hannah aubryRE: https://social.coop/@scottjenson/116352522288234148
The views expressed by Scott in this thread do not reflect the opinions of the Mastodon core team or organisation. We're addressing this internally. I'm sorry everyone
Lutin Discret@haubles can you sum it up? The thread is now so long i don't know what you are talking about
Troed SångbergScott found it problematic that some people on Mastodon pour hate in people's mentions instead of using block/mute.
The ones who want to pour hate didn't like that.
Patrick H. Lauke@troed @lutindiscret @haubles i particularly enjoyed the take about the entirety of fedi being a #monoculture because of low/no engagement with a specific type of post (on which instance? who knows) compared to the bastion of big tent diversity that are threads and bluesky...
Stephen Bannasch (316 ppm)Lots of folks tried to point out why this didn’t actually make sense, I know I did, it seemed he got himself into a very reactive place emotionally and wasn’t able to understand other perspectives that were being shared.
@stepheneb tbf he became the receiver of exactly the problem he brought up. Pure hatred, voiced out. I'd even claim @Gargron participated with the "puppy killing".
I don’t think that was the initial problem he “thought” he was bringing up. But it sure seemed to become one for him.
And then seemed to be incapable of not digging a deeper and deeper hole.
That’s the part that makes me think he got lost in an emotional whirlpool which sometimes seems to make people think digging in deeper is going to somehow get them to a light at the end of a tunnel.
He indeed intended for the discussion to be around people who go spew hate at others instead of just blocking/muting what they don't like - it's not the first post along those lines.
The AI-haters on Mastodon just couldn't stand that _that_ was the example given - and so they proved Scott's point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Scott Jenson@troed @stepheneb @lutindiscret
The majority of the hate came from people saying I wanted more AI in Mastodon, or I was upset AI wasn't better treated (or whatever) which was exactly NOT what I wanted. I was using AI as an example of intolerance and the discussion became all about AI. (or that "tolerance lets in the nazis")
I'll totally own that my initial post was too vague and made too broad of a point. I'm not going to pretend I was perfect. But if someone started saying you wanted to let nazi's into mastodon, wouldn't you feel compelled to say "uh, no?"
Jeremy@scottjenson @troed @stepheneb @lutindiscret
Perhaps you used a very, very bad example since genAI is a highly political issue that ppl feel very strongly about.
Perhaps you used a very, very bad example since genAI is a highly political issue that ppl feel very strongly about.
Morgan ⚧️@troed @jeromio @scottjenson since when are short skirts gaslighting people, convincing teens to commit suicide, operating CSAM vending machines, slurping up the grid so regular people go without access to clean energy, polluting all repositories of human knowledge with misinformation, running fascist propaganda campaigns, and fabricating evidence to imprison and deport people? I'll give you one, their production does exploit cheap labor overseas. But a better comparison would be fur and paint.
"she was wearing a short skirt"-argument is a well known construction where blame is laid on the victim for what the perpetrator did. In this context, Scott getting attacked because of what Jeremy considered to be having used "the wrong" example.
@troed I am well aware of the argument, I know feminism 101; I disagree with its placement here. In my opinion:
1) a lot of people telling you that you made a shitty argument is a fair consequence for making an argument so poorly most people misunderstood you.
2) rape is never a fair consequence, let alone for something so harmless as wearing a skirt.
3) comparing the two is rape culture.
I can agree to disagree on #1. If you disagree on #2, please block me and don't reply.
@raphaelmorgan No, you're not well aware of the construct since this is the second time you're misrepresenting it.
I'm not at fault for your lack of literacy.
@troed all I'm saying is it does not mean "any sort of consequence for your actions." What specific context do you believe I'm missing from its definition?
@raphaelmorgan It means exactly what I wrote before. It's a literary construct that points out that someone is trying to blame the victim for having caused an action from the perpetrator.
You're the troll here. It's obvious you're trying to pick a fight because you have issues you need to vent. In a sense, you're an example of the "spewing hate in someone's mentions" discussion all this originated with.
Go be hateful somewhere else.
edit: Nope, not even spelling it out in full detail made any difference. They still didn't understand and kept on hating.