Hacker News Reader

Comment by henrikschroder | Hacker News Reader

What the article talks about is that as the purity spiral tightens, the number of outcasts grow, and can actually re-form the community, while those on the inside consume each other in increased frenzy.

The spiral will always find new victims, go to new heights, so it might be better to refuse to kneel, weather the frenzy, your 15 minutes of fame, and then move on once it passes.

Maybe. I don't know, it would be fascinating to know what the best way to defeat this phenomenon is.

View on HN

> "The spiral will always find new victims, go to new heights, so it might be better to refuse to kneel, weather the frenzy, your 15 minutes of fame, and then move on once it passes."

There was an recent news article about how J.K. Rowling managed to do what you suggest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/has-jk-rowling-figur...

Awesome, good for her.

The "transphobia" purity spiral is absolutely maddening, it just hasn't eaten itself completely yet. The current orthodox view inside of it is that anyone who claims to be trans is trans, regardless of their biological gender, psychological gender, gender expression, name, pronouns, or gender dysphoria. So a person who was born female, is female, presents female, uses a female name and female pronouns can still be trans simply by virtue of her saying that she is. Anything else is "gatekeeping", and expressing this view is "transphobic", and sentenced with immediate purity spiral mob justice.

I'm hoping this spiral dies out quickly, so that the LGBT movement can go back to sanity, it's not in a good place right now.

What works for one of the wealthiest and most famous women in the world may or may not work for a knitting blogger. It would a far riskier play for the blogger than for Rowling.

In her case, maybe ignore the comments that were critical in that way? Don't give them oxygen/validation personally.

Alternatively, I tend to play a straight bat (this might be an Australian/English saying) in response to something like this and with minimal text - less you say, less there is to attack in response. If you indulge them too much, it only encourages more.

Right. As the article states, in-groups always attack apostates the hardest. There's a funny related phenomenon where people who try their best at being vegan get attacked for not being "vegan enough", instead of applauded for at least trying.

Because it works. People who want to join the in-group are vulnerable to its criticism, but people who don't want to join don't give a shit in the first place.

So when the woman in the article responded to the attack, the attackers smelled blood, and piled on, and increased their attacks. prompting her to defend herself even more, thereby giving even more material for the attackers. So it seems you have to defuse it before that point in time. Easy for me to say, really hard to recognize in the moment.

Because that's the annoying paradox. If you get attacked, and you start thinking that you maybe were wrong, that you maybe wrote something bad, that you maybe hurt someone else, having those thoughts, those doubts, show that you didn't intend to. Yet the very proof of you not having ill intent, simply invites more attacks.

I agree. I'm not vegan, but I often come across scenarios such as that you described. Same with people making an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. "But you drive a car when you have to pick up three children from separate locations within a short timespan! Practice what you preach!" "I saw you eat red meat last week!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com