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

551–560 of 784 posts

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

#551

Post by deanCommie »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#552

Post by anotherman554 »

useragent86 wrote: post #330
anotherman554 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently Mark Twain never said it. If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy). But I read the quote as essentially saying: "You are so incredibly stupid you should never, ever attempt to speak to another human being ever again, on any conceivable subject". But maybe some people don't take it that way.

> Apparently Mark Twain never said it. The advice has been written and uttered in various forms for millennia. > If the quote stated "If you are ignorant on a topic it's better not to discuss it" that would be advise. (Though less quippy). Your quote would be different advice; it doesn't have the same meaning nor implications. > But I read the quote as essentially saying: "You are so incredibly stupid you should neve…

"Your quote would be different advice; it doesn't have the same meaning nor implications."

What meanings or implications does the aphorism have other than "some people (fools in this case) shouldn't ever talk?"

We've established you think I've misinterpreted the aphorism and that you suspect there's something socially off with me, but we haven't established what you think the aphorism means. Go on, educate me.

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

#553

Post by Talanes »

thrwawy283 wrote: post #274
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'…

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…

Twitter seems set on going the opposite direction. The fact that likes are mixed in with posts in the main feed is infuriating, because anyone who is just using the like function as a like function instead of a lesser version of RT just floods the feed with random shit.

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

#554

Post by foldr »

dgfitz wrote: post #539
foldr wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Sure, but no-one was actually criticizing GP for not doing enough, or doing the wrong thing.

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

#555

Post by lazide »

int_19h wrote: post #530
lazide wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Likes and reshares are often consumed via feed like interfaces though?

I get it definitely happens with folks texting friends links or sharing it via email, but the friction with those is higher and it gives time for folks to think more than the feed interface.

It’s highly efficient psychological pressure/engagement and maximizing the focus towards the engaging content that is the real problem IMO. It makes something that someone could think about (potentially) and choose to stop into something they become hyper engaged with constantly and can’t turn off.

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

#556

Post by pvarangot »

deanCommie wrote: post #548
pvarangot wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people have the the ability to do it subconsciously, perhaps without even realising it. As an LGBT latino software developer thanks for this. I was not even thinking about "diversity issue" when I wrote the the grandparent post but I'm not surprised it's the first thing that came up from a "Twitter Star".

Quoted post unavailable.

I didn't say that, you are the only one here talking about a fight and people who need stuff so I think I'll leave you to it as you seem to be the expert. As I said I was not even thinking about issues that affect me at the workplace when I wrote that, I was more thinking about like who has to be president of what country or whatever Facebook is doing or not doing.

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

#557

Post by chemmail »

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'…

So you don't like to watch Kim Karhshan?

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

#558

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

progman32 wrote: post #543
mecha_ghidorah wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did just literally get into an argument with an acquaintance last week because she was insisting that it was not an ok or valid thing for someone to not want to date trans women as a category if they were ok with dating women. So I wouldn't call it a strawman. I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one

That's an interesting take. Do you recall their points? I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.

> I wonder what their position is towards someone who prefers trans people.

They'd consider it fetishism, unless said person was also trans and only preferred other trans people because of wanting that shared life experience.

Their point was that thinking of trans women as different to women as a group was inherently bigoted.

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

#559

Post by tharne »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #343

I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents. The two-party system keeps dominating all the news cycles, so it’s got to be pretty difficult for all of the marketing analytics companies to keep up with the noise.

> I really wonder whether any of the political establishment even has a clue as to the political makeup of the Independents.

The do. The article is incredibly misleading. The drop in party affiliation does not mean that people are not partisan, are less partisan, or that someone who is not affiliated with party is open to voting for a candidate from either party.

One of the major strategic breakthroughs of the Bush campaign on '04 and the Obama campaign in '08 was the ability to identity partisans who were not registered with one party or the other. Most people who are independents consistently will still vote for the same party regularly from one election to the next. Since at least 2000, most swings in voting patterns from one election to the next have more to do with turnout among various groups than with individuals voting differently than they had in the past.

In 2010 for example, the Democrats suffered one of the worst midterm defeats in modern history. It was portrayed in the media as voters turning against Obama and the Democratic party. In fact, it was about turnout. Had turnout in 2010 looked like it had just two years earlier, the Democrats would not have suffered that kind of midterm "shellacking", as Obama called it. The real, and far less click-baity, story was that Obama was an incredibly charismatic and effective campaigner. When he wasn't on the ballet, a lot of democratic-leaning voters stayed home.

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

#560

Post by ratww »

mecha_ghidorah wrote: post #500
ratww wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did just literally get into an argument with an acquaintance last week because she was insisting that it was not an ok or valid thing for someone to not want to date trans women as a category if they were ok with dating women. So I wouldn't call it a strawman. I'd say it is a probably a minority position but it is a genuinely held one

What I said doesn't contradict any of what your acquaintance said. You can freely refuse to individually date as many trans women as you want, just as you could refuse to date a woman that is too old for you, or even too skinny, or too fat. Or just unattractive. But making a fuss out of it is an issue.

Whoever brought it up has some deep unresolved issues, however. Or was fishing for an argument.

EDIT: It's like fetishes. Preferences are fine and should be respected, but they're also better kept off private. Telling people of a specific ethnicity you're "into them" is also kinda creepy.

Post reply on HN