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

401–410 of 784 posts

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

#401

Post by chaircher »

erichocean wrote: post #340
jahnu wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an American, I'll try to explain how our two parties (and their voters) work in practice. The Left (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural. The Right (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural. The Left votes for the Democratic Party. The Right votes for the Republican Party. Independents mostly vote one way or another, and a small percentage vote for whoever seems most moderate that p…

This is really helpful thanks, you've articulated it so well it seems like it was obvious the whole time

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

#402

Post by thrwawy283 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #335
thrwawy283 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting idea: I wish you could Follow a combination of a person and the #topic they post to. You could choose to follow "all of" a person, but more realistically the default behavior would be to attach to posts from a particular topic that person is generating. This would be similar to your example of playing a game of Catan with someone and enjoying just that limited bandwidth you have with them. Know…

I think circles were too tied to privacy. Public posts ended up mushed together just like twitter.

Now I'm annoyed that in 2022 I'm understanding Google+ better. I want to follow the /intersect/ of "Jane Smith" and "Catan". Both of these are topics. I might be broadly interested in "computers", and "board games", or interested in just my friend "Jane Smith". I likely don't want to know everything Jane is posting - or those posting things about her - but when I choose to Follow her, I should be prompted with a list of topics I've subscribed to that would narrow the posts I see which intersect with Jane. Also - G+ or Twitter - would be working to autotag posts into topics/subjects to help me identify how I want to intersect with those posts. (If the author themselves don't apply tags)

I can see why limiting what you're presented with never took off from a marketing point of view. I think this is rad though.

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

#403

Post by willcipriano »

jahnu wrote: post #353
erichocean wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I'll try to explain how our two parties (and their voters) work in practice. The Left (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural. The Right (voters) have two main platforms: economic and cultural. The Left votes for the Democratic Party. The Right votes for the Republican Party. Independents mostly vote one way or another, and a small percentage vote for whoever seems most moderate that p…

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Interesting points. I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I can see the other side easily.

The most recent example I think is when prompted to nominate a supreme court justice, the Democratic president openly said that he would do so with a particular skin tone and gender in mind. That is to say even if he found a better candidate, if they didn't have the type of skin or genitals he preferred, he would not nominate them on that basis.

What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I think.

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

#404

Post by darkerside »

vorpalhex wrote: post #146
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…

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'…

I think you bring your whole self to an in person encounter much more than you do to a social media presence. The difference is, there's no concept of proximity. Everything you say on social is shouted to the entire room, so if you want to say anything, you have to say it to everyone. In a personal encounter, you react to the people near you. If they recoil, you might explain. On social, many people are reacting in different ways and even more not reacting at all. So how do you react to all of those reactions? (You don't)

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

#405

Post by nonameiguess »

Ansil849 wrote: post #346
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'…

> 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'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while. > Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyo…

What is politicized about that? I had no idea the name had ever changed, but thanks to your comment, just spent the last 20 minutes trying to figure out why and no Internet sources citing the fact that a rebrand happened give a reason at all. The only somewhat "political" theory seems to be a Reddit thread citing a Dutch publication claiming the rebrand happened because of pressure from Palestinians complaining that it supported Jewish West Bank settlements. Apart from that being ridiculous in the first place, that theory was quickly debunked in the same thread by both the maker of the game disavowing that and they and players pointing out the rebrand had actually happened in Germany years earlier and was only then being reflected in the Dutch version.

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

#406

Post by Ansil849 »

ratww wrote: post #389
Ansil849 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm happy just playing some Catan once in a while. > Historically you didn't need to know everything about everyo…

I had noticed the name change myself, but never consider it was politically motivated until you brought it up (especially considering mine is called "Catan: Trade Build Settle"). You're Sue in this case.

I, in turn, unfortunately had to listen to fellow players complain about the name change throughout a whole game the other week.

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

#407

Post by ratww »

gedy wrote: post #287
herbstein wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally quite hard for a trans person to be civil with a transphobe. Just as it's hard for e.g. black people to be civil with a racist. The bigot will, whether conscious or not, make the life of the minority absolutely terrible. With LGBTQ it is therefore not just a difference of opinion on taxation, or a few percentage points difference in a tariff. For trans people it's about whether the other person even ac…

Issue is usually in defining terms like 'transphobe' - I've encountered folks who define that as someone who wouldn't be willing to sleep with or be attracted to a trans person in the same way as a biological female. I think that's an example of an area people are just going to have to agree to disagree.

That's a bit of a strawman. That's not transphobic. Nobody is obligated to have sex with anyone, trans or cis, period. That's not even up for discussion.

If one, however, goes out of their way to harass transexual people when stating this preference, then yeah, it's a bit transphobic. Intention matters.

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

#408

Post by COGlory »

cgrealy wrote: post #237
everdrive wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life. It's not as polarised these days, but it was within my lifetime that consensual homosexual sex between adults was illegal in many parts of the world. It still is in some countries. You cannot "agree to disagree" when someone believes you are broken or sinful or whatever and wants to put you in jail. That's just one example. I'm…

I find this argument compelling, but the counter-point is: what change is politicing everything going to affect? Will political comments on a codebase make it safer to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia? If not, combining those two things feels like an exercise in futility.

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

#410

Post by ladyattis »

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?

Not when their opinion means I can't bequeath my prized personal possessions to my partner without burdensome legal complications. I've seen wills being disregarded when it comes to same-sex partners all the time because the surviving family disagreed with their dead loved one so such an extent as to try to find a legal loophole to get out of following their last wishes.
Post reply on HN