. Those are hard problems but not one you can as easily treat and not a widespread problem.
        • ewzimm 11y ago
          I definitely think the solution has to be deeper than banning people from forums. People exhibiting sociopathic tendencies have needs that aren't being met in their real lives. They most likely need therapy, counseling, or community support. They might have abusive home lives. The online harrassment issue is a big warning sign that there are deep social issues all over the world that aren't being addressed, but everyone knew that already. What this really calls for is expanded mental health care, but I don't know if anyone is going to respond that way, since it's expensive and requires a lot of people doing hard work.
• eli 11y ago
  True enough, but I don't think a semantics debate is helpful. The question is what to do about people who are actually being harassed by bullies.
  • pdeuchler 11y ago
    Because bullies didn't exist before the Internet? I can't wait to tell my kids that I got beat up on the playground before it was cool!
• wxs 11y ago
  Did you see the front page of Reddit when they were blowing up at Pao over the fat people abuse subreddit? I think it's disingenuous to claim that this is just polite disagreement: http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2015/6/10/front_page_next_morning_-_nazi_.png http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2015/6/10/...
  • mahouse 11y ago
    They were hit back by karma. Reddit has never hesitated to take advantage of the word "democracy" to refer to how their site works. It's a word that sounds very well. So there they have it: that screenshot is what democracy looks like.
    • angersock 11y ago
      Yep. Forum users and gamers are the worst sort of people.
      • knd775 11y ago
        Is there a "/s" missing there?
      • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Milgram showed that people are the worst sort of people. As did Zimbardo. And quite a few others.
  • TTPrograms 11y ago
    I see /r/all maybe once a day, and I've never seen most of those subreddits on the front page.
  • istvan__ 11y ago
    You mistakenly think that all of the people who signed the petition (~200,000 people) are from the fat shaming subreddit.
  • Slick135 11y ago
• thadd 11y ago
  I see this frequently as well. A difference of opinion is equivalent to a declaration of war to some people.
• ETSmith 11y ago
  It's not just about mislabeling, or false accusations. There is a certain element of hypocrisy, too. A demonstration of this is in the article: "In May, the company banned harassment of individuals from the site. Last month, we took down sections of the site that drew repeat harassers. Then, after making these policy changes to prevent and ban harassment, I, along with several colleagues, was targeted with harassing messages, attempts to post my private information online and death threats. These were attempts to demean, shame and scare us into silence." On one hand, these people affiliated with reddit did not appreciate these alleged "attempts to demean, shame and scare us into silence" when they were the recipients. Yet these same people were perfectly willing, and perhaps even proud, to silence other reddit users, whether at an individual level or by eliminating entire subreddits. In fact, the article in this case could very well be seen as an attempt to "demean, shame and scare" the alleged "trolls" into silence. It engages in the sort of behavior that it is deeming as unacceptable!
• Terr_ 11y ago
  Yeah, maybe I'm just going into old-fogey-hood, but I'd like to repeat a Reddit post from 3-4 years ago involving the definition I use for trolling. There are three core features: 1. Trolling always means the user is, in some way, not sincere or not honest in their interactions Either they do not believe what they are saying, or else they are saying it only because they have an ulterior motive/goal which is not obvious or apparent. No matter how moronic, argumentative, or misinformed a person might be, they cannot be a troll if they are trying to be honest and their motives are straightforward. As you leave the context of internet forums and discussions, the words "sincere" and "honest" get trickier to apply. For example, if you are playing a strategy game, the enemy is not "trolling" when they trick you about what kind of army they are building, because that kind of thing doesn't represent a breach of trust.. 2. Trolling is always about triggering or goading victims into a reaction Causing injury or offense to another person is not--on its own--trolling. If a pickpocket steals your wallet and runs away, he did not "troll" you, because he doesn't care about how you react, he just wants to escape with your cash. If a fast-food employee secretly spits in your hamburger, they are not "trolling" unless they expected you to notice...Or unless they start dropping little hints afterwards to prompt you for a reaction. Major asshole, yes, troll, no. 99% of the time the troll is seeking a reaction with an emotional component. "Negative" reactions such as rage, frustration, or annoyance are especially common. Not-so-negative reactions can be used, but are less common. For example, an atheist troll might say encouraging things to make a fundamentalist-Christian community enter into a celebratory circle-jerk. 3. Trolling is not the same as humor, trolling can incorporate humor, but only in a "mean-spirited" way Many people seem to get confused by this, since jokes and humor often fall under both #1 and #2 above, being attempts to use insincere words to cause an emotional reaction. Trolls are never laughing "with" their victims. They are always laughing "at" their victims. Trolls may sometimes try to get you to laugh, but if they do it is only because there is some "larger joke" which you are the butt of. ______ Side-note: When people troll badly, I prefer not to call them trolls. This is sort of like how someone who burned a meal isn't "a cook". Sure, they technically did the "act of cooking", but it seems like calling them "a cook" wrongly implies that they are good at it. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/p7u3k/troll_level_master/c3n98ia http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/p7u3k/troll_level_mas...
• ffn 11y ago
  It's actually kind of amazing, the modern day media has lifted shamelessly the exact attitude of intolerance and hostility that used to be targeted strictly at people of color in the 60s, and now are targeting people of opinions today. Armed with their vocabulary of loaded words like "troll", "racist", "sexist", and "shitlord", they just as readily label, harass, and even destroy people (i.e. wreck their careers, get them fired, etc.) as those crazy mobs half a century ago in the south. There's no consideration for context, individuality, intention, or circumstance; you recognize a woman is different from a man = you're a sexist. You question diversity = you're a troll. You bring up crime statistics = you're a racist. And the hilarious thing is, the "trolls" didn't even "win". Reddit's new CEO is implementing even stricter censorship measures, all of it most likely in the hopes of making reddit more appealing for advertisers. If you stand back and look at this whole fiasco from a distance, Reddit higher-ups want to make more money, and in order to do so, they decide they need to curb their more "unsightly" elements. But attacking free speech is a dicey proposition, so what do they do? They hire a woman and make her do it. If redditors are dumb sheep and take it quietly, great. If not, wrap the whole thing around her neck and throw her under the bus (reminds you of the Bourne Trilogy deson't it), then come riding in on a white horse to "save" reddit from "chairman Pao". And so far, it's working perfectly. The "trolls" celebrate their victory by having the sensationalist media blast them on their sexism, Pao's reputation is utterly destroyed and she's essentially too toxic to employ anywhere, and Reddit still gets to wipe the floor with free speech.
• ytdht 11y ago
  also, I might be wrong, but, if you comment about an idea that doesn't conform to a sub-reddit's ideology, you can get down-voted to oblivion for no obvious reason... I used to not like Facebook's idea of not providing a dislike button, but I am not so sure anymore