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

The Internet of Beefs

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#101

Post by kick »

rayiner wrote: post #96
kick wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rapid changes have we seen lately? The change in that person's comment has been in the making for over a hundred years. The first thing I personally can think of (in the context of America, as one of the last Western countries to accept GLBT people, not in the context of the wider world, which has been accepting for much longer than America) is American GLBT communes in the 1780s. Given where we are in GLBT acce…

Reduced religiousity, and reduced family formation. Church membership was stable from 1938-1998. But from when Google was founded to today, it dropped from 70% to 50%. https://images.app.goo.gl/4b5wG27yprR4bfZg6 Median age at marriage has increased from 23 to 29 for men in my parents’ lifetime: https://images.app.goo.gl/A3SinK2HNqjM9s139 Also, it’s probably not accurate to say that America is one of the last western…

Poland and the Czech Republic aren't Western, they're Slavic. The USSR wasn't Western, nor are the offshoots of the USSR.

East Germany stopped prosecuting against GLB in 1957, and homosexual activity was officially decriminalized in 1968. 1980s Berlin literally had state-owned (again, East German) locations that were explicitly for GLB activity.

Took a bit longer for West Germany, but acceptance happened in the 1980s and in 1990 West Germany allowed GLB to join the military.

Same-sex couples have had (most of) the same legal rights as married couples since 2001 in the combined nation, I'm pretty sure, though I could be off a year. They were also allowed to adopt pre-2010, but I can't remember when.

Acceptance isn't just marriage.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#102

Post by uncle_j »

pochamago wrote: post #61

I've always thought anonymous imageboards were excellent training grounds for how to deal with all of this. When there's no upvoting or ability to filter people by name, you have to learn how to deal with people who often truly are only posting to make you mad. There are two good responses, both of which are extremely difficult if you have no practice: ignoring it; engaging sincerely and with the assumption that the…

Well it is part of anti-fragile thinking really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile

I run several discords and forums and I allow a certain amount of hazing to go on. This has a positive effect in some ways obviously has some negatives.

It filters out at lot of "normies". I don't want people who are easily offended on my forum, if you want a mod to protect you, you can go elsewhere. It also immediately filters out the morality police instantly.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#103

Post by sunnytimes »

MisterTea wrote: post #57
virtuous_signal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on. I wonder if this exodus has resulted in people trying to make workplaces their "religious community"; but obviously people who happen to be at the same company don't have any reason to agree on important issues. So then the mission becomes trying to make everyone at work care about and agree on .

I have spoke to many people who have said that they feel that work has replaced their social life, myself included to a degree. It also means that people don't want to move on in their careers as they get too comfortable with their work family and pass on better opportunities. I have a coworker who passed on a great opportunity just because he really likes working with everyone. A close friend had to be prodded by hi…

my ex-wife used to prod me to get a better job all the time because at the time we were a small hole in the wall company. Now we are a multi million dollar company with tons of employees and since i stayed i'm doing really well now , her on the other hand , well, bitch's trippin.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#105

Post by rexpop »

spappletrap wrote: post #44
virtuous_signal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on. I wonder if this exodus has resulted in people trying to make workplaces their "religious community"; but obviously people who happen to be at the same company don't have any reason to agree on important issues. So then the mission becomes trying to make everyone at work care about and agree on .

It's almost like our social bonds are being broken in the same way chemical bonds get broken when we digest food. Like our capitalist society is a higher-order organism that is extracting energy from our societal bonds.

What a fascinating analogy. There's certainly a well-explored conception of Capitalism's benefiting from particularly "alienating social relations," but as I conceive if it, that benefit's not so much about deriving "energy" from breaking social bonds, as it is about lowering the cost of coercion. After all, social bonds can give us the self-confidence to stand up to our bosses orders, and to re-organize our work along lines less profitable to them and more profitable to, e.g. our church, community, family, selves, etc.

Is the Firm energized by alienating one worker from another? Is there, from that event, free energy? I don't think so. In fact, it's energetically costly to dis-organize social bonds, but for the Firm it's an investment in a more alienated--and therefore more vulnerable--future workforce.

If the firm extracted energy from social bonds, it would collect well-bonded groups, and "spend" them. Oh, wait. That's what acquisitions do, isn't it?

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#106

Post by dt3ft »

Multiplayer wrote: post #4

I've already retreated to mostly cozyweb! It's great here.

I started building a new cozyweb community. To join, users need a valid phone number. I hope that this will dramatically decrease spam and beefy interaction. I don't expect the community to be huge, but I'd rather have it cozy and small than huge and chaotic.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#107

Post by dt3ft »

mrspeaker wrote: post #86
humanrebar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all Because pleasantness isn't a virtue in every context? Some unpleasant things need to be done and said sometimes. In fact, saying no in certain contexts is good , though it can often be unpleasant. That being said, some people find it pleasant to be unpleasant. Certainly self-censor if you sense that urge arising. Getting drunk on anger or righteousness isn'…

Unpleasant things very rarely need to be done or said, but people (me included) are addicted to doing and saying them. We all feel the need to desperately type the first thing that pops into our head (like the sentence I just typed, and I'd argue the reply you gave). If I wasn't allowed to reply to your response for, say, 24 hours - then I might write something useful and interesting. But the internet of beefs doesn'…

You need to learn how to give less fu*ks. Life is too short to be wasted on internet beefs. Get a hobby, go out more. Get real friends.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#108

Post by dt3ft »

ggreer wrote: post #39
mrspeaker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is now my last un-deleted social media account... and even here I end up removing 50% of my posts, and regretting another 30-odd% after realizing they were low-value emotional negative "beef" post. Why is "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" so hard in practice? Why do I just NEED to throw in my 2 cents?!

The vast majority of people do follow that rule, but there are so many people reading these comments. If even 1% of them have a moment of weakness (or are kinda dickish personalities), they'll drown out the nice comments.

That is also true offline. Does Debbie downer ring a bell, for example?

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#109

Post by wayoutthere »

Lammy wrote: post #12

This article resonates with me and my experiences online to a startling degree. Specifically: “We are not beefing endlessly because we do not desire peace or because we do not know how to engineer peace. We are beefing because we no longer know who we are, each of us individually, and collectively as a species.” I think we are seeing a genuine lack of strong family, social, and organizational ties among most people,…

Hello fellow LGBT person! We actually have it a lot better than many marginalized groups -- if you want community, you can find it. You just have to put yourself out there in an offline sense and disabuse yourself of any ideas that you are somehow better than anyone else in the community. Go on a bunch of coffee dates and you'll make plenty of friends.

It's not organized per se, but in many cities the queer people all know each other. I live in a big city with a big queer scene, and I can't tell you how many times I show up by myself somewhere only to see 3 or 4 people I already know there. Or find out that the new person I'm dating is besties with another friend. We all have pretty similar politics, but we also never talk politics or current events (that shit is depressing). Conversation is largely about our own lives and relationships, which IMO is how it should be. The focus is on making space for and supporting eachother, not winning an argument.

If you're struggling to break in to the community, just set up a dating profile (Grindr if you're a gay man, OkCupid if you're not) with something along the lines of "baby queer here, I need friends". People will reach out to you because we've all been you. I have found people in the LGBT community to be incredibly caring and willing to invest in people they barely know, simply because they remember what it's like to be alone in the wilderness. Community is how we heal, and intentional family built one relationship at a time is stronger than relying on circumstances to provide you with social ties.

Much love, get out there and get involved, let yourself be vulnerable, and you will find your people <3

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#110

Post by rexpop »

claudiawerner wrote: post #88
rayiner wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No?

Consumerism, at the least, is dependent on capitalism's core feature, generalized commodity production. So far, that seems true - was there any consumerism in pre-capitalist societies? I'd hazard a guess and say no. If consumerism is further driven by advertising, it depends on capitalism even more. This paper[0] persausively argues that consumerism is a consequence of specifically capitalist society, considered in i…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN