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

Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–889 of 889 posts

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#881

Post by jb775 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #809
jb775 wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me get this straight, your response to my criticism of left-wing censorship is to quote an article from a major left-wing media outlet who actively participates in censorship & altered-framing of news topics? And on top of that, you provide a smug response that misses the underlying point? This thought-cycle is common, and is deepening the divide in America. I urge you to diversify your news sources, and think…

Since you provided no citation about Zuckerberg’s grants to 50 states but chose to frame it as a “democrat” conspiracy, I thought other readers could use some context. Curiously, the right (and you) have no problem with 42 other states having access to those grants, but god forbid any purple states get that money. The fact that Joe Bob lives in a rural parish that wont apply for grants is on your team, not those snea…

You clearly don't understand my primary point. You don't even understand why I provided those specific examples. (e.g. 800 polling places is completely fucking unnecessary and is setting the stage for fraud in a historically fraudulent city). Not worth my time explaining to someone not interested in understanding.

I'm sorry for triggering you with non thought-police compliant dialogue. You may re-enter your safe echo chamber now where your participation awards are waiting.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#882

Post by npsimons »

tomjen3 wrote: post #851
npsimons wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little bit less likely that you dislike heartland America when you spent a year working with Fred the Farmboy before you headed to Princeton. I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself. The latter are terms I've actually seen used. But on the topic of a…

I choose the example because I assumed that there would be more people here who would be "coastal elites" than farm boys. In addition I think that if you are destined for the elites then it is more important that you understand (really understand) the life of the others, than if are apprenticing to be an electrician.

> In addition I think that if you are destined for the elites then it is more important that you understand (really understand) the life of the others, than if are apprenticing to be an electrician.

Two things here:

  1. What exactly makes you think the college educated are exposed to fewer points of view than those from the "heartland"? Everything I've ever seen points to the opposite being true, where going to an institute of higher learning puts you in touch with a *vast* array of different people, and living in an urban center does the same. Which leads me to my second point:

  2. Why exactly do you think it's not important for someone from the "heartland" to exercise empathy or be exposed to other viewpoints? It's pretty obvious that a large factor in the problems of today is tribalism and "othering", which gets pretty quickly destroyed by exposure to those same "others", something you don't often get in the "heartland."

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#883

Post by mistermann »

calinet6 wrote: post #875
mistermann wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To review, the question was: >>> How do we get back from where we are now? I have to admit, my social skills are lacking, my patience is low; and the problem just seems so vastly overwhelming that I can't imagine where to even begin. I suggested a novel idea: >> I suggest that we fully acknowledge in comprehensive, "dimensional & behavioural complexity", that which lies at the bottom of all of these problems: the hum…

I guess you did not appreciate any corrections I might have. More seriously, I think you would be surprised at the variety of human experience that’s not covered by your ideals here.

Not at all! I very much appreciate any corrections you may have.

> More seriously, I think you would be surprised at the variety of human experience that’s not covered by your ideals here.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I am not talking about my "ideals", or at least that is not the primary focus of my comments. The primary focus of my comments is this phenomenon whereby people have an extremely strong aversion to discuss what is Actually True.

If you believe I am mistaken in this, I would be more than happy to discuss it at great length. Perhaps I have some imperfections in my analysis that I am unable to see, and you can point them out so I can then improve upon my model.

I welcome being proven wrong - I encourage people to do it.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#884

Post by berkes »

wernercd wrote: post #191
berkes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What place does someone with the delusion that '2+2=7' have in 'prevailing the Truth'. Such a person only frustrates that search for truth. They don't make the outcome faster, easier or more true, do they?

What place does "russian collusion" have? because "2+2=7" is provably true/false... but Russian collusion? not so much... meanwhile, it's "truth" that's allowed to be spoken of without repercussion... Because life isn't as simple as "2+2=7"... it's opinions and people saying "my opinion is valid and yours is banned from open discussion". Because I can find plenty of examples of stuff that isn't as clear as flat-earth…

Ok, but let's start with stuff that is provably false, yet is debated all along.

For example: There is a climate crisis. This is a scientifically proven fact, not an opinion. Yet people deny it, often with the argument "I'm entitled to this opinion." No. You are not, because it is not an opinion; at most it is a delusion, at worst it is a lie (that you might honestly believe in). This is a 2+2=4 situation, or as near as one can get; yet one that even heads of "modern" states keep saying that is anything but 4.

Once we start from the basis that "there is a climate crisis", we can move forward, make choices and so on. A choice might be "it's there, but we're not going to do anything against it, because our economy". That is effective. (albeit something I would have a strong opninion about). At least others can still move forward.

But stating it does not exist (which is provably untrue) really harms effectiveness a lot.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#885

Post by krainboltgreene »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #639
simmons wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm about as close to a free-speech absolutist as there is, and it's very frustrating that the market for these platforms seems to be settling into ruts where we have to choose between the hyper-conformity of highly managed platforms and the dumpster fires of the unmanaged platforms. I think the feedback loop you describe is a big part of it. I also wonder if we're experiencing a decline in education and critical thi…

There can, I’m surprised no one has implemented this: Start everyone off with a maximum influence credit of say 10 people, like in your local neighborhood. As you contribute to thoughtful discussion, as determined by the diversity and ratio of up/down arrows, your maximum influence credit grows as a function of your geography.

This might be the most HN thing I've ever read.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#886

Post by mistermann »

comex wrote: post #837
mistermann wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so interesting...there is this well known phenomenon where ~everyone has at least some bias the vast majority of the time, and in a forum thread where this phenomenon is the specific topic of discussion (say, a psychology paper discussing subconscious bias, and the associated psychological/neurological phenomena that enable it), any significant disagreement (including whether each one of us suffers from it) with…

Consider the theory that aliens intent on causing strife are using mind control rays to affect people’s political opinions en masse. Just for the sake of discussion (a mental experiment of sorts), let us imagine that there is some significant truth to this theory - let's (temporarily) assume(!) it to be True , at least to a significant degree. In this purely hypothetical scenario, might this phenomenon offer some log…

> But assuming arbitrary premises like this this doesn’t seem like a very useful way to learn about the real world.

See this comment is interesting, here are two ways (there may be more):

1. You have made a rather significant change in the topic.

I was talking about: "It's so interesting...there is this well known phenomenon where ~everyone has at least some bias the vast majority of the time, and in a forum thread...."

But you switched the topic, to the examination an attribute: arbitrariness

2. You have described a hypothetical scenario, focused attention one one single attribute, and then suggested/implied that the two scenarios are ~"the same". Also, in doing so, you are treating "arbitrary" as a boolean, which might cause a reader to not realize that the degree of arbitrariness is not even close to the same. This technique would generally fall under the Strawman Argument category.

These are really enjoyable conversations, let me know if you have more ideas.

There's actually a handbook (can't remember the name at the moment) of some sort floating around the internet that goes through lots of these techniques, in case you're interested in this sort of thing.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#887

Post by leetcrew »

JamesBarney wrote: post #197
nostromo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.

This election wasn't extremely close. It was a clear Biden win, it just took a week to count all the mail in ballots and figure that out. There've been 6 elections over the last ~20 years. Popular vote count 1. Obama-08 7.27% 2. Obama-12 3.86% 3. Biden-20 3.4% 4. Bush-04 2.46% 5. Bush-00 −0.51% 6. Trump-16 −2.09% By Elector College 1. Obama-12 365 2. Obama-16 332 3. Biden-20 306 4. Trump-16 302 5. Bush-04 286 6. Bush…

comparing margins for EC and popular vote does not really capture how close a US presidential election was. you can easily have a blowout in the EC that was determined by a <1% lead in a few key states. popular vote is an interesting stat, but not very meaningful under the current rules.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#888

Post by throwaway29399 »

Rick1 wrote: post #871
throwaway29399 wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. You are implying that hating people based on something they cannot control (e.g. ethnicity) is normal.

Actually that's not what I said it all. The concept on in/out-group can be completely arbitrary, e.g. assigned by flipping a coin. The principle still holds. That said, since you bring it up, the history of humanity is largely the history of war between different ethnic groups. So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history. It's still largely the case in varying degrees in diffe…

> since you bring it up

Nice try.

> So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history

There you go.

And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#889

Post by Rick1 »

throwaway29399 wrote: post #888
Rick1 wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that's not what I said it all. The concept on in/out-group can be completely arbitrary, e.g. assigned by flipping a coin. The principle still holds. That said, since you bring it up, the history of humanity is largely the history of war between different ethnic groups. So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history. It's still largely the case in varying degrees in diffe…

> since you bring it up Nice try. > So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history There you go. And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages.

> Nice try.

You did. Right here: "e.g. ethnicity". That's a quote from you. I mentioned in-group, you added ethnicity.

> There you go. And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages.

At this point I wonder if you are trolling. The roman empire waged war on pretty much every single other ethnic group around them and enslaved them. Which the other ethnic groups around them were also trying to do at the time. Then we have the middle ages with the crusades and such... etc etc etc

Post reply on HN