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

The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 784 posts

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#241

Post by jahnu »

javajosh wrote: post #217
shireboy wrote: post #123

I'm in that group. I've consciously cut out Facebook and Twitter in part because of the toxic echo chambers they've become. HN is about the only place I'll wade in sometimes because the level of discourse seems higher. A little rabbit trail though: Looking at the graph in the article, I'm wondering if US isn't ripe for a party system change. It's not _always_ been Republican vs Democrat in our history. Both sides are…

I suspect that there are a LOT of disaffected Republicans who are conservative but not Trumpian authoritarians. In the same way, there are a LOT of disaffected Democrats who are liberals but not woke/cancel culture social justice warriors. So, yeah, I agree - there's room for a new party.

As a European, comments of this nature confuse me a little. This comments suggests an equivalency. But from this side of the pond I haven't seen the Democrats you describe actually in power and implementing policy. Can't say that about the other side. So why would any Democrats who are liberal but not "woke" be frustrated since those elements of their party wield little if any influence.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#243

Post by RC_ITR »

everdrive wrote: post #221
cgrealy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.

> For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights. Why can’t you? Is it impossible to imagine civil friendly people who simply do not share one’s views on these issues?

'Let's agree to disagree that you deserve the same rights as me' is just a really hard pill to swallow for LGBTQ+ people.

You can choose to hold that opinion if you want, but most LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones will choose not to interact with you as a result.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#244

Post by cgrealy »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #225
cgrealy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.

But the topic can never come up in organic conversation altogether.

Maybe, but you have to imagine at some point, things that are in the news will get discussed over a beer.

And again, I'm talking about fairly fundamental things here. If someone is pregnant, that's pretty conversation worthy. I also can't imagine someone not discussing seeing a new partner.

Ironically, the things you can "agree to disagree" on tend to be the ones that might not come up.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#245

Post by vlunkr »

MrYellowP wrote: post #211
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #204

So, this article states that 42% of Americans identify as politically independent. This beats the next largest political identity (Democrats, 29%) by 13%. Yet, the political system has been rigged - obviously so, for anyone who cares to look - so that an independent party fails to get the 5% necessary to get onto the ballot and future funding for the next election cycle for presidential running. How is it that there…

Nothing can be done, because the system is owned by the corrupt, which means that the system is corrupt. The only solution against this problem is violence. Despite what a lot of completely delusional and clueless morons believe, voting solves nothing as long as all parties are basically run by rich people and or paid career politicians. And I'm not even going to dive into the details. They're not necessary. You have…

I don't know what your political leanings are, but do you realize this is the position of the people who stormed the capitol building?

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#246

Post by iambateman »

The problem with Twitter is simple.

If someone agrees with a post, they “like” it. If someone disagrees, they tweet in response. This was the ONLY option until a few weeks ago with the rollout of the downvote button, so we will see if downvoting changes this dynamic.

Suppose a tweet gets 90 likes, and 10 negative responses. That’s 90% positive response. But if someone clicks on the tweet, they’ll see the one original tweet followed by 10 disagreeable posts, which can make it seem like fringe ideas are actually much more mainstream.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#247

Post by wpietri »

toastercat wrote: post #71

I tried being a Twitter user for a bit last year, mostly because a lot of engineers I admire use it to communicate about interesting topics and also their work. But after a while, I realized even they will pollute my feed with politically divisive topics, whether it be from them retweeting something, or liking a tweet, or even entering into the fray themselves -- Twitter will find a way to get me to see it. For a whi…

No post body was provided.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#248

Post by hathawsh »

est31 wrote: post #205
hathawsh wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-advice: never suffer in silence. Don't keep quiet when there's help available.

Definitely, these two things are about two different kinds of statement though. One which directly affects you, where voicing will dramatically improve your situation. The second type of statement is where you discuss something as a hobby, which might not affect you or your close ones, and where you are under informed, and have little to gain personally, while running the full risk of offending someone.

Agreed, but it seems to take a lot of maturity to know the difference. Very few kids know the difference and some adults never learn.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#249

Post by tstrimple »

theshrike79 wrote: post #46
tayo42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really easy to not be "canceled", just be a good person. What genuinely OK opinion are people being canceled for?

People change. Your "edgy" tweets and shitty jokes from when you were young and stupid can still haunt you in your adult life. Case in point: James Gunn ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gunn#Firing_from_Disney_... ) This is why I rarely interact on Twitter and I have a script that deletes all my tweets that are over X days old. If I say something truely insightful, I'll just make a blog post out of it.

> "Firing from Disney *and reinstatement*"

Yep, he's super cancelled. Great example.

Re: The new silent majority: People who don't tweet

#250

Post by CodeGlitch »

cgrealy wrote: post #203
vorpalhex wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else. If I play boardgames with Sue, that's enough. We meet, enjoy a beer and play some Catan and go our separate ways. That's a fine relationship. If I follow Sue on social media, now I know her politics, religion, sex life, drug usage, opinions on every little thing.. and frankly, I don't care or want to. I'…

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. For example, you can't "agree to disagree" on LGBTQ rights if you belong to one of those categories. See also pregnant people and abortion rights.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN