571–580 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
User who is receiving unsolicited messages from strangers should be the one banned because he decides to respond with a little joke?
I think he spammed the same text every time. Definitely worthy of a ban for any community online or offline.
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…
Or shift the subset of your views that you're exposing to a set that would result in a mutually enjoyable conversation.
In person you can also be passively present and still interacting without saying much. But on twitter you're not even in the room unless you speak and generate reactions, the most reliable way to get a reaction is to be irritating rather than cooperate to generate a mutually good time.
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.
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'…
> One of my pet theories for why social media is such a cesspool is that it exposes us to the whole of someone else. The common theory is roughly the opposite of this: people disproportionately share their better moments on social media. Its users project the impression of having a much better life than they actually have. This bias is one of the reasons social media is so awful for 'FOMO'. edit Of course, that's not…
share their more extreme moments. Not automatically "better", there is an awful lot of tweeting where people are essentially exposing their mental illness and successfully soliciting support. While no one is going to FOMO on misfortune itself, people certainly do FOMO on the attention announcing your misfortune (and as a result identifying with it) brings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yeah. I have a semi-recent copy and the box says "Catan – Trade Build Settle", so that definitely seems like a regular rebranding. And people who see politics everywhere are projecting that it is political.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was one of the ideas behind Google+ - "circles". You could put other people in different broadcast "circles" and then you wouldn't end up announcing your weird fetish preferences or drug use to your grandma or your coworkers - at least not intentionally.
Wouldn't work in practice - no one is going to pass an opportunity to broadcast their political views to as many people as possible.
I expect most people that held a job prior to social media (or-- really, holds a job in most industries except tech outside of a few cities) will happily tell you that people readily pass on such opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im not sure that the apolitical stance many people believe to hold is such an apolitical stance. In fact, living in any state and taking part in any kind of society is political in and of itself. You do not get to take part in any community without having a political stance - being part of a community is communicating that you agree with the morals and values of the community and wilfully accept them - thats the basi…
You think everything is political because you've failed to make a distinction between morality, culture, and politics. Politics doesn't have to do with "morals and values". It's not a political stance to have a birthday party for your 3 year old or pray in a church or a mosque. Your second argument is "everything affects everything else". Using that argument we can prove that we're all mass murderers for keeping our…
It's what drives engagement & wins votes.
One side views abortion as a moral sin. The other thinks that access to healthcare is a value and have a moral obligation to fight for the rights of women.
There are a bunch of issues like that.
For me right now my LGBTQ community is being used by Republicans as an election issue. An example where one side thinks (or pretends to in order to win votes) that it's some political issue, while I and many others feel like it's a direct attack on our lives akin to racism & racist jim crow era laws.
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…
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…
I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?
I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit.
Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way.
My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them.
Others who've read my comment appear to agree.
>Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues,
Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.
I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.
More's the pity.