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

531–540 of 784 posts

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

#531

Post by foldr »

nobody9999 wrote: post #529
deanCommie wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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?

I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't think anything OP says applies to you.

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

#532

Post by int_19h »

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…

The author of the original comment didn't seem to believe there's a spectrum - note the response to this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668896

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

#533

Post by cronix »

Silent majority....of what, Axios? Twitter users? Article never says.

> 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.

The above is also a link in the article, which if you follow it, it states

> roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they ever use any kind of social media site

How many people over 12 in the US actually even have a Twitter account? I doubt it's even 15%. According to the source the article linked to, about 70% use NO social media. I know twitter is popular with the HN crowd, but only 2 people I know actually use it and they only use it for business accounts. In my family, there are 7 younger people between 15-30. 0 use Twitter. They use instagram and snapchat mostly.

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

#534

Post by tenebrisalietum »

Ekaros wrote: post #64
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many artists use it as a platform to show their art. I'm betting it's more popular than DeviantArt for this purpose, for example.

Wouldn't that be marketing? Private, but marketing still. At least if those artist also provide commercial services.

So a lot of artists post works they've done, and are open for commissions, and post the commissioned art or a retweet to the commissioner's account. This is marketing I guess but not what I typically think of as "fake PR" or "here's a notification of our service with a teaser of content" type of marketing

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

#535

Post by madrox »

rackjack wrote: post #509
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

Fun fact, this theory actually comes from a 4chan post.

4chan has taught me a lot about the internet. They're the epitome of the red team.

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

#536

Post by aiyen »

The need for this article shows the macro herd mentality of Twitter in general. My knee jerk reaction was that obviously, a lot of people don’t tweet. But I think when you’re part of a group, whether virtual or physical, you may start to think that the majority of people think like you, hangs around the same space as you, and has the same life experiences as you.

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

#537

Post by cgriswald »

shankr wrote: post #475
cgriswald wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The show Soap was (literally) canceled for positive representations of homosexuals by people complaining to employers, issuing death threats, and etc . https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/soap/ > Though the show’s ratings were still good in season four, ABC cancelled the series because of continued pressure from the so-called “moral majority.” By the end of the series, Vlasic pickles was the only advertiser interested…

> The people who are part of cancel culture now are literally using the same scare tactics that were used to suppress and oppress homosexuals and other minority groups. More like people who complain about being victim of the cancel culture are the ones who were oblivious to it until they became the victim. Currently the cancel culture is being associated as some kind of PC culture outcome but it originated way before…

I don’t think so. Abhorrent behavior has always been abhorrent. The people using these tactics even often acknowledge it’s ugly behavior but feel vindicated (and even righteous). Some people are hypocrites. This is all just quite a bit easier and more visible than in the past. If anything has changed beyond scale and politics, it’s that people arguing against it are more easily heard.

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

#538

Post by beaconstudios »

nobody9999 wrote: post #529
deanCommie wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. Hell, you shouldn't feel guilt at all for privilege; it's just something you're meant to be aware of when looking at things outside your frame of reference.

All anybody wants is for you to support the movement for their rights in whatever ways you feel willing to. Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues, and won't do anything to help combat racism (even voting, the literal smallest political action you can take) because they believe that it's good enough that they personally don't mistreat people for their race. Sometimes these types of people will actively oppose progressive movements in the style of "I'm against racism but affirmative action/BLM protests/Black girls code is political correctness gone mad" stances.

What people are generally asking for is for you to argue their case if it comes up with friends, vote for politicians that want to rectify institutional problems, and even join in protests or rallies or voice your support publicly if you're willing to do so.

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

#539

Post by dgfitz »

foldr wrote: post #531
nobody9999 wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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? I don't see anything in the OP's post to suggest that. I think their point is that being merely indifferent to (e.g.) gay people isn't actually a neutral stance in the context of a homophobic society. But you state in your post that you're not merely indifferent, so I don't thin…

If everyone get the way GP did, the issues would cease to exist. Not only is it at WORST neutral, it’s exactly what everyone SHOULD be doing.

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

#540

Post by everdrive »

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…

>Because in general, those conversations are about important things that affect your life.

I believe it’s very important to be able to calmly and genially argue points which are important to you. There may not be any value in merely being able to argue calmly and politely for points in which you have no interest.

Post reply on HN