Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I feel like im talking to the borg

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 387 posts

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#301

Post by sixstringtheory »

inanutshellus wrote: post #8

... imagine this the other way. Imagine that "@rulesObeyer" is the one with the agenda. Imagine RO is paid by a competitor to spread misinformation and "stir the pot", then re-read the thread. Suddenly RO seems incapable of reason or adapting in the face of clear evidence against its assertions. It makes for a fun read. (Similarly, "anyone condemning this comment or defending @rulesObeyer must just be @rulesObeyer in…

A similar thought occurred to me, but it was more in the vein of “what if this person is sockpuppeting on Twitter?” Like a socratic dialogue. It could even be based on real interactions, just reconstructed.

I don’t actually believe that’s what’s happening but it’d be tough to prove one way or the other, if you’re dealing with a sufficiently motivated actor. One of many good reasons not to take social media seriously.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#302

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

benj111 wrote: post #281
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always I'm divided on comments like this. The first half is entirely accurate - it's trying to keep individuals from cutting their own deal and undermining the value of the collective bargaining process. I just don't know if we should start using a framework of class conflict to go along with it. I feel like the point could easily be made without mentioning the "capitalist class", which seems to weaken the argumen…

If capitalist class were replaced with managerial class? Or just management? That's how I read it as I'm not sure capitalist class makes a whole lot of sense to me in the context, and I'm sure the commies used exactly the same tactics anyway.

It's just the use of clearly something that's very meaningful to the author, but I wonder if it gets lost or just serves to exacerbate people who aren't viewing it from their same angle, causing the point to be discarded.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#303

Post by asark »

manigandham wrote: post #295
asark wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yes, agree that it's a useless definition. I've never seen it used outside of esoteric political debates. Esoteric? It's a central concept for understanding how capitalist societies are structured. The central concept, even. It's not math, it's language, exceptions or hard-to-pin-down boundary regions don't wholly invalidate or render useless an idea.

I said it's a useless definition, not an invalid idea. Being a central concept does not mean it's not esoteric.

> Being a central concept does not mean it's not esoteric.

That might be fair. I wouldn't consider a term well understood by anyone with much exposure to the social sciences (any of them, just about, will run you into it, sooner rather than later, probably) or a more-than-tiny exposure to economics (if we're feeling generous and separate that from the social sciences) or just about any higher liberal arts education, to be esoteric, but I can see that falling within one's tolerances for the term, depending. Probably well North of half the population would be lost by it, or take something other than the intended meaning, that's true.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#304

Post by manigandham »

asark wrote: post #298
manigandham wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread was about the term, and that's the definition. If you have to change it to "you'll know it when you see it" then perhaps the definition is not so useful. The biggest companies have started from the smallest of ventures so your personal perception of size and importance has nothing to do with the term's qualification. And no taxes are not theft, they are a contract in exchange for citizenship and sovereign…

> This thread was about the term, and that's the definition. If you have to change it to "you'll know it when you see it" then perhaps the definition is not so useful. The biggest companies have started from the smallest of ventures so your personal perception of size and importance has nothing to do with the term's qualification. You keep ignoring important parts of what's commonly considered the defining properties…

It doesn't seem that way, it is that way. If you have to muddy the definition to make it fit then it's not very practical. I sense your particular context being a class of people who have power through ownership of means. My point is that ownership is available to anyone, either by buying shares (fine if you say that's difficult) OR by starting their own business (literally minutes away on the internet).

If anyone can join then it's not exclusive. In fact it's entirely welcoming. The economy not only supports it but relies on it, demands it even, and the very people you may claim are the most powerful today includes members who have started with nothing and were far outside that 'class'. The boundary is completely porous and ever-shifting so as to be non-existent outside of a political discussion. There are no chains binding you.

So what is the use of such a definition other than a "us-vs-them" distraction? When the "them" is open to anyone? It seems like the side which is dividing and conquering is not the capitalists.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#305

Post by benj111 »

duxup wrote: post #293
benj111 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could understand if both the parent and grand parent were equally down voted, but they're not. Instead the parent is downvoted without any explanation as to why they're wrong, and a culture of pointing out why someone is wrong before downvoting them is the only reasonable dividing line I can think of between the 2 comments, thus seemingly proving the parent right...

It's because repeating posts provide no value.

It's different in a way that makes an important point.

Could it have be put differently? Probably, but another rule of good discourse is to play the argument not the man (or the presentation), so you again seem to be making the parents point.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#306

Post by CharlesColeman »

dx87 wrote: post #21
codingdave wrote: post #13

A real gem in there was the comment of "there is actually an open door policy at the FCs, which allows us to directly communicate with our managers if we have concerns or issues." Think about that for a second. The fact that they feel that is notable to call out, saying they "actually" have that... implies that they believe it is normal to not have an open door policy, and not be allowed to talk to their managers abo…

That could also be interpreted as a response to the people who talk about the warehouse workers like they're slave labor with zero rights. It's like saying "Believe it or not, we actually have an open door policy and can talk to our managers if there are any issues."

> That could also be interpreted as a response to the people who talk about the warehouse workers like they're slave labor with zero rights. It's like saying "Believe it or not, we actually have an open door policy and can talk to our managers if there are any issues."

To me, it sounds like an echo of standard anti-union propaganda: e.g. "I don't need a union, because I can work out any problems I have directly with my manager!"

IIRC, this Wal-mart video has a line like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cle_OuOpBZc.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#307

Post by blhack »

duxup wrote: post #125

I feel like this is twitter in a nutshell, and that goes for everyone involved. The very first response is "eally like? cause your workers are liars?" There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc. Nobody is talking to each other in any of that. They're just posting for everyone else…

>There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc.

I really think this is by design at Twitter. The confusing way that the conversations are structured, and intentionally limited to allow any possibility for nuance of any kind, just maximizes outrage.

Essentislly twitter wants you to go to the service and get angry. That keeps you addicted and coming back to see how the argument has progressed. It’s like a much more addicting/toxic version of cable news.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#308

Post by duxup »

blhack wrote: post #307
duxup wrote: post #125

I feel like this is twitter in a nutshell, and that goes for everyone involved. The very first response is "eally like? cause your workers are liars?" There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc. Nobody is talking to each other in any of that. They're just posting for everyone else…

>There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc. I really think this is by design at Twitter. The confusing way that the conversations are structured, and intentionally limited to allow any possibility for nuance of any kind, just maximizes outrage. Essentislly twitter wants you to go…

Yeah sadly "engagement" and outrage seems to be one and the same in so many situations.

Re: I feel like im talking to the borg

#310

Post by duxup »

benj111 wrote: post #305
duxup wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because repeating posts provide no value.

It's different in a way that makes an important point. Could it have be put differently? Probably, but another rule of good discourse is to play the argument not the man (or the presentation), so you again seem to be making the parents point.

Maybe I'm missing something but the text is nearly identical except to show how forums might provide similar motivations. That's pretty redundant.

HN is pretty strict about low quality content and such, that's not "proving a point" it's just a question of local traditions.

Personal I've little regard for "you're proving my point by down-voting me" kind of arguments, it's always almost self serving and either a question of that user's ignorance about the local forum's policies or they just don't care.

Post reply on HN