‘I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on earth’: A self-proclaimed white nationalist planned a mass terrorist attack, the government says
This thread is pretty wildly off-topic now, and has just turned mostly into a debate about one person's comment that even they don't seem to want to continue. I wish I had a better tool to address...
Exemplary
This thread is pretty wildly off-topic now, and has just turned mostly into a debate about one person's comment that even they don't seem to want to continue. I wish I had a better tool to address this somehow, but at this point about my only option is to lock the thread (or remove everything, but that's even worse).
I'd like to remind people to try to keep the principle of charity in mind. Discussions always go better if we don't treat the other participants as our enemies who we have to "beat". That mindset just leads to (heated) arguments, instead of conversations.
It sounds like he's using white nationalism and neo-Nazism to further his desire to cause chaos and kill people. Hate to say it, but neo-Nazism is better than this, if by a small margin: at least...
It sounds like he's using white nationalism and neo-Nazism to further his desire to cause chaos and kill people.
Hate to say it, but neo-Nazism is better than this, if by a small margin: at least its followers have an ideology.
What strikes me as odd in this case is how the intentions of the person don't seem to align specifically with the white-nationalist ideology. There's overlap, but the main reasoning behind it...
What strikes me as odd in this case is how the intentions of the person don't seem to align specifically with the white-nationalist ideology. There's overlap, but the main reasoning behind it seems to be centered around Trump and his pseudo-"America first" stance.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the guy is lying, per se. I have my doubts about his true allegiance, however, because I've seen cases of people with unsettled minds trying to garner some sort of twisted acceptance by using more-common causes for their uncommon, hedious crimes. I'm no expert, but this strikes me as one such case: a lost mind trying to find some sort of reason about the world, and white nationalism is what comes up the closest.
This fits entirely within the purview of white nationalism/supremacy. The creation of a white ethnostate is the end goal, the reassertion of a perceived loss in national sovereignty and primacy of...
There's overlap, but the main reasoning behind it seems to be centered around Trump and his pseudo-"America first" stance.
This fits entirely within the purview of white nationalism/supremacy. The creation of a white ethnostate is the end goal, the reassertion of a perceived loss in national sovereignty and primacy of the "native" population is often the first step.
I'm no expert, but this strikes me as one such case: a lost mind trying to find some sort of reason about the world, and white nationalism is what comes up the closest.
You're not wrong, that's how a lot of people come into contact with fascist ideologies. But more often than not they do become fully immersed in it, white nationalism isn't a convenient badge a lot of mentally troubled people happen to wear for convenience. Many people, this man included, fully believe in it's premises and courses of action.
Honestly, that's what makes genuine neo-Nazism worse. This guy can probably be written off as being mentally ill. He's an abberation, not an indication of a deeper societal problem. Actual white...
Hate to say it, but neo-Nazism is better than this, if by a small margin: at least its followers have an ideology.
Honestly, that's what makes genuine neo-Nazism worse. This guy can probably be written off as being mentally ill. He's an abberation, not an indication of a deeper societal problem. Actual white nationalist movements are driven by beliefs and rhetoric that actually sucks people in, and makes otherwise sane people say and do terrible things. Having any ideology isn't automatically better than having no ideology.
Thank you for asking politely. I'll be brief, because that one comment has raised an amount of waves I no longer wish to swim against. I never said it was mindless, his violence: only that it has...
Thank you for asking politely.
I'll be brief, because that one comment has raised an amount of waves I no longer wish to swim against.
I never said it was mindless, his violence: only that it has a different locus. White nationalism, to me, seemed merely a cover for his actions – a cover that he uses to hide his much more ulterior, much more personal motives. I think the distinction is important in assigning responsibility, if only for the sake of clarity. I'm saying that it wasn't some scary ideology: it was one man's cruel, painful vision of the world where his twisted mind feels at rest.
Maybe I'm wrong here: like I said, I am no expert.
Basically:
You seem to claim he is abusing white nationalism for violence, while there is no feasible way a white nationalist could pursue his ideology without violence
To the part before the comma – yes, it seems so to me; to the part after the comma – no, I don't assert that.
Yeah, the problem is, when an organization starts making its target demographic for recruitment every deranged hateful person on earth, they're going to see this in increasing numbers. At some...
Yeah, the problem is, when an organization starts making its target demographic for recruitment every deranged hateful person on earth, they're going to see this in increasing numbers.
At some point this will be the majority party in the neo-Nazi camp. It's the breeding ground for something very ugly.
Nazism is and always has been the domain of deranged hateful people. Why are people trying to act like there are "rational" ones, as if attempting to exterminate all Jewish people on the planet...
Nazism is and always has been the domain of deranged hateful people. Why are people trying to act like there are "rational" ones, as if attempting to exterminate all Jewish people on the planet isn't outright morally repugnant?
I'd rather keep this reply polite and understanding, but this is beyond me right now. What I'm gonna say, I'm gonna say not out of lacking respect for you, but out of the displeasure at...
Exemplary
I'd rather keep this reply polite and understanding, but this is beyond me right now. What I'm gonna say, I'm gonna say not out of lacking respect for you, but out of the displeasure at misrepresentation of my comment. Nevertheless, you took my comment and used it as a vent for some sort of perceived frustration, which I have little respect for.
So.
Your thinking I said something does not equate me saying something. I don't hold the opinion I'd expressed strongly, but I would stand by my words simply because they're mine. Had you asked me whether I truly support neo-Nazism in any way, I would have replied – but you didn't, so I don't see the need to, either.
The fact that, amidst such a contentious topic, you chose to chastise me over what you think you see in my words instead of asking whether that idea was what I wanted to express, belittles the conversation and both of us. It reduces the conversation into a messy, emotional fight of weakly-held points, and it is something I wish to be no part of. I expect more from you simply because you are a member of this community; because I have faith in the ideal this place has been built upon.
Plainly put: next time, instead of assuming I'm an asshole, ask me and see if my reply implies as much.
With so little text to work with, people tend to jump to conclusions. Have you considered that a longer initial response so that others do not misinterpret (or at least are less likely to...
the displeasure at misrepresentation of my comment.
With so little text to work with, people tend to jump to conclusions. Have you considered that a longer initial response so that others do not misinterpret (or at least are less likely to misinterpret) your reply might be a good solution to the issue of poor communication quality due to the limited nature of text?
As someone who's been on both sides of this situation, I agree with @Gaywallet that a longer, more expository comment is going to be less susceptible to the hyper-outrage response.
As someone who's been on both sides of this situation, I agree with @Gaywallet that a longer, more expository comment is going to be less susceptible to the hyper-outrage response.
On one hand, yes. On the other hand, why is that we can't take comments at face value anymore? Must we always try to find hidden second meanings in them (I'm referring to the general internet...
On one hand, yes.
On the other hand, why is that we can't take comments at face value anymore? Must we always try to find hidden second meanings in them (I'm referring to the general internet culture, not this particular case, in which I disagree with both parties)?
Basically, I'm saying: We should strive to make our statements as clear as possible. But we should also try not to jump to conclussions so easily. Which is why I believe both parties here are at fault, not that I want to get into an argument with either.
Totally agree. I don't think myself or @gaywallet were trying to fault one side over the other. OP already did a good job of explaining to the top commentator why they shouldn't assume bad faith....
Which is why I believe both parties here are at fault, not that I want to get into an argument with neither.
Totally agree. I don't think myself or @gaywallet were trying to fault one side over the other. OP already did a good job of explaining to the top commentator why they shouldn't assume bad faith. I think @gaywallet was just offering some practical advice that I think would be well-taken by OP.
I have. My conclusion was: it's not my responsibility to account for every possible misinterpretation whenever I say what I say. I will gladly address any that'd been voiced. Mind-reading is a...
Have you considered that a longer initial response so that others do not misinterpret (or at least are less likely to misinterpret) your reply might be a good solution to the issue of poor communication quality due to the limited nature of text?
I have. My conclusion was: it's not my responsibility to account for every possible misinterpretation whenever I say what I say. I will gladly address any that'd been voiced. Mind-reading is a foul practice, and I'm not going to engage with it any more than I have in my lifetime.
You're right: text communication is painfully-limited – and I agree: clearer communication is preferable. I've argued about the same before, over the distinction between a vote and saying "thanks" in comment form. However, I consider the bending-over-backwards dance that is making sure everyone is clear about where everyone stands to be demeaning to the whole conversation.
The responsibility for the clarity of communication lies on all parties involved, not on the first voice alone. If you have issues with what I said – voice them, just like you have in your comment. If you have counterpoints – make them, just like you have.
Human communication is never perfect. To weed out the bullshit is on all of us.
I'd say that your initial comment was written in such a way as to be open to wide interpretation, whether intentional or not. While others need to assume good faith, I think it's fair to point out...
I'd say that your initial comment was written in such a way as to be open to wide interpretation, whether intentional or not. While others need to assume good faith, I think it's fair to point out that the comment could have been written to more clearly convey your intended message.
Your point about people jumping the gun, assuming bad faith, and reacting with vitriol is well-taken and on point. There is a culture of "outrage" on the web that needs to end.
However, there is also a game afoot among bad-faith actors to post inflammatory comments (here and elsewhere) that are intended to be "misinterpreted." That person then back tracks and declares bad-faith on those who reacted negatively. If we acknowledge that this is a tactic used to divide us and work together to communicate clearly then we can have a much more productive conversation.
Just saying, if you had taken the time on your first post that you did on this one, the 'misunderstanding' may not have happened. Objectively it reads like a weak 'no true Scotsman' statement and...
Just saying, if you had taken the time on your first post that you did on this one, the 'misunderstanding' may not have happened. Objectively it reads like a weak 'no true Scotsman' statement and potentially an attempt to distance this guy from the ideology he espouses. A certain tone deafness regarding race or racial ideologies is not entirely unheard of here.
What exactly did you mean by "neo-Nazism is better than this"? If you have the time to expand on that? Do you mean that people that want to eliminate only certain kinds of people are better than...
What exactly did you mean by "neo-Nazism is better than this"? If you have the time to expand on that? Do you mean that people that want to eliminate only certain kinds of people are better than people that want to eliminate people indiscriminately?
Reddit and Facebook and co have trained people to behave like this through years and years of carrying on discussions on platforms that weren't build to safeguard the integrity of the...
Reddit and Facebook and co have trained people to behave like this through years and years of carrying on discussions on platforms that weren't build to safeguard the integrity of the conversation. It has to be unlearned which is hard, and takes time. I've seen a couple of people here do it, though. I'd like to find a way to facilitate it someday, and do something to help people apply more charitable interpretations.
Edit: The rest of this thread is meta as fuck and huge, so if y'all wouldn't mind hitting Koan and I with your offtopic labels so it auto-collapses and stops derailing the news discussion, I'd appreciate it. ;)
Smells like an opportunity for a feature of some kind to deal with it, or at least take some of the pain out of it. I think what's missing out there is some kind of general-user-feedback mechanism...
Smells like an opportunity for a feature of some kind to deal with it, or at least take some of the pain out of it.
I think what's missing out there is some kind of general-user-feedback mechanism for people to use that provides cues to each user when they are crossing a line of some kind. Right now that feedback has to come from comments or PMs where people tell someone about it.
I'd like users to be able to see something like, "You've been raising a lot of eyebrows lately." Nothing offensive, nothing specific, just a general tone-thing. I don't know the shape of this, just that many-to-one user feedback like this is the only way I can think of to get started on this problem.
I think that's part of the point of Tildes' system. You can't just label their reply and move on with life. You have to explain to them how they misunderstood.
because it could very well become a downvote button, but there are times when I read comments and think, "yeah, this person didn't understand what they were replying to at all."
I think that's part of the point of Tildes' system. You can't just label their reply and move on with life. You have to explain to them how they misunderstood.
see, i think this is a good point, but at least to me it does feel like there should be something like a "misunderstanding" label between the joke label and the noise and malice labels....
I think that's part of the point of Tildes' system. You can't just label their reply and move on with life. You have to explain to them how they misunderstood.
see, i think this is a good point, but at least to me it does feel like there should be something like a "misunderstanding" label between the joke label and the noise and malice labels. frustratingly, i can't really explain what that would be, though, and i can also see a few things that would make a "misunderstanding" type label possibly a difficult thing to implement (like how some people will probably use it to take passive-aggressive, largely invisible snipes at people). maybe this feeling is just a byproduct having already been able to boil down certain abstract ideas to easily usable comment labels, such that it seems like we should be able to do so with other things? i dunno.
I think people want to vote accurately - and by that, I don't mean in some objective sense of the word measured by an external standard. I mean subjective, based on how that particular comment or...
I think people want to vote accurately - and by that, I don't mean in some objective sense of the word measured by an external standard. I mean subjective, based on how that particular comment or submission makes them feel.
When you just have up and down, all you can get out of that is if it makes someone feel positive or negative. This isn't particularly useful information.
Our labels are 'exemplary' (a vote multiplier and highlighter), 'offtopic' and 'noise' and 'joke' (vote penalties and auto-collapsers), and 'malice' - which is basically a PM to the admin at present, but will someday be a 'red flag alert' to moderator types. That's a fairly basic set. Are there other reasons to vote that these don't cover? Of course there are.
A 'tone' warning for example could be shown in orange next to malice. This could, if someone gets enough of them over a time period, be used to send that 'you're raising eyebrows' warning. That'll cause some people to double down on the douchebaggery, but it'll also cause others to reflect and improve.
Sometimes I feel like we need a 'pedant' tag for people who get fixated on single sentences rather than the general message. :P
The tags we have now were never meant to be anything more than a very rough test of these ideas. It's nowhere near a final form. Deimos likes to experiment, too - once we have something approaching a concrete test for a worthwhile idea.
The only real limit is page space. We're at a two-click system right now, and I don't think going beyond two clicks is wise. The more 'effort' it takes the fewer people will use it. We don't want...
The only real limit is page space. We're at a two-click system right now, and I don't think going beyond two clicks is wise. The more 'effort' it takes the fewer people will use it. We don't want to click 'label' and have a matrix of 25 items pop out either, or dropdowns or any of that. Too confusing, eventually you're in paradox-of-choice territory.
I think the rainbow color effect is really helping. The spectrum instantly gets the idea across that good ones are on the left, bad ones are on the right. Perhaps we should do a thread and ask people what kinds of labels they can dream up - not just aimed at this problem, but in general. Rabid brainstorming. When the dust settles I expect we might gain more insight into how to do this right.
To me, those read like very aggressive moves that will turn toxic in no time and make the whole site more toxic, argumentative and hostile.
They're such a waste of time. And when you determine the person you're communicating with just isn't reading you right, it might be helpful to label them as such and move on. Helpful to the appropriate party. "Pedant" ... "this has devolved into pedantry, and I'm out." It might be helpful to people in/following the comment chain.
To me, those read like very aggressive moves that will turn toxic in no time and make the whole site more toxic, argumentative and hostile.
I think they'll only be abused (or at least, abused heavily and universally) when they are being used as proxies for some other label that doesn't exist yet. The downvote gets abused on reddit...
I think they'll only be abused (or at least, abused heavily and universally) when they are being used as proxies for some other label that doesn't exist yet.
The downvote gets abused on reddit because it's the only way to express distaste there. The reason isn't even relevant - it's a bucket for all the negative reasons, just like upvote is a bucket for all the positive ones.
Malice is being abused already in a lot of cases. That tag is meant to be for serious infractions where you legitimately think the op is doing something bad intentionally. Not accidentally, not because it triggered some pet peeve you have that most other people don't have. Right now Deimos is quietly absorbing the load that generates, and I'm sure he's thinking about ways to handle malice better just like we are.
I have a feeling if we have a soft-malice tag (a tone warning or something like that) then people will stop using malice for that purpose. They won't do this because we tell them to, or because it's the culture or accepted behavior. They'll simply do it because when they look at the labels, people are going to pick the most appropriate one in that snap decision.
So I think when we see labels being abused, that's a cue that we're missing some other label, that there's some other effect we're not providing a proper outlet for it's expression.
This is separate from the bandwagon effect, though. Exemplary is definitely harnessing the bandwagon effect because others can see it. Don't we want to do that with any feel-good systems we come up with? Don't we want to encourage their use? The visibility does that.
I know reddit gold, quality-wise, has become a bit of a joke - but how many internet slap fights does the use of reddit gold trigger? I'm asking honestly since I spend most of my time in music subs, the most un-guilded places on reddit. No, really.
I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Exemplary as-is will play out a lot like reddit gold based on having identical highlighting effects. Has anyone seen these highlighting effects snowball into real trouble in any of the subreddits over there? I'm genuinely asking. I haven't been paying attention to that so I genuinely don't know if it has.
I don't think so. I think it's just a cultural movement that's becoming more popular. I was recently recommended a podcast about the lives of past authoritarian leaders. I thought I'd give it a...
I think people just like to be outraged because of other problems in their life. I understand it... but man, I'm so exhausted with it.
I don't think so. I think it's just a cultural movement that's becoming more popular.
I was recently recommended a podcast about the lives of past authoritarian leaders. I thought I'd give it a try since I like to play informative things in the background while I do chores and learn something useful while I'm at it.
But after a few episodes I was getting very annoyed at it. Since a quarter of the episode or even half of it was the hosts commenting on how bad x or y thing was. They couldn't state facts without judging them as right or wrong. I know killing 15 million people is bad, same as neglecting your kids and dating underage girls, you don't need to tell me every second how bad each of these things and continuously repeat yourself in the process. I also feel like the invitees were sort of the people that want everything always 100% politically correct and would often shift the blame on “us” the listeners and imply we were somehow complicit of the crimes these people did even before we were even born, or at least that was the feeling I got out of it. Very judgy. They were also very quick into ascribing their crimes to certain psychological disorders.
You can see the same attitude on Reddit all the time.
Reddit is egregious about this. Compared to it, my stay here has been a resort full of reasonable, respectful, benevolent people seeking either a productive discussion, or disabusing someone of...
Reddit is egregious about this.
Compared to it, my stay here has been a resort full of reasonable, respectful, benevolent people seeking either a productive discussion, or disabusing someone of their ignorance.
I'd rather not have one bad case spoil the whole process.
This thread is pretty wildly off-topic now, and has just turned mostly into a debate about one person's comment that even they don't seem to want to continue. I wish I had a better tool to address this somehow, but at this point about my only option is to lock the thread (or remove everything, but that's even worse).
I'd like to remind people to try to keep the principle of charity in mind. Discussions always go better if we don't treat the other participants as our enemies who we have to "beat". That mindset just leads to (heated) arguments, instead of conversations.
It sounds like he's using white nationalism and neo-Nazism to further his desire to cause chaos and kill people.
Hate to say it, but neo-Nazism is better than this, if by a small margin: at least its followers have an ideology.
What strikes me as odd in this case is how the intentions of the person don't seem to align specifically with the white-nationalist ideology. There's overlap, but the main reasoning behind it seems to be centered around Trump and his pseudo-"America first" stance.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the guy is lying, per se. I have my doubts about his true allegiance, however, because I've seen cases of people with unsettled minds trying to garner some sort of twisted acceptance by using more-common causes for their uncommon, hedious crimes. I'm no expert, but this strikes me as one such case: a lost mind trying to find some sort of reason about the world, and white nationalism is what comes up the closest.
This fits entirely within the purview of white nationalism/supremacy. The creation of a white ethnostate is the end goal, the reassertion of a perceived loss in national sovereignty and primacy of the "native" population is often the first step.
You're not wrong, that's how a lot of people come into contact with fascist ideologies. But more often than not they do become fully immersed in it, white nationalism isn't a convenient badge a lot of mentally troubled people happen to wear for convenience. Many people, this man included, fully believe in it's premises and courses of action.
It has traits of white nationalism, but is not white nationalism by itself.
Honestly, that's what makes genuine neo-Nazism worse. This guy can probably be written off as being mentally ill. He's an abberation, not an indication of a deeper societal problem. Actual white nationalist movements are driven by beliefs and rhetoric that actually sucks people in, and makes otherwise sane people say and do terrible things. Having any ideology isn't automatically better than having no ideology.
Thank you for asking politely.
I'll be brief, because that one comment has raised an amount of waves I no longer wish to swim against.
I never said it was mindless, his violence: only that it has a different locus. White nationalism, to me, seemed merely a cover for his actions – a cover that he uses to hide his much more ulterior, much more personal motives. I think the distinction is important in assigning responsibility, if only for the sake of clarity. I'm saying that it wasn't some scary ideology: it was one man's cruel, painful vision of the world where his twisted mind feels at rest.
Maybe I'm wrong here: like I said, I am no expert.
Basically:
To the part before the comma – yes, it seems so to me; to the part after the comma – no, I don't assert that.
Yeah, the problem is, when an organization starts making its target demographic for recruitment every deranged hateful person on earth, they're going to see this in increasing numbers.
At some point this will be the majority party in the neo-Nazi camp. It's the breeding ground for something very ugly.
Nazism is and always has been the domain of deranged hateful people. Why are people trying to act like there are "rational" ones, as if attempting to exterminate all Jewish people on the planet isn't outright morally repugnant?
I'd rather keep this reply polite and understanding, but this is beyond me right now. What I'm gonna say, I'm gonna say not out of lacking respect for you, but out of the displeasure at misrepresentation of my comment. Nevertheless, you took my comment and used it as a vent for some sort of perceived frustration, which I have little respect for.
So.
Your thinking I said something does not equate me saying something. I don't hold the opinion I'd expressed strongly, but I would stand by my words simply because they're mine. Had you asked me whether I truly support neo-Nazism in any way, I would have replied – but you didn't, so I don't see the need to, either.
The fact that, amidst such a contentious topic, you chose to chastise me over what you think you see in my words instead of asking whether that idea was what I wanted to express, belittles the conversation and both of us. It reduces the conversation into a messy, emotional fight of weakly-held points, and it is something I wish to be no part of. I expect more from you simply because you are a member of this community; because I have faith in the ideal this place has been built upon.
Plainly put: next time, instead of assuming I'm an asshole, ask me and see if my reply implies as much.
With so little text to work with, people tend to jump to conclusions. Have you considered that a longer initial response so that others do not misinterpret (or at least are less likely to misinterpret) your reply might be a good solution to the issue of poor communication quality due to the limited nature of text?
As someone who's been on both sides of this situation, I agree with @Gaywallet that a longer, more expository comment is going to be less susceptible to the hyper-outrage response.
On one hand, yes.
On the other hand, why is that we can't take comments at face value anymore? Must we always try to find hidden second meanings in them (I'm referring to the general internet culture, not this particular case, in which I disagree with both parties)?
Basically, I'm saying: We should strive to make our statements as clear as possible. But we should also try not to jump to conclussions so easily. Which is why I believe both parties here are at fault, not that I want to get into an argument with either.
Totally agree. I don't think myself or @gaywallet were trying to fault one side over the other. OP already did a good job of explaining to the top commentator why they shouldn't assume bad faith. I think @gaywallet was just offering some practical advice that I think would be well-taken by OP.
I have. My conclusion was: it's not my responsibility to account for every possible misinterpretation whenever I say what I say. I will gladly address any that'd been voiced. Mind-reading is a foul practice, and I'm not going to engage with it any more than I have in my lifetime.
You're right: text communication is painfully-limited – and I agree: clearer communication is preferable. I've argued about the same before, over the distinction between a vote and saying "thanks" in comment form. However, I consider the bending-over-backwards dance that is making sure everyone is clear about where everyone stands to be demeaning to the whole conversation.
The responsibility for the clarity of communication lies on all parties involved, not on the first voice alone. If you have issues with what I said – voice them, just like you have in your comment. If you have counterpoints – make them, just like you have.
Human communication is never perfect. To weed out the bullshit is on all of us.
I'd say that your initial comment was written in such a way as to be open to wide interpretation, whether intentional or not. While others need to assume good faith, I think it's fair to point out that the comment could have been written to more clearly convey your intended message.
Your point about people jumping the gun, assuming bad faith, and reacting with vitriol is well-taken and on point. There is a culture of "outrage" on the web that needs to end.
However, there is also a game afoot among bad-faith actors to post inflammatory comments (here and elsewhere) that are intended to be "misinterpreted." That person then back tracks and declares bad-faith on those who reacted negatively. If we acknowledge that this is a tactic used to divide us and work together to communicate clearly then we can have a much more productive conversation.
Yes, and this is a problem on its own.
Just saying, if you had taken the time on your first post that you did on this one, the 'misunderstanding' may not have happened. Objectively it reads like a weak 'no true Scotsman' statement and potentially an attempt to distance this guy from the ideology he espouses. A certain tone deafness regarding race or racial ideologies is not entirely unheard of here.
What exactly did you mean by "neo-Nazism is better than this"? If you have the time to expand on that? Do you mean that people that want to eliminate only certain kinds of people are better than people that want to eliminate people indiscriminately?
Reddit and Facebook and co have trained people to behave like this through years and years of carrying on discussions on platforms that weren't build to safeguard the integrity of the conversation. It has to be unlearned which is hard, and takes time. I've seen a couple of people here do it, though. I'd like to find a way to facilitate it someday, and do something to help people apply more charitable interpretations.
Edit: The rest of this thread is meta as fuck and huge, so if y'all wouldn't mind hitting Koan and I with your offtopic labels so it auto-collapses and stops derailing the news discussion, I'd appreciate it. ;)
Smells like an opportunity for a feature of some kind to deal with it, or at least take some of the pain out of it.
I think what's missing out there is some kind of general-user-feedback mechanism for people to use that provides cues to each user when they are crossing a line of some kind. Right now that feedback has to come from comments or PMs where people tell someone about it.
I'd like users to be able to see something like, "You've been raising a lot of eyebrows lately." Nothing offensive, nothing specific, just a general tone-thing. I don't know the shape of this, just that many-to-one user feedback like this is the only way I can think of to get started on this problem.
I think that's part of the point of Tildes' system. You can't just label their reply and move on with life. You have to explain to them how they misunderstood.
see, i think this is a good point, but at least to me it does feel like there should be something like a "misunderstanding" label between the joke label and the noise and malice labels. frustratingly, i can't really explain what that would be, though, and i can also see a few things that would make a "misunderstanding" type label possibly a difficult thing to implement (like how some people will probably use it to take passive-aggressive, largely invisible snipes at people). maybe this feeling is just a byproduct having already been able to boil down certain abstract ideas to easily usable comment labels, such that it seems like we should be able to do so with other things? i dunno.
I think people want to vote accurately - and by that, I don't mean in some objective sense of the word measured by an external standard. I mean subjective, based on how that particular comment or submission makes them feel.
When you just have up and down, all you can get out of that is if it makes someone feel positive or negative. This isn't particularly useful information.
Our labels are 'exemplary' (a vote multiplier and highlighter), 'offtopic' and 'noise' and 'joke' (vote penalties and auto-collapsers), and 'malice' - which is basically a PM to the admin at present, but will someday be a 'red flag alert' to moderator types. That's a fairly basic set. Are there other reasons to vote that these don't cover? Of course there are.
A 'tone' warning for example could be shown in orange next to malice. This could, if someone gets enough of them over a time period, be used to send that 'you're raising eyebrows' warning. That'll cause some people to double down on the douchebaggery, but it'll also cause others to reflect and improve.
Sometimes I feel like we need a 'pedant' tag for people who get fixated on single sentences rather than the general message. :P
The tags we have now were never meant to be anything more than a very rough test of these ideas. It's nowhere near a final form. Deimos likes to experiment, too - once we have something approaching a concrete test for a worthwhile idea.
The only real limit is page space. We're at a two-click system right now, and I don't think going beyond two clicks is wise. The more 'effort' it takes the fewer people will use it. We don't want to click 'label' and have a matrix of 25 items pop out either, or dropdowns or any of that. Too confusing, eventually you're in paradox-of-choice territory.
I think the rainbow color effect is really helping. The spectrum instantly gets the idea across that good ones are on the left, bad ones are on the right. Perhaps we should do a thread and ask people what kinds of labels they can dream up - not just aimed at this problem, but in general. Rabid brainstorming. When the dust settles I expect we might gain more insight into how to do this right.
To me, those read like very aggressive moves that will turn toxic in no time and make the whole site more toxic, argumentative and hostile.
I think a "misunderstanding" label would be abused in the same way "exemplary" is. It would be a de facto downvote.
I think they'll only be abused (or at least, abused heavily and universally) when they are being used as proxies for some other label that doesn't exist yet.
The downvote gets abused on reddit because it's the only way to express distaste there. The reason isn't even relevant - it's a bucket for all the negative reasons, just like upvote is a bucket for all the positive ones.
Malice is being abused already in a lot of cases. That tag is meant to be for serious infractions where you legitimately think the op is doing something bad intentionally. Not accidentally, not because it triggered some pet peeve you have that most other people don't have. Right now Deimos is quietly absorbing the load that generates, and I'm sure he's thinking about ways to handle malice better just like we are.
I have a feeling if we have a soft-malice tag (a tone warning or something like that) then people will stop using malice for that purpose. They won't do this because we tell them to, or because it's the culture or accepted behavior. They'll simply do it because when they look at the labels, people are going to pick the most appropriate one in that snap decision.
So I think when we see labels being abused, that's a cue that we're missing some other label, that there's some other effect we're not providing a proper outlet for it's expression.
This is separate from the bandwagon effect, though. Exemplary is definitely harnessing the bandwagon effect because others can see it. Don't we want to do that with any feel-good systems we come up with? Don't we want to encourage their use? The visibility does that.
I know reddit gold, quality-wise, has become a bit of a joke - but how many internet slap fights does the use of reddit gold trigger? I'm asking honestly since I spend most of my time in music subs, the most un-guilded places on reddit. No, really.
I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Exemplary as-is will play out a lot like reddit gold based on having identical highlighting effects. Has anyone seen these highlighting effects snowball into real trouble in any of the subreddits over there? I'm genuinely asking. I haven't been paying attention to that so I genuinely don't know if it has.
I don't think so. I think it's just a cultural movement that's becoming more popular.
I was recently recommended a podcast about the lives of past authoritarian leaders. I thought I'd give it a try since I like to play informative things in the background while I do chores and learn something useful while I'm at it.
But after a few episodes I was getting very annoyed at it. Since a quarter of the episode or even half of it was the hosts commenting on how bad x or y thing was. They couldn't state facts without judging them as right or wrong. I know killing 15 million people is bad, same as neglecting your kids and dating underage girls, you don't need to tell me every second how bad each of these things and continuously repeat yourself in the process. I also feel like the invitees were sort of the people that want everything always 100% politically correct and would often shift the blame on “us” the listeners and imply we were somehow complicit of the crimes these people did even before we were even born, or at least that was the feeling I got out of it. Very judgy. They were also very quick into ascribing their crimes to certain psychological disorders.
You can see the same attitude on Reddit all the time.
Reddit is egregious about this.
Compared to it, my stay here has been a resort full of reasonable, respectful, benevolent people seeking either a productive discussion, or disabusing someone of their ignorance.
I'd rather not have one bad case spoil the whole process.