I have zero tolerance for a typical gamer gate troll, clearly no discussion is useful there. Yet there are many more where it's different
1
Many times I see people piling on outraged comment after comment, with zero positive effect for anyone
1
Of course that's a risk. I still think there's room for strong disagreement without aborting conversations completely
2
I'm quite sure we agree on the goals. My point here is that we often alienate people who could be convinced, for unnecessary reasons.
2
Apart from offering help, and interfering against abuse, by working towards a society with a more inclusive attitude in general
1
1
Not what I suggest at all, no. I think it bears remembering that most of us were worse than we are today, and condescension rarely helps
1
I'm not convinced a zero tolerance policy is helpful, especially if it's fellow privileged people who apply it
3
Assuming people can't learn doesn't seem justified to me. Convincing them takes empathy even for people with shitty opinions.
2
Being an old fart, I very clearly remember having those opinions a decade or two ago. “Hateful” misses the point IMO.
3
1
Ich glaube, ich muss mich übergeben
Facebook verkündet eine Journalismus-Strategie und erwähnt als ersten Partner "the German news organization BILD". media.fb.com/2017/01/11/face…
3
17
1
27
My engaging with A at all makes engagement with B more likely, leaving me with a subtweet of my own as the most respectful option
So what you're saying is: If my complaint is that A didn't follow that rule, I have to “escape” B's handle? but I can link to B? OK.
1