5 ms·

Well I'm not saying they don't get moderated eventually .. but the thread in reference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659135 https://news.ycombinator.c

by foxes 5mo ago

Well I'm not saying they don't get moderated eventually .. but the thread in reference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659135 There was horrific racism on display right here. Perhaps it just seems part of the background noise to you .. but at the time, some of those posts felt just as bad as calls to violence or worse. But to compose something more substantial .. its probably all to much to neatly tie up in a single reply to a thread.

dang 5mo ago
> Well I'm not saying they don't get moderated eventually I'm going to interpret that as meaning that we do our job ok, just not instantenously—which would make sense, given that we're human and that would be humanly impossible. > There was horrific racism on display right here If there were any cases of that which we didn't do anything about, it would be because we didn't see them. I can't read everything that gets posted to Hacker News any more than you can; see "humanly impossible" above. But I'd like to see specific links. > Perhaps it just seems part of the background noise to you It does not "seem like part of the background noise" to me. What it "seems like" is wrenching my intenstines into an agonizing state on a regular basis and then driving a spike through them.
- foxes 5mo ago
  Consider some more examples: trump or that other conservative figure getting shot. Or the ceo of the health company getting shot. Both of those people condone(d), support, amplify and drive horrific violence. A common liberal reaction to those incidents - "oh no violence isn't okay!!" - well where were you for all the other horrific things they did and said? Yes in some ideal world there perhaps wouldn't be violence - but I can understand people feeling like they had it coming. It's the boy who cried wolf. It's the bully getting their comeuppance. It can be hard to feel bad. Sama also talks about wanting ai to be the future, its pushed everywhere and the feeling is its going to take peoples jobs and disrupt everything. But there's no discussion about how we are going to look after everyone in that future. Current capitalistic (american) society doesn't seem built for that ... that lack of care already exists for a lot of people too who are homeless, poor etc. Being upset about samas front gate getting firebombed while they probably also had plenty of security .. well idk.
  - brandon272 5mo ago
    > Both of those people condone(d), support, amplify and drive horrific violence. This seems to be the point of contention. What constitutes "violence"? A lot of people seem to define violence as a purely physical act: a missile strike during a war, a fist hitting a face, a molotov cocktail thrown over a property line. What has become clear to me, especially when I saw the discourse around Luigi Mangione and the public opinion polling on it, is that a lot – a lot – of people define it much more broadly: a health insurance denial, a job lost as a result of some CEO's careless ambition, or mere words. The problem with a very broad definition of violence is that it permits a pretty barbaric worldview. If I cut someone off in traffic, or if a careless administrative action on my part costs someone money that then puts them in a financial pickle that month, is that violence? Do I then deserve to be tracked and assaulted? What about the doctor who is complicit in the refused treatment because the insurance company won't pay a bill? "I understand the insurance company isn't paying the bill but you are still going to treat me, and to not do so is a violent act." The list goes on. Can society function if the default action at real or perceived injustice is to just kill?
    - foxes 5mo ago
      Of course there are different levels of violence. One person inciting hate online is different to bombing a country back to the stone age, but they are both violent. No a traffic offense shouldn't get you assaulted. But big ceo or president shouldn't necessarily be surprised about consequences to say it bluntly, and to tie it back to our original point, its funny its such an issue now to dang and others here. Its like suddenly an issue when that violence is directed at someone who does have a lot of power rather than the other way around. I feel you could argue denying health claims is violent, its intending to cause harm - there is a choice there.
    - MiguelX413 5mo ago
      > The problem with a very broad definition of violence is that it permits a pretty barbaric worldview. If I cut someone off in traffic, or if a careless administrative action on my part costs someone money that then puts them in a financial pickle that month, is that violence? Do I then deserve to be tracked and assaulted? What about the doctor who is complicit in the refused treatment because the insurance company won't pay a bill? That's resolved with proportionality. Cut me off in traffic? No biggy Cut me off from my healthcare when I have a terminal illness? Biggy
- UncleMeat 5mo ago
  But you are doing things about the bad comments in this thread too. Why is "well we removed that stuff" a defense in other contexts but not here? In both cases the issue is this community writing stuff you deem objectionable.

by foxes 5mo ago

dang 5mo ago

> Well I'm not saying they don't get moderated eventually I'm going to interpret that as meaning that we do our job ok, just not instantenously—which would make sense, given that we're human and that would be humanly impossible. > There was horrific racism on display right here If there were any cases of that which we didn't do anything about, it would be because we didn't see them. I can't read everything that gets posted to Hacker News any more than you can; see "humanly impossible" above. But I'd like to see specific links. > Perhaps it just seems part of the background noise to you It does not "seem like part of the background noise" to me. What it "seems like" is wrenching my intenstines into an agonizing state on a regular basis and then driving a spike through them.

foxes 5mo ago
Consider some more examples: trump or that other conservative figure getting shot. Or the ceo of the health company getting shot. Both of those people condone(d), support, amplify and drive horrific violence. A common liberal reaction to those incidents - "oh no violence isn't okay!!" - well where were you for all the other horrific things they did and said? Yes in some ideal world there perhaps wouldn't be violence - but I can understand people feeling like they had it coming. It's the boy who cried wolf. It's the bully getting their comeuppance. It can be hard to feel bad. Sama also talks about wanting ai to be the future, its pushed everywhere and the feeling is its going to take peoples jobs and disrupt everything. But there's no discussion about how we are going to look after everyone in that future. Current capitalistic (american) society doesn't seem built for that ... that lack of care already exists for a lot of people too who are homeless, poor etc. Being upset about samas front gate getting firebombed while they probably also had plenty of security .. well idk.
- brandon272 5mo ago
  > Both of those people condone(d), support, amplify and drive horrific violence. This seems to be the point of contention. What constitutes "violence"? A lot of people seem to define violence as a purely physical act: a missile strike during a war, a fist hitting a face, a molotov cocktail thrown over a property line. What has become clear to me, especially when I saw the discourse around Luigi Mangione and the public opinion polling on it, is that a lot – a lot – of people define it much more broadly: a health insurance denial, a job lost as a result of some CEO's careless ambition, or mere words. The problem with a very broad definition of violence is that it permits a pretty barbaric worldview. If I cut someone off in traffic, or if a careless administrative action on my part costs someone money that then puts them in a financial pickle that month, is that violence? Do I then deserve to be tracked and assaulted? What about the doctor who is complicit in the refused treatment because the insurance company won't pay a bill? "I understand the insurance company isn't paying the bill but you are still going to treat me, and to not do so is a violent act." The list goes on. Can society function if the default action at real or perceived injustice is to just kill?
  - foxes 5mo ago
    Of course there are different levels of violence. One person inciting hate online is different to bombing a country back to the stone age, but they are both violent. No a traffic offense shouldn't get you assaulted. But big ceo or president shouldn't necessarily be surprised about consequences to say it bluntly, and to tie it back to our original point, its funny its such an issue now to dang and others here. Its like suddenly an issue when that violence is directed at someone who does have a lot of power rather than the other way around. I feel you could argue denying health claims is violent, its intending to cause harm - there is a choice there.
  - MiguelX413 5mo ago
    > The problem with a very broad definition of violence is that it permits a pretty barbaric worldview. If I cut someone off in traffic, or if a careless administrative action on my part costs someone money that then puts them in a financial pickle that month, is that violence? Do I then deserve to be tracked and assaulted? What about the doctor who is complicit in the refused treatment because the insurance company won't pay a bill? That's resolved with proportionality. Cut me off in traffic? No biggy Cut me off from my healthcare when I have a terminal illness? Biggy
UncleMeat 5mo ago
But you are doing things about the bad comments in this thread too. Why is "well we removed that stuff" a defense in other contexts but not here? In both cases the issue is this community writing stuff you deem objectionable.