ChatterBank19 mins ago
What Can Be Done About Twitface?
221 Answers
https:/
I think the Home sec has done the right thing in condemning this awful abuse and supporting Mr Lammy but surely this cesspit needs a rocket up it's April.
I think the Home sec has done the right thing in condemning this awful abuse and supporting Mr Lammy but surely this cesspit needs a rocket up it's April.
Answers
ck1 - // So antisemitism
11:26 Wed 05th Aug 2020
Naomi - // Since you refused to remove what was possibly the worst insult I've ever seen on AB your post is the height of hypocrisy. //
Please allow me to address your two massive assumptions -
1 - you assume that I actually saw the 'worst insult' which I am unsure if I did or not, but still more qualified than you to say if i did or not because i would know ...
2. - you assume that I 'refused' to remove said insult, again with no evidence whatsoever.
If you'd like to re-align your position on those two point for which you have no evidence, I'd be delighted to hear from you.
Please allow me to address your two massive assumptions -
1 - you assume that I actually saw the 'worst insult' which I am unsure if I did or not, but still more qualified than you to say if i did or not because i would know ...
2. - you assume that I 'refused' to remove said insult, again with no evidence whatsoever.
If you'd like to re-align your position on those two point for which you have no evidence, I'd be delighted to hear from you.
// Anybody divulging personal information on any internet site might as well do so by means of an advert in the Yorkshire Times (or whatever organ takes their fancy). It's no good moaning that "they are bullying me" after you've done that. //
I can agree that it's important to be careful -- or, at least, to be aware of what you are doing -- but it still stands to reason that the way to clean up standards is not to evade the problem but to face up to it. We shouldn't tolerate a policy of "let bullies roam wild and free". Even though the problem will never go away, we may as well strive to be better.
I can agree that it's important to be careful -- or, at least, to be aware of what you are doing -- but it still stands to reason that the way to clean up standards is not to evade the problem but to face up to it. We shouldn't tolerate a policy of "let bullies roam wild and free". Even though the problem will never go away, we may as well strive to be better.
Oh, yes -- and again that entire post fails to address the "what if your personal information is made available not by you but by others?", or "what if you were intending only to talk to like five people but suddenly it gets out to about five million?", and so on.
The entire philosophy here seems to be about demanding personal responsibility from the victims but not the assailants. I don't accept that this is the best we can expect.
The entire philosophy here seems to be about demanding personal responsibility from the victims but not the assailants. I don't accept that this is the best we can expect.
Trolling was done on linked computers in the 80's but was really around 93 when it waqs really recognised. So unless you were really at the forefront of tech Umm it must have been well established. I seem to recall using the 'proper' Internet in the New ~York office in Water Street circa 1994 although a friend of mine was setting up servers for the 'internet' in 93.
Some interesting reading:
https:/
Some interesting reading:
https:/
TBH I tend to take on board the judge's approach, don't join up to twitface etc but I guess that for many the innexplicable need to use social media must be balanced with the potential for abuse/trolling etc. When someone finds out that I'm not twitface etc they then feel the need to explain to me why they are, thinking their explanation may in some way justify their usage! I don't care!
naomi - // AH, //it appears that you do not appreciate how the system works. //
Oh I fully appreciate how the system works, AH ... //
Yes, I know you do, I was being ironic.
I know you know how the system works, I also know you don't approve of how it works.
That disapproval manifests itself in occasional oblique digs at the moderating system, or, as in your post at 12:23, where you simply post unsubstantiated and unprovable accusations - to which I await a reply with interest.
Oh I fully appreciate how the system works, AH ... //
Yes, I know you do, I was being ironic.
I know you know how the system works, I also know you don't approve of how it works.
That disapproval manifests itself in occasional oblique digs at the moderating system, or, as in your post at 12:23, where you simply post unsubstantiated and unprovable accusations - to which I await a reply with interest.
New Judge - // Be careful what you post and where you post it. //
That is obviously sensible advice, but it presumes, in error in my view, that trolls will only use the information they see on social media, and post their responses on the basis of that information.
You and I know that this is clearly not the case.
|f a woman posts that she has lost her baby, and strangers queue up to say she deserved it, and deserves to die as well, than that is hardly accurate interpretation of the information she provided is it?
Trolls can, and do, make up entirely spurious venom to hurt strangers with, they don't allow a little inconvenience like sticking to the information offered to stand in their way.
That is obviously sensible advice, but it presumes, in error in my view, that trolls will only use the information they see on social media, and post their responses on the basis of that information.
You and I know that this is clearly not the case.
|f a woman posts that she has lost her baby, and strangers queue up to say she deserved it, and deserves to die as well, than that is hardly accurate interpretation of the information she provided is it?
Trolls can, and do, make up entirely spurious venom to hurt strangers with, they don't allow a little inconvenience like sticking to the information offered to stand in their way.
If every time you walk down a certain street on your way to work, the residents shout vile abuse and throw things at you - the solution should not be that you go out of your way to take another route, although that would work. The correct solution is that the aggressors shouting abuse and throwing things at innocent people going about their business are stopped from doing it.
Andy Hughes writes “ck1 - // So antisemitism/racism is OK unless the comments reach a certain number of people? //
The So Rule - in all its glory!!”
Now, I read this as implying (or inferring, as round here the two seem (wrongly) interchangeable) that you think the ck1 quote is an example of ‘So’ being used in its new incorrect form.
It isn’t. It (so) is being used as a substitute for thus or therefore. “So I am from London” would (probably) be an incorrect usage. “So you are wrong” would be a correct usage, on many levels.
The So Rule - in all its glory!!”
Now, I read this as implying (or inferring, as round here the two seem (wrongly) interchangeable) that you think the ck1 quote is an example of ‘So’ being used in its new incorrect form.
It isn’t. It (so) is being used as a substitute for thus or therefore. “So I am from London” would (probably) be an incorrect usage. “So you are wrong” would be a correct usage, on many levels.
allenlondon - // Andy Hughes writes “ck1 - // So antisemitism/racism is OK unless the comments reach a certain number of people? //
The So Rule - in all its glory!!”
Now, I read this as implying (or inferring, as round here the two seem (wrongly) interchangeable) that you think the ck1 quote is an example of ‘So’ being used in its new incorrect form.
It isn’t. It (so) is being used as a substitute for thus or therefore. “So I am from London” would (probably) be an incorrect usage. “So you are wrong” would be a correct usage, on many levels. //
As TTT points out, the 'So Rule' is a light-hearted dig at bad debating invented and used solely by myself, but feel free if you like it, do use it.
In the instance when I use it, the word 'So' is short for 'So what you are actually saying is ...'.
It's basically short-hand for pointing out that someone has read a post, completely misunderstood what the poster is saying, and then accusing them of saying something else, and then criticising them for what they have not actually said.
Here's an example -
I post this - "The Nazi Party was a political party formed in Germany in the 1930's and among its stated aims was the purification of the Aryan Race, carried out by mass extermination of pre-determined ethnic and religious peoples, deemed to be inferior."
and the response comes back - "So (what you're saying is… ) all Germans are racist Nazis who want to destroy blacks and Jews. I think that makes you a racist!"
Actually, that statement would not make me a racist, but the actual point is, the responder has entirely misunderstood what I said, placed their own interpretation on what I said, and is now insulting me with what I never said in the first place!
That sort of misinterpretation is pointed out as use of 'The So Rule' which is only three words, but conveys the entire use of bad debating technique that I have explained.
Some people are amused by it, some are vexed, and the vast majority say nothing, so I don't know what their view is - but I always say the same thing - if people stop doing it, I will obviously stop pointing it out.
Hope that helps.
The So Rule - in all its glory!!”
Now, I read this as implying (or inferring, as round here the two seem (wrongly) interchangeable) that you think the ck1 quote is an example of ‘So’ being used in its new incorrect form.
It isn’t. It (so) is being used as a substitute for thus or therefore. “So I am from London” would (probably) be an incorrect usage. “So you are wrong” would be a correct usage, on many levels. //
As TTT points out, the 'So Rule' is a light-hearted dig at bad debating invented and used solely by myself, but feel free if you like it, do use it.
In the instance when I use it, the word 'So' is short for 'So what you are actually saying is ...'.
It's basically short-hand for pointing out that someone has read a post, completely misunderstood what the poster is saying, and then accusing them of saying something else, and then criticising them for what they have not actually said.
Here's an example -
I post this - "The Nazi Party was a political party formed in Germany in the 1930's and among its stated aims was the purification of the Aryan Race, carried out by mass extermination of pre-determined ethnic and religious peoples, deemed to be inferior."
and the response comes back - "So (what you're saying is… ) all Germans are racist Nazis who want to destroy blacks and Jews. I think that makes you a racist!"
Actually, that statement would not make me a racist, but the actual point is, the responder has entirely misunderstood what I said, placed their own interpretation on what I said, and is now insulting me with what I never said in the first place!
That sort of misinterpretation is pointed out as use of 'The So Rule' which is only three words, but conveys the entire use of bad debating technique that I have explained.
Some people are amused by it, some are vexed, and the vast majority say nothing, so I don't know what their view is - but I always say the same thing - if people stop doing it, I will obviously stop pointing it out.
Hope that helps.
Latest Posts
News25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles69 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.