> Because your position of no ill-intent does not sound like you're on the same side as I am.

If your position is "We do not want these kinds of stuff to exist/happen", then we are.

If your position however is "Witchhunts are fun, and decisions and dialogue should be driven by emotions", then indeed we are misaligned by a few centuries.

▲

tremon 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Do not put words in my mouth. Where in my post did I advocate for any form of action?

▲

hypfer 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> Where in my post did I advocate for any form of action?

Wait what?

You don't? What?!

I want action. I do not want there to be a microphone array in my TV that may or may not sample at random times and forwards that data god knows where.

And to achieve that, I believe that we need to look at the systems that brought us to this outcome.

▲

pessimizer 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You change the conversation about televisions to be about judging the person you're having the conversation with for what they think is "ill-intent" and for one-upsmanship, you put words into their mouth, and when they point it out, you ignore them and return to the conversation. You aggressively silence them, then start babbling about yourself.

Are you a bot designed to disrupt conversations or just doing a good imitation of one?

	▲	hypfer 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I am indeed trying to disrupt the classic outrage scripts, as I believe that they are harmful to our goals. There are many, many places on the web where performative outrage as in-group signalling is cheered, but, ideally, we also have some spaces where we can think and derive solutions. By splitting the spaces, people can get the emotional validation they crave, while we can also have a workspace to make things better and reduce the need for that validation in the first place.