Mutual ignore software feature, AKA Yet Another Policy Discussion

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. Azurite

    Azurite Just Floating

    I think this is a situation where scale matters a great deal, to determine if harm was done or not. This might be a communication mismatch, but I don't think anger is only the result of pain. Frustration comes to mind, and calling frustration an injury, even a minor one, seems wrong.

    For example, if someone dose something to frustrate you in an MMO, like the classic port to Ironforge- you are subjecting someone to a minor inconvenience for your amusement. Basically a "Haha, I tricked you!" Kinda rude? Yes. A major infraction against the social contract? No. You may unintentionally harm someone that way, but it would be similar to accidentally triggering someone irl. Bad all around, but you can't be accused of malice.

    On the other end of the spectrum, there is behavior like spamming someone with pictures of dead animals after they posted about mourning a pet. The expected outcome there is to inflict emotional suffering on the target, and I feel confident calling that harm.

    Anon's actions are a mix. I didn't see the politics thread, but that sounded like an attempt to set off a bunch of people with anxiety disorders, which is unpleasant enough I'd call it harm. This thread is a little more complicated, to me it looks like they are engaging in a pretty straightforward way, but with a typing quirk. But presumably they know said typing quirk will remind people of the politics thread. Do they have a responsibility to change how they engage because of that?
     
    • Like x 3
  2. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Oh yes, I know getting people upset is negative/harmful/bad. But I don't know how it's possible for ANYONE to go through life trying to actively avoid harming people all the time always. I keep typing out examples of doing harm through no ill will, but I'm erasing them because they're comically one-sided and preachy, and I think it's going to hide my point. But I don't know how else to get this across. Anyone balances the negative results of an action against the positive and decides whether their action is justified or not. I'm not denying a TON of my cdcf participation was harmful, but I stepped back and looked and my actions, every time an ethics discussion started, I stepped back and looked at my actions, and I made my own personal decision about how I was going to act in the future. I'm not DENYING I did harm, but I'm still fine with my actions.

    This is very frustrating to try to explain. I'm sure I've upset people plenty of times, and I generally go through life trying NOT to do that, cdcf aside. The cdcf is a number of my impulses that I usually decide ARE unjustified, in a circumstance where I could justify them to myself. I'm sure I've said things that have upset people in this thread, and this is me trying to be as helpful and non-upsetting as I possibly can.

    This translating business has also been an indescribably draining and exhausting thing, and it's incredibly difficult even when I'm not already ready to drop. I'm responsible for my own decisions and self-care, etc., etc. But hey, example, I've decided the potential positive results of my participation outweigh the negative results in the harm I'm doing to myself. Not that healthy, but hey. It would be super awesome if people could try to reach into my posts and do their best to find the point I'm doing my best to make, even though I'm not saying anonymous's point of view is right.

    I disagree STRONGLY with anonymous's behavior, but I'm really, really trying to communicate the essence of the question they're asking. I think... Results here keep being sorted into Good and Bad like a binary, but there's degrees of these things, and results that skew towards neutral territory. And it's all dependent on individual interpretation and weighting of results. They want to know what defines their action as 1) negative (bad)(this has been the focus of most responses) and 2) negative (bad) enough they should feel obligated to STOP (less the focus). I'm trying really, really hard to find a right angle to get across their question.

    @anonymous, it would be really awesome if you could go in and pick out bits of what I've said to respond to, say something that I can elaborate on, stuff like that. The parameters of this conversation are so wide it makes it really, really difficult to find a focus narrow enough that discussion can actually get anywhere. Can't promise I can keep participating, I'm getting close to my limits before I need to derail my emotional response (read: leave). But for now I'm still trying.
     
    • Like x 5
  3. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    If it's possible to strip moral judgments out of the definition of "bad", I think that's muddying the waters.
     
    • Like x 3
  4. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Injury, no. Pain... I sorta think so?
     
  5. Azurite

    Azurite Just Floating

    I agree with you that in most cases, yes.

    The one I'm getting stuck on is frustration, I have a hard time thinking of that as pain. I get angry because I'm frustrated, but I do frustrating things for fun, because finally solving it and relieving the frustration is a great feeling.

    We might be splitting hairs, though.
     
    • Like x 1
  6. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I think frustration of the kind that makes you angry is... well, it's a kind-of-hurtful, anyway? And if it becomes extreme enough, it will eventually start turning injurious.
     
  7. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    That gets at anonymous's question. What is the line that defines bad?

    (answer: there is no good, solid line, but the feeling of the responses in the thread tend to lean towards a bad/not-bad binary)
     
    • Like x 4
  8. Azurite

    Azurite Just Floating

    Oh yeah absolutely- there are times where frustration can be extreme enough that it counts as harm.

    That's what I was trying to get at, emotions and actions below a certain threshold are not harm, but above that threshold are.

    I'm curious if that is where Anon is coming from, like, would they be opposed to trolling grieving people with gore pics? If not, this seems like an issue of scale. (ninja'd by spock, but I'd still like to hear Anon's answer)

    edit: Knowing that would also make it easier to answer Anon's question of "Why shouldn't I do this?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
    • Like x 2
  9. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Also I tend to react at harmful levels to inputs that nobody would expect to get that nasty a reaction. I can't ask everyone to control their actions in ways X, Y, and Z because otherwise you hurt me. Because my X, Y, and Z would be unfairly restrictive and unreasonable. The response Rigs made about legal culpability earlier. I was like oh no, someone is calling me wrong, and I can't understand the response, so I'm wrong AND stupid, and Rigs knows more about this than I do so I'm definitely wrong and DEFINITELY look like an idiot, distress, distress, DISTRESS, INITIATE DEFENSIVE SELF-DEPRECATION-- I can't demand nobody ever criticize or contradict me, even though I consistently freak out. That line between reasonable and unreasonable accommodations is another thing I think is implied in anonymous's posts (though again, the answer isn't clear-cut, there's no line you can definitely mark out)

    (eta: and that's back over in the land of the question of when you become responsible for your own emotions (if you have that ability, etc). I made a fast, self-deprecating response to make my anxiety shut up, and then rushed away to find something fun to distract myself so I'd calm the duck down) (.....oh, autocorrect -_-)
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
    • Like x 5
  10. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Again, "hurt" and "harm" are probably not the same thing. Same as "pain" and "injury".
     
    • Like x 2
  11. Azurite

    Azurite Just Floating

    If we had a unifying feature of this forum, I think it's that. This is why I really want to know if Anon would draw the line at more socially unacceptable behaviors-

    They are on a forum where people can and do react explosively to things that fall under the socially acceptable heading, if you want a place to explode some people while staying within those 'reasonable' bounds, this is it. So, how do your justify doing this? Levels of harm seems like a good method, but it falls apart here, I have trouble believing that it's something other than a smokescreen.

    That would be the most uncharitable reading of the situation, there are others. Come back Anon, this is interesting!
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
    • Like x 4
  12. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    This is a distinction I'm having real trouble following. I could come up with my own definitions separating them if I had to, but I'm very unsure as to what other people mean.
     
  13. Vierran

    Vierran small and sharp

    Harm has consequences beyond the immediate, is how I've always seen that distinction.
     
    • Like x 2
  14. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Well, for physical things: Imagine that you poke someone, physically. It's pretty easy to find an amount of force such that they experience pain. It's pretty easy to find an amount of force such that there's "injury", as in, "actual damage that will take time to heal". Lots of things are painful but don't cause injury. Same with emotions, really; something can be painful but not do real/lasting damage.

    But with emotions, what will or won't do actual damage varies a lot more widely, I think.
     
    • Like x 3
  15. swirlingflight

    swirlingflight inane analysis and story spinning is my passion

    I vote greentext green.
     
    • Like x 2
  16. Exohedron

    Exohedron Doesn't like words

    Probably muddying the waters here, but I must admit to having roughly the same initial position as anonymous: what is "bad", and why should I care? To someone with this standpoint, definitions of harm and whether harm is bad aren't terribly helpful, because "bad" isn't a notion that really means anything, even vaguely. It's just another property that actions have. Some actions are "good" and some actions are "bad", and some actions are "time-consuming" and some actions are "difficult". A judgment that depends on your morality means nothing to a person who isn't terribly interested in following someone else's morality. You can use various ethical arguments, but you have to do it within the framework of that person: that person's utility, consequences to that person, virtues of that person, and in particular their notion of utility, consequences and virtues. These are not universals, and arguments from authority, be that authority God or the human majority aren't all that convincing either to someone who believes themselves outside those systems.

    The eventual answer for me is social consequences. If I irritate everyone, then people will stop talking to me, and then I'll be bored. I would like to avoid that situation, so even though I have no innate moral, philosophical objection to pissing everyone off, I'm not going to do so.
    Similarly, anonymous ran into the consequence of getting their posts moderated. Poor anonymous. So sad. Liek if u cri evrytiem. If only anon could have predicted that actions have reactions. Oh well, too late now.
    However, if anonymous' personal goals aren't too obstructed by this setback, and their behavior is still within their personally acceptable limits, then they've come out ahead in this game and hence are taking the path that their decision-system deems best for their utility. Is that "good"? For someone with a short time-horizon, that probably sounds desirable.
    Who knows, maybe anonymous will change their ways before getting slapped with another consequence. I can't say I have much expectations out of someone who got bitten by a bunny hill and then complained about it like a chump, but I suppose some rabbits are known to have sharp, pointy teeth.

    But anyway, there is a type of person whose decision-system isn't convinced by other people's declarations of "good" and "bad", at least not in a moral, categorical sense. Things have to be looked at from the viewpoint of the individual who you're trying to convince, without recourse to your personal irreducible notions. What is "bad" and why should I care?
     
    • Like x 4
  17. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    "Bad" is "the stuff people will react negatively to". If you don't mind them reacting negatively, no problem (for you, anyway). But it seems unsporting to do things that people obviously find upsetting, then complain that they're taking actions to limit how much you upset them.
     
    • Like x 3
  18. Snitchanon

    Snitchanon What's a mod to a nonbeliever.

    Then there's the murky subjects of things that people don't like that aren't 'bad', like being An Homosexual and so forth.

    All this moral relativity up in here.
     
    • Like x 4
  19. Birdy

    Birdy so long

    I'm most interested in why anyone thinks it's useful to engage with this person anymore.
     
    • Like x 1
  20. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Fun and profit.
     
    • Like x 2
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice