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

131–140 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#131

Post by narrator »

pjc50 wrote: post #123
narrator wrote: post #59

In the same way that Spark turns a program into a plan for cluster computation, there's some sort of process by which an idea and a bunch of talking points gets compiled into a big distributed staged media campaign through all channels and institutions that forces culture change that no one asked for. The canonical and somewhat "innocent" example of this is a major advertising campaign for a new pharmaceutical like P…

> then becomes a law where you get put in prison for using the wrong pronoun You were going so well until this point, because I guarantee you won't be able to find the story to back this up; it will turn out that the "wrong pronoun" was part of a sustained campaign of harassment or part of a death threat or suchlike. > how is the social justice "ideological pipeline" constructed and operated? I could talk about how t…

You're beefing right now. I will try to explain it to you another way. Maybe you'll get it. See, this is why we can't have nice things. I put that in there to purposefully trigger any beefers and you popped off like a firework. I could have changed it to "... and then Trump becomes president" and you would have smiled approvingly like a good mook. Unfortunately, you're just another robot. Heck, an AI can just play madlibs with you for days and hit all your buttons because you can't think deeper than identity the opponents argument and pick an associated emotion to feel. You throw out the whole rest of the argument and focus on the emotion producing sentence fragment because you got triggered. This is the problem with online social discourse in the 21st century.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#132

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

wwweston wrote: post #41
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resolution of that conflict. The author posits that the IoB tends to maximize conflict and avoid resolution.

Observing what avenues for possible resolution exist seems like a good place to start and a productive line to pursue. But it seems to me that there are some conflicts with deeper roots than IoB culture that have gone on much longer than the internet has existed: whether or not people should be able to be understood as property, whether sacred texts are meant to be understood in the same way as scientific description…

If the architects of these conflicts behave in ways that maximize the duration of the conflicts and minimize the chance of resolution, then that sounds like beef-first thinking.

If it's just two (or n-many) sides caught in an asymmetric struggle where they both want some sort of resolution and neither one has the resources to get there, then I see that as a stalemate.

Most wars to me don't seem to be beef-first because they resolve eventually. Even when they go on for a while, it's usually because one or more faction/s isn't able to end it and the other/s aren't okay with the costs of ending it. If a war could be ended at a reasonable cost to someone, and they decide they would rather have it continue indefinitely, then that's closer to beef-first thinking.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#133

Post by monksy »

Lammy wrote: post #130
watwut wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you who did not created ties to a group like that are quite better and less scary then people who have strong loyal unquestioning ties to groups - whether nationalist, traditionalist or radical Christians (some of Catholics in my country lately tie themselves to extremists). Membership and trust in these apparently feels great. That feeling is dangerous. That trust is not build on truths being told, it is…

I've experienced plenty of that dangerous unquestioning extremist fervor from progressive/LGBT circles too.

It's a little concerning in cultural conditioning is that most people don't consider left extremist groups in that. They can get dangerous pretty quickly. (Other than the usual just shitty to people outside the groups)

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#134

Post by kick »

rexpop wrote: post #110
claudiawerner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

News Guidelines:

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Commenting on votes will only make you get downvoted more, regardless of how virtuous your comment was.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#135

Post by jcroll »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #98

I'm not going to be able to wade through this entire article. If this is at all an accurate characterization of Twitter, that might explain why I have so few followers. I don't engage in this stuff on Twitter. I've overall had fairly positive experiences on Twitter. I continue to try to figure out how to connect positively on Twitter and on the internet generally. I don't agree that the only antidote is to go seek ou…

> Don't go looking for beefs.

You can't even post a question on StackOverflow without creating a beef (e.g. "Why would you want to do that?")

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#136

Post by [deleted] »

jcroll wrote: post #135
DoreenMichele wrote: post #98

I'm not going to be able to wade through this entire article. If this is at all an accurate characterization of Twitter, that might explain why I have so few followers. I don't engage in this stuff on Twitter. I've overall had fairly positive experiences on Twitter. I continue to try to figure out how to connect positively on Twitter and on the internet generally. I don't agree that the only antidote is to go seek ou…

> Don't go looking for beefs. You can't even post a question on StackOverflow without creating a beef (e.g. "Why would you want to do that?")

[deleted]

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#137

Post by jmastrangelo »

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.

But a central tenet of Communism was dismantling all other social structures like religion. Modern technology under capitalism may be destroying these social structures over time, but communism did actively.

This whole comment just reeks of fanciful anti-capitalism with little real substance.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#138

Post by paganel »

jcoffland wrote: post #6

HN is pretty good at moderating discussions. Which is the main reason I come here. Still, I've seen plenty of beef only thinking here and I too have been guilty at times. It can be quite frustrating when you make an observation about someone's comment only to have them automatically assume you were in disagreement. It's good to assume a generous interpretation. Since tone is so hard to gauge on the Internet, discussi…

> I've seen plenty of beef only thinking here and I too have been guilty at times.

Most of the beef-related discussions around here involve either Tesla, Apple vs Google (when it comes to their phones/mobile OSs), FAANGs vs the rest of the world, some futuristic AI fields (like self-driving cars) and I think that's about it. There used to be a beef between supporters of static-typing vs dynamic-typing (I personally was in the latter group), but the static-typing supporters mostly won that debate.

Other than that most of the topics on this website are pretty civilised (with a few exceptions that confirm the rule).

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#140

Post by bsder »

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #58
sebastos wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this article a few days ago and said almost exactly the same thing. The mook stuff is fun, but the line you quoted: >“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.” is the important part of the piece for me, and I'm happy to see you and othe…

> In 2016, I flew home to PA from Boston specifically to vote against Trump in a place that mattered this is illegal if your residence is Boston. Congratulations, you committed a felony.

Are you a student? Most states don't automatically consider you a resident in that case. You won't change your driver's license, and you probably won't pay state taxes to that state.

Are you a contractor, and for how long? Again, you probably don't automatically change residency until you pass some magic number of days.

Many of the state laws are often a bit vague about the corner cases like students or contractors. The general principle seems to be "As long as you only vote once, in one place, you probably are within the bounds of most laws.

As always, YMMV, IANAL, etc.

Post reply on HN