Hacker News Reader

Comment by Loughla | Hacker News Reader

>[. . .] the Dorr brothers simply seek “to stir the pot and make as much animosity as they can, and then raise money off that animosity.

I am fascinated by people like this. They have to understand they are doing awful things to the world around them. How do people like that sleep at night, or look themselves in the mirror?

Even if you believe in gun rights to the extreme, being purposefully combative, negative, divisive, and awful just to make money is not a great look. How? Why? Why do people do these things?

View on HN

Troll level one million!

I have a couple of friends that are trolls(they call themselves that). They frequent Facebook and they make silly comments are try to rile people up, because....well i guess they're bored. They take pride in being banned from Facebook so shock humor. They are pretty funny.

Why is this relevant? What I have learned from them is that high-speed internet is conducive to trolling at all levels. Facebook users want comments and reactions, so their post do just that. Large sites want clicks and attention, so their content does just that.

A deep multifaceted conversation is boring and difficult to do. And above all else does not give you the same satisfaction as emotional content. The internet is an emotional medium, not a rational one. I treat it that way. To learn more on this check out neil portman, specifically his book "amusing ourselves to death".

I try to remind myself that things on the internet could very well have been produced by an angry techsavvy teenager, rather than to attribute any authority to it.

Something I've noticed, and fallen victim to in recent weeks, is that FB will often display in my feed a post by a news site (for me, they're usually NPR, CNBC or the local TV station), and underneath they'll display exactly _one_ comment. That one comment is almost always something insane (no more serious than the flu, they're counting all dead people not just dead from the virus, you get the picture). But when I open the story to view all comments, there are hundreds of not-insane ones. In fact it is often impossible to find the "featured" comment if I wanted to reply since there are so many others. I get the distinct impression that FB has an algorithm that promotes disinformation comments in order to....well I assume in order to make more money somehow. I've had to train myself to read the news stories (which are useful to me) but brain-skip over the featured comment.

I'm not on facebook but it sounds entirely plausible. Facebook conducts psychological experiments[0] to optimise for user engagement so if that anger can make you stay a bit longer and see a few more ads then that's money for them.

Those precious hate dollars have deadly consequences though, especially for Muslims[1][2].

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-...

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...

[2]: https://theintercept.com/2019/12/07/facebook-mark-zuckerberg...

Also not on fb. It sounds plausible to me as well.

But even in the best case scenario social media is not a robust system and will amplify controversy.

In addition there is money to be made by fanning the flames. I mean it pretty genius, people get angry they go on fb to rant about it.

Zuckerberg will be a name remembered like Carnegie, but not for making anything. Just for owning feelings and controversy. Second best to owning the color blue.

> I get the distinct impression that FB has an algorithm that promotes disinformation comments in order to....well I assume in order to make more money somehow.

Controversial comments drive engagement. FB's algorithm is designed to drive engagement. They've literally built an AI troll.

Facebook does a weird thing where it prioritises "Top Fan" accounts on loads of pages in the comments, which very often wind up being some person with an agenda geared directly towards that page.

In my experience though the "featured comment" is always from someone against the page owner. E.g. a rabbid Fox News conspiracy theory quoting poster commenting on an NPR story.

yep, that's what I mean, they prioritise the people who are most engaged with the page, and that seems to usually wind up being someone with a huge grudge.

These are possibly "controversial" posts tagged as such because of it received a variety of positive and negative reactions.

And no mystery as to "why". They want you to click on that conversation. Perhaps you visit the news site generating a click. Now you're all wound so you scroll some more, see some more ads, and get stuck posting another comment, more ads, more clicks, etc.

Why don't you skip Facebook and read a reputable news site?

What would you suggest as reputable news?

Hacker News

Maybe so, but it's already quite leaning in one political direction. I would love for the great, smart people that frequent here to discuss controversial/right-leaning topics with critique, nuance and fair points, but it just doesn't happen because "downvotes". We're all human, and we have greater-than-zero tendency to emotionally "dislike" contradicting opinions, valid or not.

That's probably my buddy, don't bite ;)

I would argue the case that facebook is not malicious and promote disinformation. If their algorithm promotes comments that get lots of emojis and responses you would see the same behavior. I see it in many forums, the top comments are usually controversial.

Now add to that fact that all sites rely on web traffic to make money and you get a systems of incentives that breeds discontent and divisiveness. On top of all that high speed visual medium, such as the internet, produce an emotional response with little time to rationally process information.

Dude, no offence to you, but your buddy sounds like a sociopathic asshole, and I say sociopathic because they surely have to know that their trolling is contributing to society-wide changes having really negative effects, yet they choose to do it anyway.

Being "just one of a multitude" cheering on and enabling the grifters, sociopaths and wannabe tyrants - whatever the motivation - doesn't lessen their culpability.

None taken, I get where you are coming from. They are pretty cool dudes with a messed up sense of humor for sure. They are in their 50s and they started small and it's snowballed into this.

Sample troll from many years: "Wisconsin is the worst city EVER"! Outrage comment thread ensues.

I guess my take away is that don't take everything seriously, especially when it's coming from people you don't know. I'll use the same buddy's quote: "Life is too important to take seriously".

> They are in their 50s and they started small and it's snowballed into this.

What's the force of nature that's pushing this snowball down the hill? Sounds like joy of hurting others, amplified by feedback and validation from like-minded people online.

There's a lot of bored 50yos apparently.

Most bored 50 year olds don't engage in trolling or other sociopathic pursuits. I suspect a considerable number are younger and older than 50.

It's not about age. It's more about reveling in others' confusion and suffering, which might stem from their own experience of that.

The frequency of that mindset and the networking of it through technology seems like our social disease.

If life didn’t turn out how you’d like, then it might feel good to see it not go well for another.

These folks are hurting.

I agree. But if that's the case, trolling really isn't a joke, and recommendations to ignore it or not take it too seriously are misguided or disingenuous.

The judgement and recommendations of people doing the trolling don't bear much weight. I'd rather hear from the people on the receiving end. If it's not welcome, then it should stop.

> I'd rather hear from the people on the receiving end. If it's not welcome, then it should stop.

It seems kind of obvious that harassment of any kind isn't welcome by the recipient. That's given by definition of the word "harassment". I've definitely been on the receiving end for what it's worth.

Yes surely only sociopaths snark. Clearly getting a rise from people is a unique problem of this century.

Honestly, it mainly sounds like you are pretty quick to judging others without actually knowing what they are doing.

So much for "doing things that damage society".

I sense an undertone (in your friend's quote) of, "why should I care if people are too dumb to realise that someone is just trolling the?". Would that be a fair assessment? If so, that's pretty tragic. It means that people who aren't as smart/savvy/wise are fair-game. In a jungle that law holds true. So perhaps, this is humanity reverting to type.

Personally, my hopes have always been that we would continue to build on ideas of society that flourished post enlightenment (oh the irony when people rabbit on about protecting "western values" by offering to subvert them).

I guess, I can't see that it's possible to hope/work/strive for a better world, and be a troll. One is constructive, the other nihilistic at best and actively destructive at worst.

There's a general social consensus that it's wrong to taunt or poke fun at the intellectually disabled. Yet many people see nothing wrong with deriding and disrespecting those in the (roughly) 75 - 99 IQ range. I've seen that all over HN comments, and some of the smartest and most educated posters are the worst offenders. Why is that?

> I've seen that all over HN comments

Can you point me to some examples? I've seen it on HN, but much, much less than on any other online platform.

How do you tell the difference between someone with a 99 IQ and a 100 IQ?

(I don't know the punchline)

"It means that people who aren't as smart/savvy/wise are fair-game."

Worst thing is it completely disrupts some of the best people who are completely genuine and take things at face value. It wouldn't surprise me if normally decent people have been quite corrupted by their experiences online with trolls and fakes and scams.

Isn't that what the market economy is based on. Making money off of information asymmetry?

Sometimes he argues things he believes and tries to make a point from silliness. Other times he's just a dick saying messed up things that he finds a funny. Either way he's just a guy flesh and bones and he doesn't say things online he doesn't say in person. He's just a dude at the end of the day.

> Personally, my hopes have always been that we would continue to build on ideas of society that flourished post enlightenment

I shared this view for quite some time. But rationality can only get you so far. So weird stuff can out of the enlightenment, i.e. fascism and communism, and they were underpinned by rational thought but were totally messed up.

> One is constructive, the other nihilistic at best and actively destructive at worst.

I'm not defending a troll here. I'm just saying don't attribute to malice that which you can explain with trolling. In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust. Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet. Anyone can tell when someone is just messing around vs. trying to subvert people. It's the difference between being an asshole and trying to start a cult. On the internet, you can accidentally start a cult. In real life you cant.

What does that say about the internet?

> I'm not defending a troll here.

But that's exactly what you're doing.

> In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust.

Just because we live in a non-robust system at the moment, doesn't mean it's wise to destroy it, or let it be destroyed. I've lived and worked in failed states, and I can assure you that the alternative is assuredly to a non-robust but at least functioning state is much, much worse.

> Also, I would say that this is only possible on the internet.

Yes, and for most of us, our political life is primarily lived on the Internet these days, for better or worse.

> What does that say about the internet?

Perhaps the only thing you've said so far I agree with. Yes, I've gone from an Internet utopian to an Internet dystopian in 10 short years.

I don't think that "non-robust" is the right way to look at it. Nor do I think that Facebook, Google, etc. have a large number of employees devoted to evil or that third party bad actors are fully responsible. I think what has happened is that the infrastructure is now based on algorithms that reward trolling and disinformation beyond the ability of anyone to stop. It's kind of like a gray goo scenario of the mental space of internet users that we're too anesthetized to really fight.

> I'm not defending a troll here.

That's not the impression I got, at all. That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page. On top of it, you seem to be saying that if a troll does damage, it's the system's fault, not the troll's.

> I'm just saying don't attribute to malice that which you can explain with trolling. In that case, just silly trolling has the potential to destabilize a system, then it's not very robust.

Trolls are just cool dudes people take too seriously, you say. (That's those peoples' fault.) And if you do something with bad effects, you are excused if you thought it was funny.

Why do you think trolling and acts of malice are two separate things?

> That's exactly what it seems you are doing, repeatedly, on this page.

I don't think that's the case. My answers are not snarky.

My overall points is that the internet as a platform, as a means of communications, has a tendency to promote heated, emotional conversations. In contract to rational, logical debates that reach conclusions of a sort.

I think this is because the internet is primarily a visual medium. By that I mean it that information is portrayed and accompanied by pictures over text. In addition to that, it is a high speed medium. This has the consequence of leaving little time for processing information.

The comparison I hold in my mind is a video essay vs. an article or books. An article is just text, there is little to attract your attention other than that (maybe the typeset matters). But a video essay provides a series of shots, that constantly change to draw your attention, the persons appearance, or the images displayed all factor into how you feel, rather than just the information.

DISCLAIMER: Trolling is bad!

Defense of trolls is neither here nor there. The trolls will be with us forever. They are simply a fact of life now, like gravity. Given that reality, how can we make our systems more robust against trolling?

Nonsense. Because they've been around for a decade or so (in numbers), they'll be with us forever? That's like saying, hey why police crime, criminals are a fact of life, they'll be with us forever. How do we make society more robust against crime? Answer: we do it by cracking down on criminals. Trolling is not victimless.

You must be new here. Usenet was already full of trolls in the 1990's. Trolling is shitty behavior and not to be condoned. But legally there is no victim unless they are specifically libelling or advocating violence against someone. I certainly wouldn't want law enforcement to chase trolls, because that would be a 1st Amendment violation and a waste of tax money.

Idk. If someone said something insane like vaccines cause autism in most kids who take it to troll and some parents believed that.

Who needs to change more here? Seriously, someone who is a parent who has probably gone through formal education or heck at least primary school will know that those statements are insane. I of course want troll to stop but I don't see how you can just ignore the people who fall for that stuff. It seems we as a society have done something wrong for people to take trolls seriously.

So how would that friend feel if someone forwards Screenshots of the trolling to his wife, children and possibly employer, that would be funny wouldn't it?

Trolling is malicious, just normalized and give a cutesy name.

> The internet is an emotional medium, not a rational one.

utterly floored at how obvious this is but almost everyone has missed it. "the information superhighway", indeed.

im kind of speechless. this fits so well with everything: the degredation of media, the explosion of tracking and near-total destruction of privacy no one cares about, the most-used social media (twitter, fb, ig) having the smallest information exchange, the prevalence of easily disprovable conspiracy theories.

people have always been irrational, emotional animals. im not sure why we thought itd be different now.

> utterly floored at how obvious this is but almost everyone has missed it. "the information superhighway", indeed.

Interestingly, there was a class of people who never missed that from day one. "Don't believe everything you read on the internet," our teachers warned us. We scoffed: if we could be so stupid. No one believes anything you read on the internet.

Only looking back do I notice the slow change. We have become a people who believe everything they see on the internet.

> We have become a people who believe everything they see on the internet.

Speak for yourself. I only believe things I see on the Internet if they fit my preconceived ideas.

> Only looking back do I notice the slow change. We have become a people who believe everything they see on the internet.

These days, if something is NOT on the internet, it is suspect. Even if the evidence is in a well-researched book, if people can't find a URL for it, they immediately dismiss arguments out of hand. You see it all the time on this forum as well.

I once had a disagreement with a colleague about a claim in a lab manual for undergraduates. About 10 seconds into the discussion, his instinctive reaction was "Does the internet say that's right?"

After speaking with the professor that teaches the class, his instinct was also to check that the internet says it's right before updating the lab manual. I had a simple argument based on a well-known formula, but ultimately it's the internet that decides whether it's right or not.

Perhaps the internet is best understood as a reasonable shorthand for general consensus.

> We have become a people who believe everything they see on the internet.

And the "traditional" media scrambled, falling all over themselves, desperately trying to become relevant as their business model disappeared, moving their content online, competing in the cacophonic nightmare of screaming known as the internet. Little did they know that adding more signal to the noise just tricked us into believe that noise was signal.

How do I make people go back to the old days?

Bring back national TV broadcast as peoples primary source of information?

Well, most of the people who made it, and the early adopters tended towards being rational, eh?

Boiling frogs and Eternal September and all that.

> utterly floored at how obvious this is but almost everyone has missed it

It's a combination of the confirmation bias of addiction and not being skeptical upfront about technology.

It's sad, but empowering once you realize it.

"angry techsavvy teenager" but your "friends" "are in their 50s." Riiiighht. At least you're able to have a multifaceted conversation in this context.

"They are pretty cool dudes with a messed up sense of humor." I dunno but that sounds pretty sociopathic right there, like my friends are cool dudes with a penchant for stealing walkers from old ladies.

There's a certain character type that revels in the rule of the strongest. Bullying and screwing with people because they can. They feel it's the natural order of things. If they don't take advantage of someone or some opportunity, someone else will and be ahead--and they'd rather be ahead. Or they justify it as a way to "teach" others to not be weak and fall for things.

In many ways, I think it is a right-wing or conservative characteristic: rugged individualist winning by breaking social conventions. I also saw it prominently in the House TV series, not coincidentally on Fox. Every episode is a medical mystery, but also all about screwing over other people emotionally--it really seemed off to me.

In my mind, they are low-trust players trying to undermine and benefit from breaking a high-trust society.

Yup, five or ten years ago they'd literally have said "for the lulz". It's just the same thing.

Faxing unlimited black pages to the church of Scientology is a little different from owning the libs by organizing protests and getting people killed.

> The internet is an emotional medium, not a rational one. I treat it that way.

What does it mean, to treat it that way?

It is a means of communication that can invoke a strong emotional response. Mainly cause it's visual. A movie might make a good point or make you feel sympathetic. But it is hard to build up a rational, logic argument. It's all feel.

The emotional response takes away from rational processing of the information. A great example is the 1960 kennedy v. nixon debate. Nixon was doing well. He showed up sick, with a dark suit. Kennedy was young and handsome in a blue suit. It's hard to really listen to someone that looks bad.

The internet is an extension of TV in that regard.

HN is one of the few forums that you can have some serious conversations. In part because of the audience, but also in part of the format. There are no emojis, or gifs or pictures, nothing shiny to distract. It's just text on a screen.

EDIT: Neil Postman is a great resource and describes it much better than I can

So is the internet actually increasing the number of these borderline psychopaths/sociopaths or is it just giving each individual more power to do damage?

The internet is a tool.

Embedded in every tool is an ideological bias. Ex. To a person with a hammer everything is a nail. To a person with a pencil everything is a list. ...

The internet makes us differently think in a number of different ways. 1. I no longer need to remember things, or remember where or how to find things (remember encyclopedias and librarians) 2. I no longer have to rely on one source of stimulus (i can jump to the next video, finish this article later, )

There are more things but just from these two you are conditioned to not retain knowledge or understanding and react to the new shiny thing. I would say that to a person with internet everything is to immediately respond to.

What do you thing the end of the sentence should be "To a person with internet everything is _____"

I'd say with no actual data to back up my position, that it is increasing.

My reasoning would be because tech companies have designed social platforms to reward shallow hot takes. If you say something provocative in the fewest amount of characters you generate the largest response. You are rewarded with karma/likes/votes/retweets. This we all know fuels dopamine reaction so it creates a cycle.

Short hot takes need to maximize the provocation of the statement. These short comments are easy to share and digest which is easy to create a short response towards.

Doing this over and over you have to devolve into crazy ass statements that resemble something a sociopath would say.

In addition to the negative the positive is rewarded.

Positive status symbols are rewarded. Ex. pictures of a 5k, or the top of a hike or volunteering. All that feel good stuff has the same effect. You are curating your image for the audience and eventually you become that image.

It really encourages clique mentality one way or another and shoves people into echo chambers.

How old are they? It seems they lack empathy depending on what they troll. It seems a childish.

There have been jerks like that for a long time, back at least to the Roman Empire. The difference today is that the Internet's combination of scale and anonymity makes it possible for minor players to pretend to be a large movement. It used to require ownership of a newspaper or a radio station to pull this off.

And because social media platforms incentivize controversial opinions that get lots of engagement, even if most of it is disagreement. Twitter's particularly bad for this because of it's default-public-broadcast nature, but you'll see this in public Facebook posts as well. (eg, I have a friend who is a state-level politician, and I made the mistake of reading the comments in one of his posts, and they're all sub-human trolls. You know; you look at the profile and there's no content. Just 'evocative images' like stylized pictures of the constitution and the US flag, but no original content, no grandkids pictures, etc).

And because social media platforms incentivize controversial opinions that get lots of engagement, even if most of it is disagreement.

IMO this puts the carriage before the horse: the platforms incentivize engagement, sans enough social pressure to actually tackle it, the platform seems not to care much what that engagement looks like, and this is what we get.

I agree, and I used to make this same technology-neutral point, but I figure we might as well call a spade a spade at this point, since it's obvious what we get.

> anonymity

It's not anonymity per se, it's lack of consequences. Big platforms tried to make Real Names (tm) a thing, with the explicitly stated faith that that would make people behave better. It doesn't. It opens a whole other can of worms, where now people's egos and emotional investment only increases, yet the negative consequences don't necessarily. People still behave like assholes. Because they get away with it. And are even lionized for it!

Re: Roman Empire, here’s a nice list of graffiti from Roman bathrooms: https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-bawdy-graffiti-of-p...

> Even if you believe in gun rights to the extreme, being purposefully combative, negative, divisive, and awful just to make money is not a great look.

From what I've read on this page and others, they raise money not necessarily for personal wealth's sake but instead to further their cause. "Give us money because this latest news report says they are coming over to your house tomorrow morning to take your guns."

It seems in line with other cable entertainment ("news") sources who hold sessions to discuss the latest "sky is falling" policy proposals from lawmakers whose ideology they oppose.

Both create information glut. So much content so rapidly that you cannot properly process.

If it passes the sniff test (which is usually underpinned by personal experiences, preferences and biases) and falls in line with your intuition it's one more thing that you "know" withou understanding.

Similar to strange danger, the true disinformation is the subtle inaccurate "facts" we allow ourselves to believe.

> Give us money because this latest news report says they are coming over to your house tomorrow morning to take your guns."

Here is the thing about that. You can’t use that as “crazy” anymore.

This presidential cycle a candidate stood up and said “hell yes we’re coming to take your [most popular rifles in America]”, it was met with studio applause and not one single candidate interjected with a “hey now wait”. Biden was the “most critical” saying he wasn’t sure that would be constitutional but then also said the guy that made the statement would be his chosen “gun tzar”.

The New Jersey NICS (background check system) was off for weeks because of Covid19. Meaning it was ENTIRELY illegal to buy / sell / trade a firearm in the entire state. This is the system they want for the whole county.

The Gov and legislature in VA just publicly floated using the National Guard to carry out their gun ban proposal.

So... I don’t have a stated position on the topic, but that example of “look how crazy these people are! They think people are trying to do exactly what they say!” Isn’t a good one.

Absolutely correct, the goal is to disarm the population and increase state reliance. On the plus side, extreme viewpoints are not likely to win back the states Hillary lost in 2016

Well - this is basically the Twitter and Facebook business model. It's just that they're wilfully curating and disseminating the bullshit for profit instead of creating it.

And even that is just a reinvention of the old tabloid business model, but with better analytics and slightly more ass covering - especially on FB, which can't quite decide if it should remove this traffic for moral reasons, or optimise its algos for the user engagement it generates.

The troll business has always been toxic and poisonous, but now it's far more concentrated.

Without social media and the more insane elements in the MSM, trolls would be limited to mad little mail order operations and micro-niche lecture tours of mostly empty church halls.

Some people measure their worth and the worth of others based on their bank accounts.

They want to increase their self worth relative to others, which means making their bank account bigger.

My theory: a certain percentage of people have a lower than average empathetic response, usually by birth, but sometimes also by repeated exposure to mistreatment/neglect at a young age. These indivduals probably played an evolutionary role in human tribes (perhaps something similar to those "soldier" ants in some ant colonies).

But the scale and connectedness of modern society allows such individuals to expand their influence in ways that were not possible in prehisotric societies. And so they go ahead and do it.

I don't believe they have any problems sleeping at night or looking at themselves in the mirror. Those circuits in their brains either don't function or are heavily attenuated.

> Being purposefully combative, negative, divisive, and awful just to make money is not a great look. How? Why? Why do people do these things?

I actually came across a BBC article[1] several weeks ago that examined the motivations behind one of the sources of fake news.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of...

Rules of Acquisition

34: War is good for business.

35: Peace is good for business.

I would not use those rule numbers.

It's a Star Trek reference: https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisi...

I guess I’ve been exposed to the wrong things…

They're basically the kind of people who would be picked up in secret by the FBI/CIA and co in the Cold War for inciting unrest and instability, because who would benefit from a sweeping pandemic in the US and consequent instability?

Superficially, it'd be the gun sellers, because more individuality and chaos means more people will want to "protect" themselves.

But beyond that, internationally there's foreign nations that can benefit from the US being disorganized. It means they can buy in / loan out financial dependency (e.g. China building ports and infrastructure in Africa which they will gain full ownership of if they can't pay off the loans), which leads to control and an advantage in e.g. trade deals.

Plus if the US is finally forced to deal with its own problems, it won't stir as much shit abroad. Russia seems to have an interest in (re)claiming territory; who is going to stop them from claiming Afghanistan (again) if the US is too busy dealing with an epidemic and/or a revolution?

Disclaimers: Not an American, not a historian or politician, I'm just spewing random bullshit, citation needed etc.

Because society rewards them for it.

Follow the money?

Alex Jones for example sets himself up to profit from the conspiracy theories he pushes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/08/16/alex-jones-...

For some people, I think it's away of dealing with feeling isolated and alone... hurting others makes them feel better, less alone, in their unhappiness.

Also probably scratches an itch for ignorant/powerless sociopaths.

People have been making billions for decades by wilfully destroying the planet, or exploiting third world populations. This is nothing new, it's just hitting closer to home than you're used to.

There can be a wider sense to being destructive. Example mindset: if we as a society have too much inertia to steer away from tragedy, it's better to hasten its arrival, rather than slow it, because the later it comes, the more destructive it will be. Constructive destruction. In that vein, populism is good, identity politics is good, culture of greed is good, growing inequality is good, etc.

I don't share that viewpoint, but, I do think that many of these destructive trends are an unconscious civilization-level self-regulation, which has the purpose of dropping inertia by gradually destroying self.

Sounds like self-serving, "ends justify the means" bullshit to me.

There's a sizable minority of the younger generation with a sense that the world as is offers them no purpose or worthwhile future, and no control over the institutions that have guided it to this point.

Increasingly large numbers of them seem determined to topple the Apple cart, if only for the opportunity to experience anything else.

Certainly, it's self-serving. But with enough momentum, it may end up working.

In compliment to your point, I think it's important to remember that the "toppling of the cart", doesn't aim, as an express purpose, to put the cart where you want it to be, but rather to destroy the cart. The phenomenon, I argue, is more base than revolution, and it doesn't have a focus on the future (or even a sense of it). It's exclusively about the now. So it's a mistake to evoke revolutions as examples. I called it constructive destruction in my original commnent, but a more accurate expression would be ultimately-maybe-inadvertently-constructive destruction.

I did notice a spike in comments on some fora along the lines of 'let it fall apart', where it refers to the current cart I suppose. There is a really strong dissatisfaction with current situation and it has to be addressed or at least channelled.

> it may end up working

Said every revolutionary ever, just before the new tyrants take over* from the old tyrants.

* with incredibly few exceptions (before you quote the American revolution at me; and please don't equate trolls with the American revolutionaries).

I was referring to their attempt to tip the apple cart. Not create a new world. Nowhere in this thread has anybody come close to proposing this as a net good, or even really what the world would look like after such an acceleration. My comment was strictly observational in nature.

I'll grant that I could have done better in clarifying that.

However, even in the event that I was attempting to advocate on behalf of an accelerationist mindset, there was no need for you to respond combatively, or condescendingly cut off some weak (albeit common) argument that you've wargamed out in your head.

Believe it or not, not everybody's as stupid or predictable as you seem to think they are, and you should ask someone for details before you decide what they think for them.

The same is true about the status quo. People who don't find that the prevailing system works for them have little motivation to uphold it, although different groups may oppose the status quo for very different reasons.

Like a villain in a movie, right? Where you're setup to despise him, but also sympathize with him just a bit. I think that people who are genuinely destructive might have rationalizations about why they're doing what they're doing, but the rationalization is just a distraction. Ultimately they don't really know, because it's bigger than them.

So basically their answer to the trolley problem is to flip the switch and have it run over one person instead of five.

It only makes sense to act that way if you absolutely know a tragedy will occur. Of course, in the real world, the future is not so certain. You can't know for sure if the damage you do in the short term is any less than the damage that would have happened.

I think there's a fair amount of people who think that status quo is untenable. That, and a sense of overwhelming inertia is all it takes.

Marxists call this "accelerationism": making things worse to hasten the revolution.

Marxists call this "accelerationism"

No they don't; most Marxists (of whom I am not one) dislike the term and have little truck with accelerationist philosophy, such as it is - best summarized here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationis...

You may be thinking of Marx's phrase about 'sharpening the contradictions' between capital and labor to hasten what Marx believed to be an inevitable conflict between them, but accelerationism is rooted in an idea of amoral Darwinian fitness whereas Marx's anxiety was that industrialists would capture the productive capacity of society and extract economic rents from it much as feudal lords had captured agricultural land and done likewise.

Although it's true that Marxists and accelerationists aren't the same group of people, they have made strange bedfellows recently, especially with the birth of xenofeminism. The disagreements in accelerationist circles stretch far beyond "amoral Darwinian fitness".

Marx was in some ways ahead of his time in recognizing that the productive capacity of society had already been captured (and had been so at least two hundred years before Capital was published), and the novel demystification of rent, profit and interest into surplus value. Despite the hints that Marx thought "things should get worse before they get better", there is stronger textual evidence for his belief in engaging in parliamentary politics. Whether that advice can ring true in today's 'democracies' remains to be seen.

Xenofeminism is a new one on me. Just when I thought it was safe to forget about theory, too. I'll check it out!

'If nature is unjust, change nature.' That was by far one of the weirder things I have read over the past months.

Some people have a nonexistent or weak conscience. We call them psychopaths and sociopaths. They are not all bloodthirsty ax murderers as portrayed by Hollywood.

That’s a very good trait to have success in business.

I linked to this in another thread today. Relevant even more here: https://www.psychology.org.au/news/media_releases/13Septembe...

"One study of 261 corporate professionals in the supply chain management industry showed extremely high prevalence rates of psychopathy, with 21% of participants found to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits - a figure comparable to prison populations."

So there is a 21% chance according to that study that Tim Cook is a psychopath :)

Are you sure that having significant psychopathic traits is the same as being a psychopath?

That is how the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) works. Psychologists identify people exhibiting similar disordered behavior, then they extrapolate underlying traits that are likely related to that disorder. The disorder and the traits get published in the DSM, with the guidelines of, "Subjects who exhibit N of these traits can be designated a psychopath."

The goal of business is to undermine competitors. It's hard to imagine a good person with such mindset.

The goal used to be too provide a good or service that people need and exchange them for a fair price so you can survive. Now, business has been turned into a way to fuck other people over so you can get more resources than you'll need for 1000 lifetimes.

The goal has ever been making as much as possible while giving as little as possible. That's how it's been since humans developed ego. You're describing business between post-ego humans also known as saints. We don't have many of those yet.

Yes, unfortunately. See "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James, a serious book on this topic.

A good businessperson only makes a sale if the person on the other end will come back for more.

But only if repeat business is relatively frequent. This isn't particularly true for durable goods sellers or people who sell one-off things.

Is the car salesman ever going to see you again? Is the realtor ever going to see you again? Is the mattress store salesman ever going to see you again? Is the artist who sells you band merch or paintings going to see you again? Probably not.

Sometimes the buyer doesn't have much choice: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars .

Unless of course, you can drown it out by sheer volume of sales.

The traveling huckster model breaks down eventually too, there's only so many people you can scam.

Also, that life isn't a good one.

At internet scale though you can get pretty far and if a new huckster is born every minute then it’s a revolving door of trolling. State sponsored money can’t hurt either.

It's not. Good businesses thrive with their customers/employees/other stakeholders.

You're thinking of slavers, or the mafia.

Read biographies of famous business people. You will find them full of stories where they act in a very cruel manner if it benefits them.

They share the same mentality that every criminal has always held to justify their crimes, "it's a bad world and i'm just part of it".

Trump says the same thing often, too.

They want money and aren't as socialized as you.

Sociopathy.

Sociopathy?

It's just common sense in a system of capitalism. When you have people like Adam Neumann, Martin Shkreli, etc. getting filthy rich off of their non-existent consciences, then it's only natural that you'll have smaller fish like this trying to do the same. Most of them don't even end up in prison.

Americans are busy. The only reliable way to get attention is to be pithy and controversial.

This is how politics on both sides has been working for the last 30 years.

They do it because the other side is fighting the same dirty way, and if they don’t respond in kind, they will lose something they value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com