If you’re having to look through layers and layers of jargon, misdirection, and plausible deniability to find the toxicity, is it possible there’s a roarscach element to it?

▲

hypfer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If you’re having to look through layers and layers of jargon, misdirection, and plausible deniability to find the toxicity, is it possible there’s a roarscach element to it?

Are we going to play "prove me right" here? :D

Come on, this is just a direct personal attack. Go play better. Hide it with a more elaborate construct.

▲

Arnt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sometimes it can be difficult to tell whether someone is a troll "just asking questions" or actually just asking that question. More so on HN than in most of the world, I mean.

▲

retromagik 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep that's why the trolls lick that strategy

▲

hypfer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

An interesting realisation there which I believe will shape the upcoming years of discussion spaces is that one can shift the burden of proof there.

Instead of leaving it with the moderation to prove without a doubt that someone is trolling, one can default to assume trolling and demand prove that it is not the case.

As it is impossible to bring up proof for either of those things, the house wins and people make damn sure to quintuple-check if their messaging is decent.

I don't think that that is a good solution, but the status quo was horrible, so maybe the pendulum swinging in another direction for a while might help us discover saner solutions.

▲

cowlevel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It works until trolls figure out how to prove they are not trolls, even though they are trolls, while non-trolls have difficulty proving it.

▲

hypfer an hour ago | parent [-]

I suspect that the energy required scales exponentially though, and, eventually, it might just become less of a hassle to just behave.

That and the fact that each increase in difficulty filters out people that do not have the capability to pass it. So the pool shrinks every time.

Though, valid counterpoint: Eventually prefabs emerge and get shared.

But then we innovate once more. We always did. We always will

▲

cowlevel an hour ago | parent [-]

It doesn't scale exponentially. Another user already gave the example of someone persistently using "he/she", talking about gay marriages as "partners" while straight ones are "husbands" and "wives", etc. How much effort do you think it takes to perform that versus to moderate it?

	▲	hypfer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not quite sure what your point is tbh. Do not even try?

▲

cowlevel 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And that ambiguity is precisely something that trolls hide behind.

▲

tacitusarc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

▲

hypfer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

I'm not sure if can truly let this pass as a more sophisticated construct, but I do appreciate the opener that already invalidates dismissal.

That's a good tactic. Thank you for playing.

I feel great btw :) Thank you for your concern.

▲

kmijyiyxfbklao 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is completely crazy. How could someone point out that assuming evil intentions is not a good way to interact with people without being accused of doing the same thing as the FBI telling MLK to kill himself?

	▲	hypfer 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> This is completely crazy. How could someone point out that assuming evil intentions is not a good way to interact with people without being accused of doing the same thing as the FBI telling MLK to kill himself? I was genuinely wondering if we would see the end of it, but of course, no. But I like this, because it's such an obvious strawman and bad faith reinterpration by an account consisting of random jumbled letters. Thank you. This is background radiation one can live with. Thanks for making things normal again.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

regretsresin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unlikely. Plenty of anti LGBTQ rhetoric is permissible here by mods, for example.

However, it often uses queer lingo - words that folks might think aren't notable, but queer folks will instantly recognize as an attack.

Refusing to call a gay man's husband a husband, but subsisting in friend or partner. Calling someone biologically male. Etc.

These get deployed quite subtly here, and because none of the words are slurs, they don't get moderated. (Though HN also permits overt slur usage -- search for the r-slur and you'll find plenty of cases.)

▲

cosmic_cheese 2 hours ago | parent [-]

FWIW, it may just be a colossal misconception of my own, but I’d been of the mind that “partner” was in some cases more polite to use because it doesn’t make assumptions about the individuals in question or about the dynamics of the relationship between them. I am not part of the LGBTQ world, however, and am happy to be corrected.

	▲	amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It can be used both ways, I suppose. I use it for my partner because legal marital status isn't important to me, but for those that had to fight to obtain the basic right to get married I can see why it would be hurtful. I wonder how much of it is generational? I see something similar in the way second wave feminists rightly hated being called girls, whereas it's not as much of an issue for the younger generations because they didn't have those experiences.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]