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

521–530 of 784 posts

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

#521

Post by dogman144 »

didericis wrote: post #511
dogman144 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call this employing tactical empathy and it is the single most important soft skill I learned. It's the only, only effective way to do cross-team coordination, arguably all the way up to C-level to C-level.

The old fashioned term for this is “politeness”

Assuming we're using a shared definition of polite, I disagree!

> having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.

You can be polite while not facilitating the counterparty in a way that's useful to you but in the short term feels like you're giving up something. People often can't get past that temporary feeling of losing so they don't venture into it.

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

#522

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #514
mikkergp wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your notion is that you should be entitled not even to hear about the problems of others Everyone believes this. There are too many people in the world to hear about all the problems. The problem with twitter is not that you hear about peoples problems, it's that you hear about too many to grok. The most political people I know are still periodically taking breaks from twitter because it's too much.

They in fact don't. Everybody does acknowledge practical limits, of course. We can't hear about everything. But that's different than wanting to live in a "happier and stress-free [...] fantasy world". Many people are actively interested in making the world better not just for themselves, but also for others.

[deleted]

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

#523

Post by pilsetnieks »

darkerside wrote: post #404
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'…

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 d…

It's the same as with any public discourse these days. If your audience is practically infinite, you have to have an extreme and attention-grabbing viewpoint, otherwise you're just one in a sea of many. If you're only talking to a handful of people, be it in real life or on social media, you don't need the extremism and can afford moderate opinions and nuance.

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

#524

Post by [deleted] »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #206

This article or ones like it are, IMHO, long overdue. There is a bias online for people who are always online. It sounds obvious but "tech" companies and people online ignore or have a blind spot for people who remain offline. "Tech" companies and avid internet users generally see the world through their computers. If something is not represented online, then it is unlikely to register with them as being relevant. Fo…

[deleted]

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

#525

Post by _carbyau_ »

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'…

Eloquently expressed. Further thoughts:

1. Reaction/Social Interplay:

If you play Catan (or tennis or amateur theatre group etc) with a person for long enough you will come to know these bits about them. However, as most small country town people know, you ignore or otherwise put up with "their stupidity" while trying not to shove what they see as "your stupidity" in their face. This is respect for others.

Such respect helps preserve the alliance to get the outcome you want - a game of Catan. Hence, even Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable isn't all bad, they like to play Catan like you do right?

As you eloquently advise, the internet doesn't "hide your stupidity from others" so that is grating. It also doesn't promote people ignoring your stupidity. It promotes "engagement"...

2. Shared experience

Experience is how humans build trust/relationships. Y'know, a first date cliche is a movie then coffee or dinner. The shared movie experience forms a basis to trust each other ("Well they didn't yabber on the phone the whole time so they're not all bad...") and then talking about the experience after may yield new insights on that experience. And those insights are attributed to that person alone ("I didn't think of it that way, very good point Sue." or "Nope. That's just stupid Sue.") even though the experience itself is already in the past!

Even though virtual experiences can be such a basis - IE Game of Thrones as "viral" thing - I submit that in person experiences are more powerful by far.

You tolerate Sue-the-Otherwise-Intolerable in person to get your fix of Catan. But you wouldn't do that for a virtual Sue, you'd just move onto Bob, Mary, Joe or Jane or whoever else the game's matchmaker throws up.

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

#526

Post by didericis »

dogman144 wrote: post #521
didericis wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old fashioned term for this is “politeness”

Assuming we're using a shared definition of polite, I disagree! > having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. You can be polite while not facilitating the counterparty in a way that's useful to you but in the short term feels like you're giving up something. People often can't get past that temporary feeling of losing so they don't venture into it.

Was being a bit tongue in cheek, but yes, it depends on your definition of politeness. I’d argue that being genuinely polite, ie being genuinely respectful and considerate, involves the kind of self sacrifice you’re describing. But I also agree that when most people imagine politeness, they imagine what I’d call “superficial politeness”, not “genuine politeness”

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

#527

Post by AussieWog93 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #452
AussieWog93 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link to this? I Googled the quote at the end and just found this weirdo tweeting under the hashtag #RealNiggas4Romney.

Here is a medium article that preserved a bunch of the tweets and a wiki article. I remember(maybe mis-) some reddit comments at the time about the kid's smirk. There was also a buch of comments about "punchable face" https://medium.com/@RevolutionaryId/twitter-democratizing-mo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_... >In the wake of the publication of the longer video, CNN Business reporter…

Boy oh boy wowee.

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

#528

Post by wanderer_ »

ear7h wrote: post #356
wanderer_ wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically enough, that thread devolved into an irrelevant political argument.

The original thread is literally about the the riots from Jan 6.

Ah. I didn't see the context, however I was referring to the Brexit debate later on.

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

#529

Post by nobody9999 »

deanCommie wrote: post #425
madrox wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite theory comes from an HN comment describing it as the "toaster fucker problem." I'd attempt to re-explain it, but the original comment is great (and easy to search for. Not many mentions of the phrase "toaster fucker" on HN.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362

It's a funny analogy, but there is a spectrum, no? Surely you could acknowledge that there is a spectrum somewhere between Black, Gay, Trans, and Toaster Fucker? It's extremely easy to dismiss all of these as equally irrelevant. In fact many do (not saying you are) - "I don't care if you are black, white or purple. I treat everyone equally". "I don't care if you're straight, gay, or curvy - what you do in the bedroom…

>These attitudes SEEM like they are non-judgemental and egalitarian, but they tend to miss all the implicit ways in which the dominant society does NOT treat people equally in these circumstances.

So, what would you have us do?

I treat each individual as an individual and interact with them based on their individual actions, not based on any immutable characteristics.

I fully support inclusion, diversity, honesty and good citizenship and speak out when I see bigotry, hatred and abuse.

It seems like you're implying that doing so is somehow disingenuous or posturing and that I need to do more. Do I understand you correctly?

Should I, as a middle-aged, heterosexual, "white" male, carry around lots of cash so I can give every woman, POC, differently-abled and LGBTQ+ person I encounter US$20? As "reparations" for the white male privilege that I never asked for, don't want and actively argue against?

This may seem like some sort of anti-progressive rant, but it's not.

So, other than trying hard to be a decent human being and interacting with and about others based on their actions rather than some immutable characteristics, calling out hatred and bigotry when I see it and supporting political candidates who do the same, what exactly do you propose that I do?

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

#530

Post by int_19h »

lazide wrote: post #440
sjmm1989 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My roommate basically put it in his project for university as a similar theory to Toaster Fucker. I too have a personal similar theory where I just refer to the 'village idiot'. They all basically revolve around one truth I think. The internet doesn't radicalize people. People radicalize people. The internet is just full of people who are already radicalized in their daily life, and they are using the internet to rad…

I don’t think so - my impression is that it’s feed algorithms pushing the most incendiary topics to people because they get the most engagement. Nothing gets people going like someone saying something divisive or controversial after all. So pretty soon most of the feed is divisive bullshit.

Incendiary topics draw more attention, thus more likes / reshares. Feed algorithms can amplify this effect, but it's always there, unfortunately:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

Post reply on HN