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

151–160 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#151

Post by iak8god »

lsc wrote: post #97
iak8god wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're seriously underestimating the decline of participation in organized religion in the US both during the second half of the 20th century and in the twenty years since. Here are just a few numbers to chew on from Gallop's long-running polls[1]: * The number of religious "Nones" - people identifying themselves with no religion - was right around 1% through the 1950s. In the 1970s it increased from 3-7%, an…

If we're talking about social ties, you should probably be looking at the number of people who attend church weekly. I don't think there's a big social ties difference between going to church twice a year and not going at all, and it looks like your link only goes back to the '90s for 'goes to religious observance nearly every week' and 'has been in the last seven days' For that matter, I know a handful of people (my…

In the past 20 years the number of people who go to church every week has declined by 30%. That sounds significant to me.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#152

Post by opwieurposiu »

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…

The "ideological pipeline" is a ratchet effect caused by virtue signaling. A group starts with a baseline ideology. This baseline is the minimum set of ideas you must believe in to stay in the group. A new idea comes along, some group members discover they can earn in-group virtue points by espousing this idea. Eventually enough group members espouse this idea that it gets added to the baseline set. A new-new idea is now required for signaling. Thus the ratchet effect.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#153

Post by aazaa »

Some of the requirements for a durable beef:

1. The two sides are evenly matched.

2. There is no way to objectively decide the merits of the beef.

3. Each side of the beef has at least one skilled Knight capable of "eviscerating" Knights of the other side.

4. Knights who do not care one way or another about the ideas involved in the beef. Only the conflict matters to a good Knight.

5. Mooks on each side are plentiful and eager to please the Knight they serve.

6. Knights view their own Mooks as a necessary evil.

7. Mutual dislike between Mook clans must be real.

8. Knights seek balanced matches with no clear outcome. Only the conflict matters.

Remove any of these elements and the beef loses its appeal and participants.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#155

Post by kick »

wavefunction wrote: post #149
kick wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's framing things from a legal perspective, but even then there are some key legal steps you're missing (and this isn't conclusive at all): Beating someone based on sexual orientation was recognized as a hate crime first in 1984 at the state level. 1995 and 1998 were when Clinton banned discriminating against gays at the Federal level via Executive Order. 1996 was when Clinton signed DOMA, which is the reason leg…

1992 Colorado passed Amendment 2 which specifically forbade Colorado state, county or municipal governments from recognizing homosexuals as a protected class. The amendment explicitly allowed the government of Colorado to be used to discriminate against gay people. That's my only quibble with your list, other than Bill Clinton also signed Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Oh shoot, yeah, I guess I accidentally mixed up Colorado and Oregon there. Can't edit it now, though, unfortunately.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#156

Post by virtuous_signal »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #91
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,…

Trust is earned. It's not something you can assume. That "assumption of trust" you speak of included an assumption that either you weren't LGBT or you would bury it your entire life for the comfort of the larger community. Matthew 10:34-36 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against…

This struck me as too tidy, so in the spirit of debate let me offer a little pushback:

>We are seeing such things dissolve because we have other options these days.

1) Do we have other options? I think we do, but I don't think the saturation is nearly as high as churchgoing or temple-attending was throughout history.

>In the past, people often grudgingly tolerated it because they had no place to go, not because being part of some larger community was some wonderfully fulfilling experience most of the time.

2) Religions grew and spread in every civilization for millenia. Ancestor worship in East Asia. Hinduism in South Asia. Animism among natives everywhere. Christianity in the West. What if religion and religious community grew and took the forms they did, because they met humanity's social and emotional needs?

So I would restate the original comment as asking (i) what problems arise when something everyone depended on so long disappears in a relatively short time, and (ii) how can we handle those problems. Importantly, stating these questions isn't suggesting that everyone needs to return to religion (which wouldn't even be possible without un-discovering science).

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#157

Post by dcolkitt »

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,…

The thing is it's not just religion. There's been a commensurate, if not larger, decline in participation in "civic organizations" as well.

Sports leagues, fraternal societies (like the Elks or Masons), parent-teach organizations, volunteer organizations (like the Boy Scouts or Red Cross), and labor unions have all seen their memberships steadily decline for the better part of the last 50 years.[1] Doubly so among the youngest generations.

Beyond that, in general we have much fewer close social ties than we used to. Marriage rates have plummeted[2], which means many fewer people have a spouse. Surveys show that Americans have only about half the number of close friends as they did a generation ago.[3] The sizable majority of Americans don't even know their neighbors.[4] And of course birth rates have plummeted, which means that the number of siblings the average person has, and eventually aunts, uncles and cousins are all decreasing.

In general the central sociological fact of the modern-era is the unprecedented degree of social atomization that most of us now face.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marr... [3] https://www.barna.com/research/friends-loneliness/ [4] https://www.studyfinds.org/sign-of-the-times-75-of-adults-ar...

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#158

Post by Yhippa »

dluan wrote: post #99

Throw in Nadia Eghbal's Tyranny of Ideas ( https://nadiaeghbal.com/ideas ) and you'll realize it's not humans beefing, but ideas. Posting is praxis, and the internet is a series of tube battlegrounds for the best ideas. I'm a multitour veteran of the scarred hellscape where modern and historic ideas struggle - 4chan, TEDx conferences, irc, VC conference rooms, local candidate door-knocking campaigns, reddit, and of c…

Sometimes I love arguing just to argue. I wonder how many other people there are like me?

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#159

Post by Yhippa »

quacker wrote: post #43
kick wrote: post #17

I hesitate to criticize this person, because they're presumably writing for an audience that already knows them, and probably are following for this style of writing, but I have to ask: What is it with think-pieces that state obvious and widespread conclusions while using jargon and jokes to obscure how basic of conclusions they really are? I can't fault people who do this because they're paid by the word and taking…

Agree. Out of context, this takes a ton of effort to understand. Some examples - Great Weirding morphs into the Permaweird - underground Internet that I’ve previously called the CozyWeb - unflattened Hobbesian honor-society conflict - Mookcoins are mined by knights through acts of senpai-notice-me - retreat into what I call waldenponding or to the CozyWeb Several of these link to other essays which, in turn, use ever…

I thought it was very clever and got my brain to try to stretch to figure out what he was saying. This beats a lot of the content out there that's dumbed down.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#160

Post by Yhippa »

wwweston wrote: post #13

Q: How would one distinguish between IoB culture and a culture in which there is a meaningful conflict between ideas and values?

To me, in IoB culture nobody ever gives in. In other cultures where there is meaningful conflict, there are concessions.
Post reply on HN