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

601–610 of 784 posts

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

#601

Post by saltminer »

paganel wrote: post #339
cgrealy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree in general, there are plenty of circumstances where people don't get to not have an opinion about things. 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.

A close friend of mine is, well, gay (as in man gay), and he doesn't have the fondest opinion of lesbians. He's also quite critical about trans people. He does like other (especially beautiful) men a lot, so that gay part is definitely covered, he's not in the closet by any means or anything like that.

I always find these "screw your rights, I've got mine" types funny. At the end of the day, once conservatives finish tarring and feathering trans people, they're up next. Our rights do not exist in a vacuum; we're all in the same boat. Sure, gender and sexuality stuff isn't the same, but we share a lot of issues and (most importantly) gay men would never have gotten any rights if they were duking it out alone (and neither would the rest of the acronym, for that matter).

I think I know why gay men tend to take this view way more often than the rest of the acronym, though: straight men don't hit on gay men, but straight men constantly hit on lesbians. If I had a nickel every time I heard "I can turn you straight," I'd be closing in on a couple dollars by now.

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

#602

Post by nyanpasu64 »

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…

I'd be fine with either not discussing relationships in public, or openly discussing both straight and non-straight relationships. Not sure which is more likely though.

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

#603

Post by nyanpasu64 »

trhaynes wrote: post #437
Clubber wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he was probably not a great person early on, he's now generally contributing to universally approved causes, and otherwise just there, so to some extent he's a symbol of the possibilities available through tech. You probably haven't been following Gates lately. His reputation has tarnished in the last couple of years.

Do you have a source or examples?

There are people who are adamant Bill Gates is trying to depopulate the Earth through COVID-19 or something. They're wrong, but people do believe that.

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

#604

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #457
LAC-Tech wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't what he said, but it's apparently what he meant. Again with the mind-reading. Maybe people don't want to talk politics because so many people debate in bad faith and not only put words in peoples mouths, but thoughts into their heads.

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

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

#605

Post by cgrealy »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #482
cgrealy wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children? Because we need to have the language to differentiate the two. In the past we used the word "women", but that has been commandeered... Hence my comment about "person" and IWD.

I fail to see the relevance to this conversation, and I have zero desire to get into this on HN of all places.

My point was about how some people cannot simply “agree to disagree” when important issues are at stake. I provided some simple examples. It’s quite annoying that some people insist on litigating the examples instead of discussing the actual point.

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

#606

Post by ninkendo »

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'…

I just want to say, hugely insightful comment. Or at the very least it helps me feel better about my decision to not be on any social media other than HN (not even Reddit) because of the things you describe. You hit the nail right on the head.

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

#607

Post by SamBam »

hathawsh wrote: post #248
est31 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely, these two things are about two different kinds of statement though. One which directly affects you, where voicing will dramatically improve your situation. The second type of statement is where you discuss something as a hobby, which might not affect you or your close ones, and where you are under informed, and have little to gain personally, while running the full risk of offending someone.

Agreed, but it seems to take a lot of maturity to know the difference. Very few kids know the difference and some adults never learn.

There's a reason why "...and the wisdom to know the difference" is the end of the serenity prayer.

In the end it's the crux of the whole thing. Is [X terrible thing] something that's like the weather, something that it's useless to yell at? Or is it something like climate change, also nearly useless to yell at, but with enough fighting and unity we could actually make a difference? And the answer for any really difficult question is going to be an hard one, no pithy saying will tell it to you.

(Though, agreed, far too much shouting is of the irrelevant, angry, useless kind.)

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

#608

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

dredmorbius wrote: post #592
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The fact that some systems can be effectively modelled doesn't mean that all can be.

Based on my understanding, the leading-edge of scientific research shows that “if the human mind can comprehend it, then there is a mathematical function for it”

Are you positing, then, that there simply are limits to what humans can understand? Or, rather, that some systems are just too complex to document properly?

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

#609

Post by saltminer »

hjanssen wrote: post #421
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…

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…

I agree, everything is political, and what we consider to be apolitical is oftentimes just a reflection of what we consider to be acceptable politics. Even objective facts about observable phenomena become political in how we interpret them (or outright reject them, see: flat earth). Back during gamergate, for example, this was a point completely lost on the pro-GG side: lingerie as armor and the sexualization of women was so accepted and widespread, you would have to view women primarily as an accessory for men to get upset over relatively unobjectionable depictions of women and call that "forcing politics into video games." Dan Olson made a great point in the same vein in "Cooking Food On The Internet For Fun And Profit" [0] that even what you eat is political: what you consider normal, exotic, and assume others are familiar with or have access to is a reflection on where you grew up, how you grew up, your wealth, and your values.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EXVrzOACv4

Edit: It's also a lot easier to stay "apolitical" when you don't have any skin in the game (or rather, don't think you do). When your rights don't feel threatened, it's really easy to go with the status quo.

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

#610

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…

I went to school in the Midwest and a good example of this is if you had a hybrid/remote job in Louisville or Cincy, it would likely be much better for your health to live in Madison, Indiana. It's not far away but feels like a different world, much more low key and with a community focus. You could always drive into the city and book a few days if you had that desire.
Post reply on HN