'The Room Had Started To Smell. Really Quite Bad': Stephen Fry Exits Twitter (betanews.com) 305
Mark Wilson writes: For a man so readily associated with words — and certainly for a wordsmith so enamored with technology — Twitter seems like something of a natural home for Stephen Fry. Over the years he has amassed hundreds of thousands of followers, but last night he closed his account. Fry's latest exit from Twitter (there have been several over the last few years for numerous reasons) came about because of the backlash he received for making a joke at an award ceremony. Hosting the BATFAs (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) on Sunday, he referred to costume designer and award winner (and, indeed, friend) Jenny Beavan as being 'dressed as a bag lady'. 'Offended' Twitter users attacked Fry in their droves, and he fought a valiant battle, before eventually giving up and terminating his account. It comes just days after Twitter set up a new Trust & Safety Council.
These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Informative)
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
So? They were their before, but it was web forums, email mailing lists, newgroups et al. Life if full of cunts, twats, and fucking morons. Social media merely gives these tossers a global voice. Ignore them.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Well this is a whole new breed of cunt. The previous generation of cunts would call you dirty names and shit, however the new generation of cunts call themselves "politically correct" and will use clean sounding but still inappropriately placed words like "racist" "bigot" "misogynist" "homophobe" or label you as one who uses "hate speech", even when none of these terms apply to you in any way possible. In other words, the old cunts were hecklers, the new cunts are self-righteous assholes.
In fact, here's a video of what it's like to be assaulted by a hoard of these cunts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The world has ALWAYS been full of self righteous assholes.
Honestly, assume people are pieces of crap until they prove otherwise. It's a lot easier and safer.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Informative)
That's astoundingly gentle and well behaved. this [youtube.com] is more representative of the level of violence disguised as victimhood you can expect from these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see this type of thing all the time.
Wait, what?
Re: (Score:2)
It is politically correct to blame things on political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that people are not entitled to their opinion? The irony is that you complain about 'political correctness' while complaining viciously about 'other people's language'. I can only come to the conclusion that they aren't 'politically correct' for your tastes
In reality, what you seem to think are earnest 'self righteous' (let me use the word you almost said) 'Social Justice Warriors', are simply a new version of trolls. 'this new generation' of trolls understands that everything you do o
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that people are not entitled to their opinion? The irony is that you complain about 'political correctness' while complaining viciously about 'other people's language'. I can only come to the conclusion that they aren't 'politically correct' for your tastes
In reality, what you seem to think are earnest 'self righteous' (let me use the word you almost said) 'Social Justice Warriors', are simply a new version of trolls.
They're welcome to their opinion. Though their viewpoints end when they decide that their version of letting other speak, doesn't exist. The thing is, they're not trolls. They see themselves as "doing the right thing" or "the right side of history." You'll find that many of those SJW's subscribe to the "no bad tactics, only targets" theory of doing things. And would rather shut down any speech that's contrary to their narrow viewpoint on the world. See the university protests for example, or pulling fire alarms to stop people from speaking, or the most recent examples of no-platforming BS with Rutgers with Milo Yiannopoulos. Or Dawkins, Peter Tatchell, or Julie Bindel and so on. That's only a small sampling of the BS going on. And all the while, they're engaging in overt racism, such as safe spaces...for anyone but those whites or asians. Any place except for those hetrosexuals...or gays that don't do what we tell them, and so on. That moves them from trolls right into authoritarians.
People just see the writing on the wall with Twitter, the second they put a bunch of groups in place that have a history of shutting down speech because it hurts their feelings, or the feelings of other people it was enough. Especially groups that believe that dissenting viewpoints are harassment like Feminist Frequency.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish it were as easy as ignoring them. These kinds of mobs are now driving policy and causing the concept of free speech to be rolled back on what is now a rather significant swath of communication on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
They can now unite, online and shout together as one group of politically correct extremists, not only allowing them to fuel deeper and deeper thought processes into what is NEW and politically correct but allowing them to harass others to join them or harass business and government to make policy changes and think of "the children" (or rather, any unique snowflake)
It's becoming quite worrying and there's beginning to be more and more people sick of their shit online it seems. The more of these articles I
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can also never reason with them. One of the reasons I don't use social media is I don't feel like engaging with random idiots who are either some tenuous friend of a friend coworker's cousin by marriage 14 places removed or complete strangers who just happened on a comment. Dealing with that crap can sometimes be draining even if you're only reading their comment and then completely ignoring it afterward. It takes up mental cycles no matter what, and when some of these people are trying to get a deliberate rise out of you, you occasionally feel a stab of wanting to respond to the provocation.
Much easier to not be in that situation to begin with. For me the "ups" of being on social media and engaging with friends is outweighed by the potential for conflict with random clowns. Plus I find a lot of people on social media overshare waaaaaay too much.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can also never reason with them. One of the reasons I don't use social media is I don't feel like engaging with random idiots who are either some tenuous friend of a friend coworker's cousin by marriage 14 places removed or complete strangers who just happened on a comment. Dealing with that crap can sometimes be draining even if you're only reading their comment and then completely ignoring it afterward. It takes up mental cycles no matter what, and when some of these people are trying to get a deliberate rise out of you, you occasionally feel a stab of wanting to respond to the provocation.
How is that any different than posting on Slashdot? Surely it's just as stressful dealing with all the contrarianism here.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you say stupid shit here, it gets culled or refuted and then buried pretty quickly...
Hahaha! Bull. When one says stupid shit here they, more often than not, fight to the end to save face. Either they come up with some weird rationale that backs them up or they try to change the topic so they can fight over there instead. At least on social media someone will back down if they're clearly in the wrong, not wanting the stink of that to tarnish their name. Here on Slashdot there's nothing to lose but pride, that's why this place is so hostile.
Re: (Score:3)
If you say stupid shit here, it gets culled or refuted and then buried pretty quickly...
Hahaha! Bull. When one says stupid shit here they, more often than not, fight to the end to save face. Either they come up with some weird rationale that backs them up or they try to change the topic so they can fight over there instead. At least on social media someone will back down if they're clearly in the wrong, not wanting the stink of that to tarnish their name. Here on Slashdot there's nothing to lose but pride, that's why this place is so hostile.
slashdot is 'so hostile'??
You don't get out much...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I love how an AC came out of the woodwork to illustrate my point.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how an AC came out of the woodwork to illustrate my point.
I very rarely post as AC. My point is just that slashdot is not particularly hostile and if you think it is then your experience outside of slashdot must be pretty limited.
Re: (Score:2)
I very rarely post as AC. My point is just that slashdot is not particularly hostile and if you think it is then your outside of slashdot must be pretty limited.
If your "real life" is more hostile than slashdot then dammmmmmnnnn, you need to move somewhere far, far away.
I mean I don't give a crap because I happen to have a thick skin, but it's much much more hostile here than my day to day life. I don't recall anyone ever equating me with the Nazis AFK, and I get sworn at at most one or two times a year. A
Re: (Score:3)
Oops. I wasn't intending to imply you were the AC. I apologize.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Funny)
Surely it's just as stressful dealing with all the contrarianism here.
No it isn't.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:4, Funny)
Yes it is.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Funny)
No it isn't!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is!
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Duck Season! He demands that you shoot him now!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's quite a few differences. Firstly, there's a level of anonymity, nobody in my "real" life knows who I am on Slashdot (or would even use Slashdot for that matter). Secondly, the way social media works, if someone posts a reply or a @ to you on Twitter for example, all of your followers see that as well. If someone replies to this post, only those people who have bothered to snake through it will see it. Same for Facebook and similar, posts to your wall are open to all and they get updated on them,
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in a way they do.
"If you don't like the jokes stay out of the comedy clubs... If you don't like criticism stop googling yourself every 10 seconds." (Louis C.K. on The Daily Show, July 16th, 2012 [cc.com])
By leaving Twitter he's no longer giving those people his ear. They don't matter to him anymore, they stop existing to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. Who would listen to them anywhere else though? A large part of what they're doing is trolling or some other form of attention whoring. Without instant feedback there's no point.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they do stop existing.
There are a shit load of people who don't exist.
I don't have a Snapchat account. I don't have a fucking clue about what goes on over there. Those people don't exist in my world.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a Snapchat account. I don't have a fucking clue about what goes on over there. Those people don't exist in my world.
Same here. No twitter, no snapchat, no instagram, and no facebook. And I haven't missed anything by not using them except a lot of angst and jealousy and posturing.
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Funny)
Twitter might end up looking like nothing more than a place where whiners go to whine
I doubt it. Even Twitter's management isn't stupid enough to position themselves as a direct competitor to Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Twitter was already that....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These people don't stop existing, though (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait - he closed his twitter account, and that makes him an attention whore?
Dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't, I guess. He does have a good point though, Twitter genuinely is a waste of technology. I defy anyone to point to anything even halfway interesting or significant that has ever been posted on that site.
Yeah sure... (Score:2)
The ironic thing here (Score:5, Insightful)
The ironic thing here is that it's very unlikely that Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" would have sided with Stephen Fry. Remember, he insulted a Protected Class of individual, and it's therefore just as likely that he would have been banned for his remarks. He pissed off SJWs and couldn't deal with the fallout, which I can completely understand. SJWs are nasty individuals who will never stop harassing people in their supposed crusade against harassment.
Still, this is just yet another example of what we all know: Twitter is pretty much just a platform for anonymously trolling famous people. Once it finally fails (and it's circling the drain, the Trust and Safety Council is just one example), the world will be a better place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The ironic thing here is that it's very unlikely that Twitter's "Trust and Safety Council" would have sided with Stephen Fry.
That isn't ironic, that's his whole point. He's had it with this nanny nonsense where you aren't allowed to joke about anything lest someone get their poor little feelings hurt. And good on him for standing up to it.
Look at the pictures (Score:5, Insightful)
She was dressed pretty meh for a costume designer.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd hazard a guess that her bag lady chic cost a pretty penny. That shiny leather jacket alone would probably cost several hundred pounds.
Your offense-by-proxy offends me and I reject it! (Score:2)
Do we care? (Score:3)
Are we caring about that?
(Why is this appearing on Slashdot?)
Re: (Score:3)
Listen to George (Score:5, Funny)
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Re: (Score:3)
He was actually quoting Mark Twain.
DNA (Score:5, Funny)
Brought to you by DNA (National Dyslexics Association).
Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the politically correct SJW crybullies slowly destroy Twitter, it will be interesting to see if Silicon Valley's shallow cultural leftist elite finally wake up and start pushing back. A lot of them like Twitter and some of them invested money in it.
The media like Twitter too, but the media are unreformable; a lost cause in every way.
Re: (Score:2)
elite SJW progressive left
I don't quite get your point. Perhaps you need to use more adjectives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're using the phrase "SJW"
Versus what? What's the correct term?
Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? (Score:4, Insightful)
And... you didn't answer the question. It was a really simple question. You object to the term. What's a better term?
Re: (Score:2)
"person"
Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Person is way too specific. How about "unit"? Henceforth, all nouns will be replaced by the word "unit" to avoid offending all the units on the unit's unit.
The unit has spoken! Units would be wise to heed this unit.
Re: (Score:2)
And... you didn't answer the question. It was a really simple question. You object to the term. What's a better term?
Commienazipaedoterroristboogiemanfluoridator.
Because that's pretty much what people mean when they use it. What do *you* mean when you use it?
Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Commienazipaedoterroristboogiemanfluoridator.
SJW is easier to spell.
What do *you* mean when you use it?
People who take offense (assume a posture of being offended) aggressively, as a means to exert control over others. Usually the offense is taken on behalf of some set of people who organize with leftists based on some real or imagined grievance.
Since controlling others is the goal, any discussion that isn't some sort of agreement to being controlled is considered Irrelevant at best. And at worst, discussion is considered an existential threat or sometimes even a direct injury, depending on whatever maximizes the ability to exert control over others.
Most people understand the term SJW fairly well when it is used in context. It's not surprising that SJWs take offense to it.
Re:Will Twitter's destruction wake anyone up? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, "SJW" means someone who has made social justice [wikipedia.org] their cause. The term "social justice warrior" started out as a positive self-identification. It acquired its negative connotations because of the way social justice activists behaved while wearing that moniker.
Of course, the part that is really offensive about "social justice" and its activists is their misuse of the term "justice"; what they are advocating isn't "justice", it is oppression and totalitarian government, often driven by selfish motives.
Rather than debate the meaning and origin of the term "SJW", it's easier just to call these people "social justice activists" and then call out their hypocrisy and condemn them and their activism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, quite a few idiots derailed the term, but SJW, at least when it was originally used described a very, VERY specific kind of individual with a very specific behavior.
It's not even just "progressivist", but a very specific kind of evil power hungry "progressivist", that use the "social justice power words" as means to gain power and "win internet discussions", generally twisting and warping it to benefit itself and/or close knitted social group, and using any sort of power they gain to do so, be moderat
This is why Twitter is "write only" for me (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a job where (as a "thought leader") I'm supposed to tweet regularly, but I never, ever find time to read anything from Twitter. It's a write-only assignment as far as I'm concerned - it could be /dev/null for all I know or care.
I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people like me out there too, all dumping regularly scheduled 140-character tweets into a space probably half populated with advertiser's bots using keyword-based algorithm to retweet, favorite and react to my stuff, all for the benefit of even more robots.
Re:This is why Twitter is "write only" for me (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't worry about Twitter, I'd be more concerned about having a job description of "thought leader". That's just a pink slip waiting to happen.
commentSubjectsAreDumbTheArticleIsTheSubject (Score:2)
>Fry's latest exit from Twitter (there have been several over the last few years for numerous reasons)
The fucks not given kinda remind me of his Gordon Deitrich. It sounds like when he gets fed up he simply walks off. Like he doesn't believe in the power that pixels on a screen have. Which we all know is wrong, angry internet words warrant five-figure support stipends.
I'm guessing "bag lady" is supposed to be some mudblood namecalling, but I'm still pretty sure I've seen darker friend roasts.
comments in subjects are a perfectly good idea. (Score:3)
commentSubjectsAreDumbTheArticleIsTheSubject
No, they're a fine idea, just like usenet and email. And the subject isn't apparently the article any more.
No one bothered to define "bag lady"? (Score:2)
I'd kinda like to read what got people so up in arms about that, but not enough to actually go to Twitter and find out for myself.
Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? (Score:4, Informative)
A stereotypical homeless woman who wanders around the streets with bags of "stuff" she has collected, frequently recovered from garbage cans. The bags are frequently piled high in shopping carts, with other bags being held in a free hand and often even attached to her back. When the police crackdown on the homeless these women can be seen obsessively gathering up their bags and hauling them off to some other place. It's a real thing if you spent any time in a big city like New York. (Often in this case, the bags are full of recyclable cans and bottles, which return $.05/unit returned at recycling centers...or did 10 years ago when I lived there)
It's probably rude in polite company to use this term about an actual bag lady, it's ruder still to apply this to someone's appearance. But in the past one can be rude and crude and you simply ignored and avoided him. Now it seems as if a portion of the population feels empowered to make their own random comments based largely on ignorance and a misguided sense of judgement via Twitter. Turn-about is fair play I guess, but whatever happened to "taking the high road"?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is 'dressed like a bag lady', only a real friend will tell them.
Everybody else just laughs privately.
If one of your friends decided that 'dressing like an ancient Egyptian' was the next big thing, you'd tell them they were being an idiot wouldn't you?
Bag lady chic is the same thing. Too many drugs make people think stupid things are clever.
Re:No one bothered to define "bag lady"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you'll find Stephen Fry is fully aware of the stereotypical homeless woman described as a bag lady.
Using the term to be rude about someone's description could be nasty, or it could be a joke. It could be both.
In context it was clearly a joke, especially given its reference to her profession.
Turnabout is not fair play. If they'd mocked Fry for his clothing it would have been misplaced (given what he wears when presenting QI, quite apart from anything else) but fair game. Harassing him for making a funny joke? Fuck that.
second-hand sanctimony (Score:3)
From his blog post:
An old friend of his might have commended him thusly: @Fry sinister bullshit bullseye
Hey, Stephen (Score:2)
Hopefully a trend (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
My facebook is still usable, mainly because I only "friended" people I actually know and care about, and they did the same, and when anyone posts its normally about something worth sharing without overdoing it, for instance weddings of people most of us actually know, visits to other friends and things that have meaning like a house move.
As far as twitter goes.. I have an account, but never post (well maybe about twice a year but normally for some specific reason), don't follow friends as neither do they, a
The best use of twitter (Score:4, Informative)
Stealth Mountain [twitter.com] is a Twitter bot that tersely informs Twitter users when they mistakenly write “sneak peak": @___ I think you mean sneak peek.
The enraged, frothing responses [twitter.com] confirm that this is an exemplar of how Twitter should be used.
Like Everything else, it can be Good or Bad (Score:2)
I was a late adopter to Twitter, and social media in general, mostly because I used to see them only as a mean for teenagers to share pictures of them eating doritos or doing duck kisses selfies. But then, as in anything created, I'm always trying to see how I could use things for meaningful purpose, and I found Twitter to be like a RSS feed on steroids. It allows me to get the latest activities from researchers, or quick knowledge on the latest vuilnerabilities without browsing 10-12 different websites. Ye
SJW Tyranny at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
The tyranny of the terminally offended special snowflakes....
Seriously, you could tweet "I like kittens" and you would probably get 1000 SJWs berating you for triggering them or appropriating "animal culture" or contributing to the objectification of animals.
The fact that a guy like Stephen Fry up and left the festering cesspool known as twitter gives me hope for the human race.
He's a hell of a nice guy, yet that was no defense against the perpetually offended crybullies that infest twitter.
Politically correct bullies at it again (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, the same group which is anti-harassment, the SECOND you cross these motherfuckers they will hound the shit out of you, doxx you, try their darndest to hurt you (normally your place of employment) etc.
Say something they disagree with and instead of them saying "fuck you cunt" they say, what I think is much worse, lies : "you're a racist!" "you're a homophobe!" etc, they'll try to spin things about you which are obviously not positive things (I'm not endorsing racism / homophobia)
There is an endless race it seems to be the most politically correct, it's quite literally (literally!) the current 'fad' right now. Who can be the most offended? Who has the most empathy? It's ME! It's ME! (stamps foot!) I am the one who cares the most about .
Thing is, there's nothing inherently wrong with being for peoples rights, obviously. It's the methodology used, the cultish "with us or against us, outright!" attitude, the censorship of those who don't just disagree but dare to even begin to ask questions.
Furthermore, I'm truly not convinced a lot of these people actually believe all this, DEEP DOWN. On the surface they do but they don't know why. I get the impression many of the people in the extremist PC group are white, straight and somewhat well off.
I see it on my facebook feed, I can think of 2 people out of my mere 55 friends who have both made a point of posting pro gay rights stuff or chiming in on other topics which I know for a FACT these people have said quite harsh things about these groups previously and not that long ago.
To wind back on topic, poor Stephen Fry thinks twitter is fully of bullies, the same dipshits (or similar dipshits) who abused him off of twitter will again, point their fingers and angrily shout "see it's bullies!! we need even more politically correct tools, censorship, filters and algorithm based tweets to hide these angry people" not seeing the irony of the behaviour within many of the extremist PC ranks.
Honestly I tire of it. Try and have a rational discussion with them though and sooner or later they'll find the ammo to label you something or other awful.
Unfortunately, it's an Iron Law of Progressivism: (Score:3)
There is no one so far to the left that, eventually, they will not be attacked -- from someone even *farther* to the left.
Go ahead and laugh. You'll laugh, you good progressive -- until the surreal moment when it happens to you.
Trust and safety council? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was of the understanding that the Trust and Safety Council was specifically invented to protect the "offended" crowd.
These people seem to turn "being offended" into a profession.
Re:Who's Steven Fry? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy with the red stapler on Office Space
Re: Who's Steven Fry? (Score:2, Informative)
For those who live outside the U.K It's hard to explain what Steven Fry means to a large proportion of the population and the esteem he is held in. We have the term national treasure to apply to people of Steven Fry's standing, a term that is not applied to many people. Steven Fry leaving Twitter will make the main news bulittins in the UK, and the question that will be asked by the media is what does this mean for the future of Twitter, does this mark the beginning of the decline of Twitter.
Those outside
Re: (Score:2)
He was Dr.House's butler.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need multiple Internets where people are separated by IQ bands.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like a shitter, but made especially for twats. Hence the portmanteau, twat shitter -> twitter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought I read that statistically Poles were smarter than the rest of Europe. Marie Curie, those guys that broke the Enigma before the war started, and so on.
My uncle was tending bar at one point in Chicago when a friend of his walked in. "John! I just heard the best joke ever! You have to hear this, it's great! So this Polack is trying to buy a watermelon, right? And—"
"Hey buddy, what's the big idea? Don't you know I'm Polish?"
"Oh! I'm so sorry! I had no idea. Okay, I'll tell it slow..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, one side effect of internet anonymity is that people feel they can be complete assholes without consequence. They tend to take out their frustrations about their spouse, boss or family on some random victim on the internet because it makes them "feel better." Not that I'm for removing anonymity, it just the burden we bear for it.
John Gabriel's Greenboard Theory: (Score:2)
Sadly, one side effect of internet anonymity is that people feel they can be complete assholes without consequence.
obligatory xkcd: https://www.penny-arcade.com/c... [penny-arcade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant summation. As true now as it was then.
Re: (Score:2)
He quit because people reacted to a poor in-joke. Thats it.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a good joke. It made me laugh.
I didn't even know that he was friends with the lady in question; she really did just turn up at an award ceremony looking dressed for the streets.
It's the G.I.F.T. (Score:3)
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com].
Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
More like they are 10% not - but 10 cutting words can do more harm than a hundred "Oh don't listen to that jerk" hugs can repair. So it's not that humans aren't good, it's that enough of them are bad to make groups bad unless policed by good people. Twitter has no police. Every large group with no police becomes toxic, either physically or emotionally.
Some humans (Score:2)
And it's readily apparent that unfiltered access into the aggregate human psyche has proven time and again that despite the oft-cited belief that humans are fundamentally good -- they are really not.
#NotAllHumans
Re:Twitter, like the internet, is the mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans ARE fundamentally good. The good outweighs the bad by a huge margin or there wouldnt be 7 billion of us. That doesnt mean that the good can 100% suppress the bad. We are still part beast, and are often driven by base animalistic desires. Until we admit that, there will be little progress in this area.
If 'good' means doing what it takes to get ahead. Humans, like all living things, depend on such qualities as greed and selfishness to survive and reproduce. Survival and reproduction are at a meta-level, beyond good and evil.
Yet, at the same time, the human race is on a journey from the bestial to the superhuman. But I don't think that the superhuman will be quite as altruistic as you might like... They will be to us as we are to the apes. We will be an embarrassment to our descendants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The case that most people lead constructive lives is obvious just looking at human history. Would we have advanced so far from hunter / gatherers had everyone been tearing everything down?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I so hope you're being sarcastic. If not, please burn your computer in fire and never plague the internet again.
You know, I was against a [sarcasm] tag at first but, the idea is growing on me.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I don't think he was being sarcastic, actually. Which is very sad because people who believe in "safe spaces" and "triggering" (ROFLMAO) are ruining free speech, and the media are enabling them. We need a replacement for Twitter, one whose founding principle is the protection of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)