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

591–600 of 784 posts

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

#591

Post by hedgewitch »

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 ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company.

Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are going to agree to disagree about whether they should be allowed to discuss their sexuality.

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

#592

Post by dredmorbius »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #587
dredmorbius wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

His argument is more nuanced, and ... includes examples.

I've only managed about 3 chapters of the book so far. It has proved quite illuminating.

There are examples of systems that do model well and those that don't. Depending on your physics, the 3, 2, 1, or null-body problems. The double pendulum. Etc.

And those are only at the very simplest level.

The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be. And in the case of complex systems (e.g., the German "rational forestry" method described early in Scott's book), initial success may preceed subsequent catastrophe.

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

#593

Post by Arrivest »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#594

Post by abruzzi »

gameman144 wrote: post #314
buryat wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time, I would respond with the Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this. yeah, people like you should be banned

Is this sarcasm? If not, I'd love to hear the rationale behind this, as to me this seems far less objectionable than lots of things which happen on mainstream Twitter.

I'd never heard of "navy seal copypasta", so I googled it, and to my read, its very hard to see any >winkwink< in the text, which ends after a long screed, with threats of violence against the poster. So I think its reasonable to believe that maybe on of the people on the twitter abuse team didn't get the joke and instead saw what on its surface looks like a threat. I don't know twitter's ToS, but I'm guessing that if taken literally that text could violate them.

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

#596

Post by mechanical_bear »

hedgewitch wrote: post #591
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 ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company. Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are…

You constructed a straw man out of his comments very effectively. I didn’t gather that he meant you can’t mention your life, significant other, etc. I read it as maybe don’t discuss the political aspects of LGBT issues, etc

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

#597

Post by hedgewitch »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #596
hedgewitch wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity either needs to "agree to disagree" on wide swaths of things we care a whole bunch about ([...] lgbtq [...]) or we need to go back to not discussing those things in public or polite company. Does this cut both ways, where LGBTQ+ people also don't have to listen to how straight everyone is? I doubt it. So yeah, how about no? How about there is agreement or nothing? Because there's no way straight people are…

You constructed a straw man out of his comments very effectively. I didn’t gather that he meant you can’t mention your life, significant other, etc. I read it as maybe don’t discuss the political aspects of LGBT issues, etc

If you don't understand that the problem is that detractors have made simply being LGBTQ+ a political issue, you are not qualified to have an opinion here.

I'm curious what you think you mean because there is no good answer.

I also wouldn't have had to comment at all if people weren't casually asking people to instate don't ask don't tell in social settings.

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

#598

Post by Arrivest »

psyc wrote: post #462
trhaynes wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source or examples?

1. Some kind of relationship with Epstein 2. Divorce 3. Melinda hinting that 1. had something to do with 2.

All three is one thing, which is a thing that doesn't matter depending on who you ask.

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

#599

Post by mardifoufs »

abruzzi wrote: post #594
gameman144 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sarcasm? If not, I'd love to hear the rationale behind this, as to me this seems far less objectionable than lots of things which happen on mainstream Twitter.

I'd never heard of "navy seal copypasta", so I googled it, and to my read, its very hard to see any >wink wink< in the text, which ends after a long screed, with threats of violence against the poster. So I think its reasonable to believe that maybe on of the people on the twitter abuse team didn't get the joke and instead saw what on its surface looks like a threat. I don't know twitter's ToS, but I'm guessing that…

The part about "gorilla warfare" wasn't a hint?

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

#600

Post by calumetregion »

dlp211 wrote: post #590
calumetregion wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

It's a fascinating subject and one I love to "argue" about when I'm traveling for work and at a bar in the city, people get really fired up! We all dig in to support our life choices.

People in the city tend to be younger and higher income - both skew the numbers. Access to health services - advantage city vs rural. But the stress level is off the charts higher in a city. This is terrible for you.

There is some evidence that suburban or exurban might be the sweet spot, where you get the benefit of access to care and less daily stress.

Walking and movement is important too, so if you can combine income with small town living (community) in an active way you may be way ahead of the game.

Post reply on HN