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

581–590 of 784 posts

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

#581

Post by HWR_14 »

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'…

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.

Two out of three of those aren't just random positions. If you believe someone else is literally advocating for murdering children, I can see why you would judge them. Similarly, if you see people oppressing people like you for some reason, you should judge them.

I will admit, I have no idea what the disagreement in modern society is with relation the LGBTQ people. Like, I can articulate both sides of the abortion debate. Hell, I can even understand the sides about firearms. But what is the dispute about LGBTQ?

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

#582

Post by nicbou »

FalconSensei wrote: post #567
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'…

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about (abortion, firearms, lgbtq, etc) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company. You can't 'agree to disagree' on those topics though, specially when laws ban abortion, for example. If you think we should do that, then making laws regarding those things (abortion, "don't say gay") woul…

However, it's a lot easier to argue your case face to face. Perhaps it's because people are cooler within punching distance, but I think it's simply because they see the human being talking to them. Their imagination can't substitute you with a caricature of your side.

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

#583

Post by mardifoufs »

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…

I don't get what being black has to do with this theory though. It's not like it was hard to find a black community before? Nevermind that it's not exactly a trait that has anything to do with what community you are in the first place!

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

#584

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

tharne wrote: post #559
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 c…

> The do. The article is incredibly misleading.

I’m reading a lot of talk from you about the Democrats and Republicans, but what are the Independents thinking?

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

#585

Post by s-lambert »

cgrealy wrote: post #455
CodeGlitch wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

They can get pregnant but why do trans men want to have pregnancy as part of their identity? Wouldn't getting pregnant as a trans man trigger dysphoria?

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

#586

Post by slibhb »

dillondoyle wrote: post #579
slibhb wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's blurry. Morals and values are very much at the heart of politics. 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 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.

How about all the people who view abortion as a sin but think it should be legal anyway? You know, like Joe Biden and every other liberal Catholic.

You're just spitting out talking points.

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

#587

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

dredmorbius wrote: post #566
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’ve read the book, thoughts on this criticism of the book listed in the Wikipedia article? > Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidenc…

Any synoptic work can be criticised on the basis that its author strays from areas of specific expertise and selects from available evidence or narratives. That criticism is akin to critiquing water for being wet. The question is whether or not the book provides useful insights. And to that extent, I believe James C. Scott accomplishes his task. He needn't be correct in all his diagnoses or prescriptions for this to…

> per Scott: that a complex domain cannot be accurately modeled or understood, that all attempts to do so are at best compromises and in error, and that any model will prove insufficient and unequal to the task.

Ahh, interesting. I believe that most modern scientists would reject that proposition, a priori. Millennia of scientific advancements have shown that complex systems can indeed be modeled. Recent advancements in mathematics have shown that self-correcting simulations are certainly possible (deep learning, for example). Science itself could be simply described as a “self-correcting model with built-in error checking”.

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

#588

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

ratww wrote: post #560
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

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 feti…

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

This was in the context one of those kink quizzes regarding what things someone was into, so genders, fetishes, bodily features, sex acts, etc. It isn't like someone just announced to a bar "I'd never date a transperson" out of nowhere.

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

#590

Post by dlp211 »

calumetregion wrote: post #473
dlp211 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why cities are less healthy for you as well. This is news to me.

http://schizophrenia.com/prevention/country.html

So this is interesting, but I think the claim is overstated, or at least, this doesn't satisfy the claim that cities are less healthy. This show a positive correlation of an increase in specific mental health cases, but that is looking at health only along a single axis.

I'm not saying your claim is wrong, just that this isn't sufficient. There is other evidence that shows that city living is healthier with longer lifespans and reduced obesity.

Post reply on HN