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

291–300 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#291

Post by kazagistar »

codebolt wrote: post #251
DoreenMichele wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The LGBT community comes with it's own shackles. They assume the only natural thing is for someone to structure their whole identity and lives around what might just be a developmental phase of their youth. I'm certainly glad that type of thinking…

If it's just a phase they can choose to go back. But if people are to structure their life around any kind of community, the best ones seem like they would be the ones that dont seek to harm others, and are inclusive and not judgemental for how people are. So while I may be associated with it, the LGBT community seems like like a much better one then basically any traditional one.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#292

Post by kazagistar »

fallous wrote: post #203
DoreenMichele wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The many articles I've seen in recent years related to the #MeToo movement and similar suggest to me that women are pretty routinely sexually assaulted for simply attending a rather wide variety of events, including simply having a job. (Keep in mind that doesn't mean raped -- it includes more minor offenses, like being felt up.) I was sexually assaulted as a child. I don't think I have been as an adult. I like keepi…

I certainly understand the attraction of a simplification of engagement and for decades I thought that was the true potential of the Internet (via usenet, IRC, later web forums, social networks, etc etc). I'm no longer convinced. The reason I'm no longer convinced is that such simplification carries with it a component of convenience that makes it awfully easy to isolate ourselves from those who may differ from our t…

It's also easier to find those we disagree with if you are curious. It's also harder for the incurious to suppress such curiosity. If you have never found and explored deep wells of previously alien thought online, then I doubt you would have been so interested in meatspace either.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#293

Post by kazagistar »

codebolt wrote: post #249
DoreenMichele wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sure you can find passages of the Bible to fit your narrative, but those lines are hardly representative of the majority of Christ's teachings. For the most part he was concerned with healing the sick, feeding the poor and showing love to the unloved. If you were going to pick someone from two millennia ago to become a spiritual leader to half the worlds population, you could have done a lot worse.

Does seem like he was probably ok. I wish there was some way to hear his teachings, instead of reading deeply political texts written centuries later by much more sketchy authors.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#294

Post by kazagistar »

adamrezich wrote: post #75
Kaze404 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't consumerism caused by capitalism?

Perhaps, but does it have to be?

What force will stop it? Things are how they are because of the systems that exist. Changing how things are requires changing one or more things about those systems.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#295

Post by pjc50 »

coldtea wrote: post #176
DoreenMichele wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a comment on a forum, not a PhD thesis. There are other ways to attend gatherings of people now. You and I are attending one of them right this minute: a forum on the internet. For my purposes, talking with people on HN is generally superior to most meatspace options. I have a compromised immune system. No one is going to cough on me on HN. I'm a woman. This is an overwhelmingly male space. No one here can physi…

> I'm a woman. This is an overwhelmingly male space. No one here can physically assault me the way they could in meatspace. And yet women managed to exist in outside society and participate in all kinds of actions in the 60s and 70s for example (including protests, acid tests, trips to India, and all kinds of stuff), under much worse conditions (re: average societal sexism, etc), without all today's drama. It's like…

> And yet women managed to exist in outside society and participate in all kinds of actions in the 60s and 70s for example (including protests, acid tests, trips to India, and all kinds of stuff), under much worse conditions (re: average societal sexism, etc), without all today's drama.

They were much more effectively silenced or persuaded to put up with it, yes. That's how you avoid drama: find the person with less power in the situation and threaten them into shutting up.

Just recently there was a thread on Asimov pointing out that his harassment of women at SF cons was an open joke. The BBC's re-broadcasting of the popular music programme "Top Of The Pops" has been affected by their decision not to show episodes presented by known sex offenders - this took out a huge chunk of the 70s episodes presented by Jimmy Savile and others.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#296

Post by engineeringwoke »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #264
alanbernstein wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you could have shortened your comment here to "Why is this article so long?". Why all the extra words?

Explaining yourself is good. That two-paragraph comment explains itself. Get off your strawman horse.

You're doing the thing from the article

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#297

Post by Jweb_Guru »

Yhippa wrote: post #160
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.

Do you have any examples of times when people who genuinely and strongly held opposing ideas both made concessions, and weren't coerced into doing so by some third party? I can't think of many.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#298

Post by [deleted] »

aazaa wrote: post #153

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#299

Post by fallous »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #286
fallous wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that had been my intent, I would have said so. Your statements "I might feel differently if I could find better intellectual engagement in meat space than online. If the entire internet were vapid memes, I might be all "Book club here I come!" (or whatever)" presumably do not imply that if the internet were more vapid you would politely endure routine sexual assault for better intellectual engagement either. My re…

presumably do not imply that if the internet were more vapid you would politely endure routine sexual assault for better intellectual engagement either. I didn't quite know how to say what I wanted to say, but that is, in fact, not too different from what I was implying. Not that I would politely endure routine sexual assault, but I would be much more willing to take my chances if I had no means to get my intellectua…

Yes, we're in agreement that it's not acceptable to trade sexual assault for intellectual engagement... and I'm not sure there's a large advocacy group in favor of such a perverse system to begin with.

My original point, which I still stand behind, is that the internet has not proven itself capable of actually fully meeting people's intellectual needs but instead often provides the illusion of doing so. It is not unlike the difference between doing work (meeting an actual need) vs being busy (the feeling of achievement without actually achieving).

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#300

Post by fallous »

kazagistar wrote: post #292
fallous wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly understand the attraction of a simplification of engagement and for decades I thought that was the true potential of the Internet (via usenet, IRC, later web forums, social networks, etc etc). I'm no longer convinced. The reason I'm no longer convinced is that such simplification carries with it a component of convenience that makes it awfully easy to isolate ourselves from those who may differ from our t…

It's also easier to find those we disagree with if you are curious. It's also harder for the incurious to suppress such curiosity. If you have never found and explored deep wells of previously alien thought online, then I doubt you would have been so interested in meatspace either.

The fact that effort is required to find those we disagree with (on the internet) demonstrates the weakness of the internet to meatspace. Merely showing up for work will expose you to those who hold viewpoints with which you disagree and unlike an anonymous internet belief-holder it is much harder to dismiss or entirely define a person purely due to that belief when you are around them for several hours a day. We may disagree with each other deeply about politics but share a love of pho and eat lunch together among a myriad of other commonly shared experiences. It makes it much harder to think of people as caricatures.
Post reply on HN