abbenm's recent activity

  1. Comment on Reduction of screentime leading to positive changes in daily life in ~life

    abbenm
    Link
    Wonderful, congrats! It's something I definitely have to work on, and having a metric for overall screen time may help.

    Wonderful, congrats! It's something I definitely have to work on, and having a metric for overall screen time may help.

    4 votes
  2. Comment on Second-quarter US GDP plunged by worst-ever 32.9% amid virus-induced shutdown in ~finance

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    How is it worse? It's the same number expressed a different way.

    How is it worse? It's the same number expressed a different way.

    1 vote
  3. Comment on Reddit — one of the world's most popular websites — is trying to cash in through advertising in ~tech

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Not only that, but AMAs originally had absolutely nothing to do with notoriety. It had to do with the the freedom of actually asking people anything. The slogan they still use is a relic from a...

    It's ironic considering that what made AMAs insanely popular was the fact they were unscripted, informal, and really could go either way depending on the interaction with Redditors.

    Not only that, but AMAs originally had absolutely nothing to do with notoriety. It had to do with the the freedom of actually asking people anything. The slogan they still use is a relic from a time when that subreddit had a completely different purpose: "where the mundane becomes fascinating and the outrageous suddenly seems normal." It was about the lives of everyday people, and the freedom of asking them anything.

    But it turned into celebrities and promotion and we're at a point now where most people don't even remember what it was originally for.

    26 votes
  4. Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    It's up to you in the sense that you have moral agency and thus moral responsibility for the positions you advocate.

    But I can't one day sit down and decide that I'm going to believe in creationism. I can affect my beliefs, but it's not up to me to consciously decide that I'm changing my mind.

    It's up to you in the sense that you have moral agency and thus moral responsibility for the positions you advocate.

    2 votes
  5. Comment on The Civility Debate Has Reached Peak Stupidity in ~news

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Again I'm going to have to agree with guamisc that you're completely misunderstanding King and being needlessly patronizing into the bargain with the implication that he hasn't read the letter....

    Again I'm going to have to agree with guamisc that you're completely misunderstanding King and being needlessly patronizing into the bargain with the implication that he hasn't read the letter.

    For one, equating verbal and physical lashing out is just lazy equivocation. And you seem to be getting his last quote exactly wrong by implying the "bitterness and hatred" is something to be contrasted with moderation, one because that's a lazy and unfair characterization of guamiscs argument and two, because if you're calling that moderation, you are using the word to identify something completely different than what King was talking about. Moderates are blind to the cases where moral outrage is necessary and well founded, and dismiss it all as extremism. That seems perfectly in line with the kind of moderate philosophy criticized by King and the original article.

    4 votes
  6. Comment on The Civility Debate Has Reached Peak Stupidity in ~news

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Wait, what? Like u/guamisc, I had to do a huge double take here. The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary...

    It had absolutely nothing to do with "faux-civility" of moderates

    Wait, what? Like u/guamisc, I had to do a huge double take here. The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary definition of civility, in the naiive form that the arrticle is talking about.

    It most definitely is an argument against moderates per se because moderation for it's own sake is blind to the moral stakes of any given issue, and it's in light of the moral urgency of political issues that different forms of civic action make sense, not in light of whether those actions are moderate or civil in some abstract sense.

    1 vote
  7. Comment on The Civility Debate Has Reached Peak Stupidity in ~news

    abbenm
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Glad you asked! It deprives them of their strategic advantage in the theaters of legislative procedure, electoral process and public debate. For example it was a terrible mistake for Obama to...

    And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever?

    Glad you asked! It deprives them of their strategic advantage in the theaters of legislative procedure, electoral process and public debate. For example it was a terrible mistake for Obama to craft the Affordable Care Act in a manner that sought consent from Republicans, and it was a strategic error to let Republicans abuse the filibuster when Obama could have asked Harry Reid to eliminate it.

    In terms of public debate, contary to the claims of moderates, success often comes from calling out the opponents in strongest terms, which I think was illustrated by the Parkland survivors. You can have valid and well founded moral outrage that isn't merely shit slinging, which is the critical thing that people lose perspective on in the pursuit of civility at all costs.

    4 votes
  8. Comment on What are some of the lesser known upcoming games that you're excited about? in ~games

    abbenm
    (edited )
    Link
    System Shock 3 is currently in development. I feel like the System Shock franchise is to games what The Godfather is to movies, so I don't know why more people aren't losing their minds over this....

    System Shock 3 is currently in development. I feel like the System Shock franchise is to games what The Godfather is to movies, so I don't know why more people aren't losing their minds over this.

    AND if that weren't enough, it's developed by Warren Spector, lead designer on what I feel was the greatest game of all time, the first Deus Ex. He's finally coming back to develop a game after what feels like a lifetime outside the industry.

    If these two things were happening independently of each other, just one or the other, it would be enough to supernova my brain. But they are part of the same project!!! I'm on the timeline of reality where this happens!

    2 votes
  9. Comment on California? Or Cali-Three-Nia? Proposal to split state will be on ballot in November in ~news

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Splitting the state would help rebalance representation and it's more likely to work. I only wish they would be a bit more bold and consider, say, six states. California will still be wildly...

    that Mr. Draper should probably focus on helping with rebalancing representation / capita instead of breaking up the State.

    Splitting the state would help rebalance representation and it's more likely to work. I only wish they would be a bit more bold and consider, say, six states. California will still be wildly underrepresented in terms of voting power with just three states and we will potentially have to revisit the issue again.

    1 vote
  10. Comment on Don't Forgert, your alt news still sucks in ~misc

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    I thought one of the ways tildes was going to distinguish itself from reddit was to emphasize high quality conversations based on good faith engagement and de-emphasize low-effort shitposting. I...

    I thought one of the ways tildes was going to distinguish itself from reddit was to emphasize high quality conversations based on good faith engagement and de-emphasize low-effort shitposting.

    I honestly don't think comments like the ones you've been making in this thread are helping us meet that standard, because it's not really being responsive to what I feel are legitimate points about the value offered by the article and video.

    13 votes
  11. Comment on Don't Forgert, your alt news still sucks in ~misc

    abbenm
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I guess I'll bite and respond to the low-effort comment. This is actually an incredibly valuable video, for a few reasons. The single biggest problem with the culture of the internet in 2018 is...

    What the fuck is this crap?

    I guess I'll bite and respond to the low-effort comment.

    This is actually an incredibly valuable video, for a few reasons. The single biggest problem with the culture of the internet in 2018 is that there's a huge constituency out there for the incredibly toxic, batshit insane content generated by the likes of InfoWars.

    Not only do these folks exist in large numbers, they generally can't be reasoned with. They're not in it for reasons; they're in it for stimulating the release of brain chemicals that comes from delirious outrage and tribal expressions of group solidarity.

    Maddox is the one who perfected that formula and had massive influence on the early culture and tone of the internet, a formula that eventually got co-opted by insane people like Alex Jones who sought out the same internet constituency.

    Maddox understands the formula, and likely shares some of that same Alex Jones audience. And he's communicating to these folks as one of their own tribe, in a way that caters to base psychological needs that they understand, to get them to see the problems with InfoWars by taking it down on its own terms.

    In short, a three minute video from Maddox on the flaws with alternate news sites is worth three million hours of explainers from Vox or Rachel Maddow or John Oliver. And if you can't see the value in that, you're never in a million years going to be able to crack the nut of online toxicity in a meaningful way.

    12 votes
  12. Comment on Discussion, bad faith, our goals, and Tildes in ~tildes

    abbenm
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    As I said above, there are way more important metrics to a good conversation than whether or not sides are "opposed." The one-dimensional test of agreement/disagreement doesn't capture the...

    As I said above, there are way more important metrics to a good conversation than whether or not sides are "opposed." The one-dimensional test of agreement/disagreement doesn't capture the important elements that make for good conversation. In the best conversations a good conversation is better analogized to world-building, which involves context-setting and is fundamentally cooperative.

    Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to sit with us at the table.

    I don't think I said anything about disallowing opinions we disagree with.

    1 vote
  13. Comment on Daily Tildes discussion - let's start gathering some thoughts for commenting guidelines in ~tildes.official

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    I agree that we should do this, but this is exactly /u/senatorskeletor's point; there are problems in practice with an unconditional requirement to always assume good faith. If you're pointing out...

    Point out that the post is in bad faith, by exposing its flaws.

    I agree that we should do this, but this is exactly /u/senatorskeletor's point; there are problems in practice with an unconditional requirement to always assume good faith. If you're pointing out that a post is in bad faith, even if you're right, you're not following the rules. This is why the rule doesn't quite work.

    Bad actors can take advantage of this by making low-effort disingenuous arguments and insisting you haven't followed the rules by spending lots of effort debating them point by point.

    3 votes
  14. Comment on How do you think social networks should handle hate speech? in ~talk

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    I think that's just a continuum fallacy. Wherever you draw the line, wherever you think the gray area is, there are going to be clear cut cases in addition to the gray. Examples of clarity and...

    I think that's just a continuum fallacy. Wherever you draw the line, wherever you think the gray area is, there are going to be clear cut cases in addition to the gray.

    Examples of clarity and ambiguity co-exist, and you don't have to believe there's no gray area to want to be proactive against the egregious examples.

    4 votes
  15. Comment on Discussion, bad faith, our goals, and Tildes in ~tildes

    abbenm
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    The main problem with the theory of opposing opinion = good discussion is that people can frame any disagreement, even legitimate disagreement, as intolerance of their ideas. In it's worst form,...

    We have to allow those with opposing opinions (assuming they are making reasonable discussion and not bad faith trolling) to be able to voice their opinions. Not doing this results in echo chambers and that is the exact opposite of productive discussion.

    The main problem with the theory of opposing opinion = good discussion is that people can frame any disagreement, even legitimate disagreement, as intolerance of their ideas.

    In it's worst form, on reddit, the conversion on tolerance/free speech has gotten weird and been used to mask serious problems with toxic, low-information conversations, with people claiming that not engaging with the shallowest elements of T_D amounts to intolerance. In it's more moderate form, it serves to water down conversations by moving one degree of abstraction away from the substance of any given conversation to the meta-question of whether the conversion contains too much agreement. Clearly something has gone wrong here.

    There are far more important metrics of a good conversation, especially good political conversation, like responsiveness, depth, engagement with evidence, consciousness of history, and sophistication of theories brought to bear to explain political dynamics.

    For conversations with those kinds of moving parts, the question of agreement/disagreement almost doesn't even make sense, because of course there has to be some level of agreement, a lot of it actually, to climb up levels of historical and intellectual context-setting to get to a point where the core conversational details shimmer with all kinds of contextual meaning.

    There can be rich, nuanced dialog between people on a shared side of the ideological spectrum that allows people to learn, change, debate, prod, reconfigure beliefs in deep ways, carefully examine new issues unfolding in the news, all in ways that are healthy, informed, and high quality. I think those are the important things, and they are at core questions over substance. Those are the jewels. They get lost in these tests for tolerance of opposing sides, because those tests try to capture the value of multidimensional conversations according to a one-dimensional test of agreement/disagreement.

    8 votes
  16. Comment on "Who gets to be on the Steam store?" - Valve plans to start allowing everything on Steam that isn't "illegal or straight up trolling" in ~games

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    As long as they keep up the good work with robust filters and searches, I'm fine with it. Let a thousand flowers bloom, even if I wouldn't pick them myself. For instance, I have zero interest in...

    As long as they keep up the good work with robust filters and searches, I'm fine with it. Let a thousand flowers bloom, even if I wouldn't pick them myself.

    For instance, I have zero interest in visual novels. But I can see some people are super interested in them. As long as I have a way to search that can reliably filter them out, I'm more than happy to let these organic movements flourish and do their own thing.

    7 votes
  17. Comment on On the rise and fall of Delicious, the online bookmarking service in ~tech

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Stacks were a bundle of links on a single page, like tags, but more useless. It could be viewed as a list or as a pinterest-like cluster of cards. But it wasn't tags, it wasn't really anything....

    Stacks were a bundle of links on a single page, like tags, but more useless. It could be viewed as a list or as a pinterest-like cluster of cards. But it wasn't tags, it wasn't really anything. Why they thought that would save the company is beyond me.

    1 vote
  18. Comment on On the rise and fall of Delicious, the online bookmarking service in ~tech

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    Pinboard, but it costs money.

    Pinboard, but it costs money.

    1 vote
  19. Comment on On the rise and fall of Delicious, the online bookmarking service in ~tech

    abbenm
    Link
    I remember delicious being irreplaceable for me as well. I truly think with the right management it could have been a cultural epicenter of the internet, like a reddit or twitter. And it would...

    I remember delicious being irreplaceable for me as well. I truly think with the right management it could have been a cultural epicenter of the internet, like a reddit or twitter. And it would have been a great acquisition for Yahoo if Yahoo wasn't a train wreck.

    But then it languished under Yahoo, then there was the rumor of it shutting down that caused people to flee. Then, in an inexplicable bout of insanity, they brought out the feature called "stacks" (does anybody besides me remember stacks?) and buried tags and even regular links like they no longer existed.

    It's really too bad, because they did bookmarks well, and just about everywhere on the internet and every browser does bookmarks is imo excruciatingly bad by comparison, with the exception of pinboard. It could have still been here, and it could have been on top of the world.

    4 votes
  20. Comment on will we see a ~politics? in ~tildes

    abbenm
    Link Parent
    I think this reflects the problem with false balance that was discussed above. Where people choose to identify the "center" is just as politicized as conversations about the left and the right and...

    Perhaps Sanders is center left by international terms, but by U.S. politics, he is far left.

    I think this reflects the problem with false balance that was discussed above. Where people choose to identify the "center" is just as politicized as conversations about the left and the right and deserves just as much scrutiny.

    I also think it's a problem to try and substitute the test of ideological centrism for quality, because those are two completely different types of things. I personally have found a lot of centrist conversations on reddit to be of low quality, and a lot of far-left conversations to be extremely high quality. And while I personally don't agree with a lot of right-wing stuff, I've definitely had conversations with those folks that I would regard as high quality, which have had nothing to do with whether or not those conversations adhered to centrism.

    Part of the problem with centrism, which I don't see talked about enough, is that it misunderstands what it means to have a good, deep conversation, by substituting an ideological test for more important metrics of a good conversation like responsiveness, depth, engagement with evidence, consciousness of history, and sophistication of theories brought to bear to explain political dynamics.

    There can be rich, nuanced dialog between people on a shared side of the ideological spectrum that allows people to learn, change, debate, prod, reconfigure beliefs in deep ways, carefully examine new issues unfolding in the news, all in ways that are healthy, informed, and high quality. It doesn't at all do justice to those conversations to just label them according to where they fall on a left-right partisan spectrum, because that's not a measure of quality and it often doesn't capture the more complex ideological dimensionality of the best conversations.

    3 votes