Live data from Hacker News

‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

theguardian.com

381–390 of 674 posts

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#381
post #34
post #4

I like the More in Common Project. But it overlooks the disproportionate representation of the extremists in our institutions. This happened at my alma matter earlier this year: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator... . They also voted to abandon entrance exams at my magnet high school: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4979 It’s not comforting to know that only a tiny minority of people a…

I know those diversity sessions... They claim everyone who is white or passing as white is racist. I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. Literally hitler, i know. A colleague got fired because he wouldn't confess and left the session. So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's…

> I had to "confess" that i'm racist

Good old Struggle sessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence for that point? Like sure, I'd love to blame Twitter and Facebook for all of our societal ills, but they aren't new. Culture wars didn't just suddenly happen in the early 00s. Cue the 1960s and 70s long before any social media and the amazing amount of not just protests but bombings, assassinations and so on that make the current culture war seem like a mere shouting match.

"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix touches on this - in part, the algorithms that run these platforms and govern (guide?) user interaction are responsible in large part for pitting people against each other. It's in their best interest to keep eyeballs on their respective sites as much has humanly possible.

Hardly a credible source of objective information, given that The Social Dilemma is itself a piece of media designed to trigger people into consuming and spreading it.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#383
> It states that 12% of voters accounted for 50% of all social-media and Twitter users – and are six times as active on social media as are other sections of the population. The two “tribes” most oriented towards politics, labelled “progressive activists” and “backbone Conservatives”, were least likely to agree with the need for compromise. However, two-thirds of respondents who identify with either the centre, centre-left or centre-right strongly prefer compromise over conflict, by a margin of three to one.

Really telling. These fringe groups are taking over our political discourse and online discussion. They are driving a societal wedge.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. This definition doesn't even bother me on face. Obviously, systems can be designed to advantage one group and disadvantage another group. And, obviously, Jim Crow effects the distribution of family wealth to this day. What bothers me about BigCorp diversity training is something a quite different. Choose a random…

Focusing on things they can reasonably change is a legitimate approach. It would be defacto illegal for them to engage in racially discriminative stock sales. Asking their ownership to please give away their stocks to random minorities sounds like a fast way to get booted by the board for crashing the stock value by creating a needless controversy . Only fanatics seriously consider large scale forced redistribution f…

>It would be defacto illegal for them to engage in racially discriminative stock sales.

Well, maybe they shouldn't be declaring themselves society's chosen vanguard against structural racism, then. After all, it wouldn't be forced redistribution if they volunteered to just mail every black person in the country $16,000 worth (to take an example from a film about reparations) in company stock.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neil Postman's books influenced me tremendously. I've been rereading McLuhan, Postman, Huxley, etc. Manufacturing Consent is the most directly applicable to understanding social media. With at least two updates to the thesis. #1 The outrage machine is fueled by advertising, right? What's new is the motivating control (choice) moved from the advertiser's intent to the algorithmic recommenders. #2 Third parties learned…

> The outrage machine is fueled by advertising, right? The purpose of purchaing advertising is to increase sales of the advertised product or service. How does the "outrage machine" lead to increased sales of the products or services being advertised? Do you think many people are actually buying products through advertisements posted in, say, Trump vs. AOC flamewars?

Exactly. And are the advertisers happy?

Who has the (most) power in the social media ecosystem? Certainly not the advertisers. Today, the power balance has shifted to the aggregators (h/t Stratechery) and the trolls.

Here's a loaded question that might help explain the new power dynamic: Who are the current targets of dissastified customers? During broadcast era (the time of Manufacturing Consent), people boycotted advertisers and brands. Today, people boycott the aggregators (FAANG) and influencers (aka cancel culture).

Take it one step further. Let's call manipulating the algorithm "trolling" (for lack of a better term). What leverage does anyone have over the trolls? I find it very weird, a la roshambo, that there are no effective checks on their power. As in, how does one protest or boycott a troll farm? Even the aggregators struggle to check the trolls.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix touches on this - in part, the algorithms that run these platforms and govern (guide?) user interaction are responsible in large part for pitting people against each other. It's in their best interest to keep eyeballs on their respective sites as much has humanly possible.

Yes algorithms contribute, but the media is the reason these problems go from being just an argument on social media, to an actual societal issue. Before the media started using social media as “facts” for their reporting, these arguments would just be another online “flame war.” Remember when we used those terms? Remember when online arguments remained as just that? Now, when 1000 people on Twitter try to cancel som…

I think this conflates two separate, but equally damaging issues. (1) Social media sites have been optimized in the same way tobacco was, to take advantage of human chemistry to make it as addictive as possible; and (2) news companies are run for a profit, and the profits all started going to online advertisers, so the news companies had to follow. Thus things that are important on social media, become important to news companies, which becomes mainstream news.

I find it tough to blame the news for this — the social media companies were making deliberate design choices and the news companies were reacting in an attempt to stay in business in a rapidly changing market.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#387
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know those diversity sessions... They claim everyone who is white or passing as white is racist. I had to "confess" that i'm racist and promise to do better or it would have consequences for my career. Sidenote: I volunteer at a refugee center and took in a syrian family. Literally hitler, i know. A colleague got fired because he wouldn't confess and left the session. So even if that Dean said he is a racist, he's…

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call them…

Even by their definition, how am I supposed to "be better"? If it's not my choices that are creating this system of power that benefits people considered "white", then what, specifically, am I supposed to do?

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#388
post #199
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have seen the despicable "Go Home" vans that were circulating for a while. And the "hostile environment" that is legally mandated homelessness (people aren't allowed to rent privately, landlords have to check with .gov for "eligibility" to rent). All those "we lost the paperwork" people are subject to that. They would have lost their jobs, gradually had their banks close the accounts (with no alternative),…

> > How did “we lost the paperwork” turn into “well you look foreign so leave your country”? > You should have seen the despicable "Go Home" vans that were circulating for a while. How is losing the paperwork for legal migrants comparable or even closely related to telling illegal migrants to leave?

Because both sets of people were treated exactly the same by the system. I.e. inhumanely.

FYI, they didn't lose the paperwork.

UK gov destroyed the paperwork, then deemed people to be illegal migrants.

Then those people were told: quit your job (or we'll force it), leave your spouse, move out of your home, and leave the country. Have 2 weeks notice because we're nice. Obviously with nowhere to go to. And because married people do not have the right to residency, if they were married to a UK citizen that didn't protect them either.

And then consequences started to happen for real. They couldn't just ignore these notices. Jobs were lost. Money was stopped.

As I said, one person even died due to life-critical hospital treatment withheld, and I'm sure many others were pretty worried because all of them would have been denied medical care until the case was settled, and lost their incomes. A number of them were illegally deported.

UK gov has done similar things to other people, not just the Windrush crowd. But Windrush got the press because it was more people at once and older people. There are others who have done everything correctly, paperwork, fees and all, and have kept their own copies of paperwork to confirm their status is fine. Who have then been told, surprise!, quit your job, ditch the tenancy, leave with 2 weeks notice etc.

As it happens, the UK has plenty of people in it who believe they are legally resident and one day find out they are not on some unknowable technicality. And others who are in fact legally resident but the Home Office decided to kick them out anyway.

For a example a number of EU citizen students found out they were not eligible to remain in the UK because they didn't purchase some kind of private health insurance - a condition nobody knew about, nobody was told about, and the Home Office was unable to explain, other than to say they should have purchased it when they arrived as students so that's the reason for telling them to leave.

That kind of technicality. Note that nobody else had to buy this mythical insurance, only students, who weren't told. Essentially the Home Office looks for loopholes to catch people in, that nobody reasonable knows about or would try to enforce. Unlike other areas of law, where "what is reasonable" is taken into account in a principled way, and a process of restoring balance takes place if something is a bit off, the Home Office seems to lack this aspect, perhaps in its pursuit of quotas for kicking out X people a year without regard for whether it's the right people, or even the people intended by policy.

As you can imagine some of these cases end up in court because it's the government breaking the law. But the court system is not well suited to protecting the individuals in these cases, and people can't afford the legal fees.

You often need a judicial review (which is very expensive), because the ordinary policy is "deport first appeal later" or "no appeal possible" depending on the case. Under "deport first appeal later", people usually fail to appeal even when they would win, because it's highly impractical when you can't access your own documents from abroad any more; yet if they do appeal, most appeals are won because the government is found to be not following the law.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#389

Culture wars are fought by tiny minorities, but they're fought over the large majority. The issue of gay marriage in the US was fought mostly by progressive and social conservative activists, but the people they were trying to convince were those in the middle. The reason the progressives won is that the middle became increasingly convinced that banning gay marriage was immoral for the government to do.

There's a very disturbing difference between the gay rights movement and the current social justice people. In the case of a gay marriage, a small minority was directly affected by a tangible and quantifiable problem: not being able to have the same legal status as straight families. It wasn't about taking something from the majority, or guilt-tripping others. So adopting what they asked for had a net-positive effect…

> Climate change and social justice issues don't personally affect most the people who are vocal about it.

Okay, I'm stopping reading here to start replying, because there are already numerous problems with your reasoning:

* In the case of gay marriage, many of the people fighting for it were not, in fact, gay, and were not personally affected. Why does that matter? There were white people fighting in the civil rights movement for black rights, is that somehow lesser? Why is fighting for others a problem?

* Climate change already has, in fact, displayed some impact on most people by now.

* The fight over climate change is focused on the future, it's focused on prevention of larger harms, we're talking about a timeline that includes decades. Waiting until things are already a total, unmitigated disaster and then doing something about it would obviously be deeply stupid.

* Social justice issues actually do affect tons of people -- my wife, being a woman, is affected by various problems of sexism. Women and girls comprise half the population, add in basically any ethnicity or sexual minority and you're already at a majority of people.

* Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others? How is that disturbing in the least? I think you may be confusing "disturbing" with "encouraging" or "inspiring".

> Interestingly, most of them do have one thing in common: lack of highly marketable skills or professional weight.

Imagine someone making an identical argument for MLK's march on Washington DC, or for the broader civil rights movement at large. This is basically a character attack designed to deflect from the actual problems they're protesting. "These people only protest because they're losers!" is basically the message you're sending here.

If you look at social conservatism as a whole, this is basically always the argument, the way that history is rationalized. As soon as they lose one fight -- women being able to vote, civil rights movement, gay marriage, etc. -- the mantra suddenly goes from "okay okay, fine, [last change] was totally a good thing after all, but [new change] is completely crazy! For real this time!"

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it seems these 13% receive outsize political attention as well. I recall at the run up to the 2016 election, one of the main issues was gender and public bathroom usage. I couldn't help wondering at the time why that issue received so much attention vs. the 42,000 opioid overdose fatalities that year alone, which got virtually zero attention.

If you started talking about deaths of despair, you'd have to start talking about de-industrialization and how the Fed lied about it to give Congress political cover [1]. Can't go there. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-12/shares...

Well in 2016, to talk about de-industrialization would have helped the designated "outsider" candidates, despite the fact that one of those, Bernie Sanders, was not Donald Trump.
Post reply on HN