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

711–720 of 784 posts

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

#711

Post by hedgewitch »

vorpalhex wrote: post #709
hedgewitch wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you didn't. The original person did. You then told me I was making a straw man by calling him out for it. You could have just as easily not commented and I could have been dealing with the original commenter. You decided to comment, defending his absurdity. You don't get to now tell me I am "looking to be offended," especially when you take the side of the less reasonable position.

Do you really think the whole spectrum of LGBTQ identities isn't controversial? We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no? And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or…

So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument:

1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole.

Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though straight people have been afforded that right and freely talk about their marriages in front of people who are affected by laws outlawing their unions?

Am I to believe that you're saying that we shouldn't talk about whether trans people should be allowed to change their names without gender/sex reassignment surgery, even though straight people regularly change their names, get plastic surgery, and what-have-you?

There are no good answers. The very fact that you've not acknowledged that there is no good answer is the problem here. You could just accept that you're wrong, that this is offensive no matter how it is interpreted. But no, you feel an incessant need to defend yourself because you, as a straight man, couldn't possibly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues and, thus, couldn't possibly be offending people.

2) You have yet to acknowledge the fact that you could just casually throw that in there without a second thought is the problem. The fact that you didn't need to think "does LGBTQ+ really belong here?" Your very doing that contributes to anti-LGBTQ+ and "don't say gay" mentalities.

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

#712

Post by lazide »

bena wrote: post #689
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.

But it's still people at the end of it. The "algorithm" didn't come up with the topic, didn't write the article, didn't perform the actions. People did. People bought the ads. People promoted the content. And ultimately, people also wrote the "algorithm".

Some hyperbole, but considering the real world consequences right now maybe not as much as we’d like to believe - People are also the ones who use chemical weapons to gas their opponents in particularly nasty wars.

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t all agree to not do that, or even try to enforce that people don’t do that.

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

#713

Post by rospaya »

madrox wrote: post #273
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'…

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

This basically keeps the status quo and gatekeeps any marginal opinion. Today's toaster fucking is tomorrow's right to repair or yesterday's abortion rights. It only helps to preserve the system.

I for one am happy about all the toaster fuckers who have a place to talk about it, maybe get help if they think they need it. The alternative would be that we all get mashed into an amorphous blob of the same middle of the road opinions that keep everyone happy.

Yuck.

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

#714

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #641
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person referring to themselves using a common slur does not mean they want others to refer to them as that.

To hundreds of thousands of people who use that as an identity, it is not a slur.

To be clear, do you think black people calling each the N word means it is not a slur to them? Because you would be incredibly wrong.

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

#715

Post by vorpalhex »

hedgewitch wrote: post #711
vorpalhex wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think the whole spectrum of LGBTQ identities isn't controversial? We aren't saying good or bad, we aren't assigning value, we are simply saying controversial. Like, obviously you feel you have to fight everyone if there is so much as a chance someone is attacking you - that sort of supports the argument, no? And no, my original argument was not that LGBTQ aligned folks should go back into the closet or…

So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument: 1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole. Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though st…

We live in a world where gay people still have to worry about being arrested for merely being gay in several countries! God help you if you're visibly trans and in a bad neighborhood!

What world do you live in where being _any_ of the LGBTQ spectrum is some overall totally safe and hunky dory existence!?

And if that wasn't bad enough, your fellow LGBTQ friends likely have all kinds of "ready to rip your throat out" hot takes - or did we already forget the shunning and rejection of Buck Angel?

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

#716

Post by hedgewitch »

vorpalhex wrote: post #715
hedgewitch wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, there are two points that you've yet to address and I doubt ever will, which casts an extremely negative light on your argument: 1) You have yet to provide any concrete examples of what it is you mean. You keep going "but I swear this isn't what I mean." Thus, I can only conclude that you mean the whole. Am I to think you're saying that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be allowed to discuss marriage rights, even though st…

We live in a world where gay people still have to worry about being arrested for merely being gay in several countries! God help you if you're visibly trans and in a bad neighborhood! What world do you live in where being _any_ of the LGBTQ spectrum is some overall totally safe and hunky dory existence!? And if that wasn't bad enough, your fellow LGBTQ friends likely have all kinds of "ready to rip your throat out" h…

It's incredible how men, especially straight white men, can demonstrate their understanding of the point by using all of its parts in twisted fashions to support their argument, but will never concede that the point was correct.

Yes, it is unsafe to be LGBTQ+. That is exactly why you can't put it in a box and go "you're not allowed to talk about these things in social situations because my game of Catan is more important."

Really ruminate on that last point. Your game of Catan is more important to you than whether the people in that game are comfortable being around you.

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

#718

Post by vorpalhex »

hedgewitch wrote: post #716
vorpalhex wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a world where gay people still have to worry about being arrested for merely being gay in several countries! God help you if you're visibly trans and in a bad neighborhood! What world do you live in where being _any_ of the LGBTQ spectrum is some overall totally safe and hunky dory existence!? And if that wasn't bad enough, your fellow LGBTQ friends likely have all kinds of "ready to rip your throat out" h…

It's incredible how men, especially straight white men, can demonstrate their understanding of the point by using all of its parts in twisted fashions to support their argument, but will never concede that the point was correct. Yes, it is unsafe to be LGBTQ+. That is exactly why you can't put it in a box and go "you're not allowed to talk about these things in social situations because my game of Catan is more impor…

That is not what I said. Go back and read the original post.

It's amazing how strangers on the internet can just star gaze and determine my gender, sexuality, race and so on. It's less amazing how often wrong they are. I'd really take a moment and think whether predicting someones identity is aligned with your ethical beliefs on those topics.

If you want to fight straw men, please have the courtesy of doing it in private.

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

#719

Post by hedgewitch »

vorpalhex wrote: post #718
hedgewitch wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredible how men, especially straight white men, can demonstrate their understanding of the point by using all of its parts in twisted fashions to support their argument, but will never concede that the point was correct. Yes, it is unsafe to be LGBTQ+. That is exactly why you can't put it in a box and go "you're not allowed to talk about these things in social situations because my game of Catan is more impor…

That is not what I said. Go back and read the original post. It's amazing how strangers on the internet can just star gaze and determine my gender, sexuality, race and so on. It's less amazing how often wrong they are. I'd really take a moment and think whether predicting someones identity is aligned with your ethical beliefs on those topics. If you want to fight straw men, please have the courtesy of doing it in pri…

To be completely fair, if you're not a straight white man and people are regularly mistaking you for a straight white man, that generally means only one thing: you're on the wrong side of history.

And no, I think you should think a bit harder about what it is you said and how you said it. It's easy to claim that isn't what you meant, but you've yet to provide any concrete examples of what you mean, which I called you out for and you proceeded to be flippant. This is also a sign that you know your argument is lost.

You can continue to claim straw men, but you've yet to provide evidence that I've actually created a straw man.

EDIT: Moreover, if you want to say we should just not discuss LGBTQ+ issues in public and try and justify using a slur and then call LGBTQ+ people the problem when they get angry, maybe you should have the courtesy of doing that in private.

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

#720

Post by mechanical_bear »

hedgewitch wrote: post #719
vorpalhex wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what I said. Go back and read the original post. It's amazing how strangers on the internet can just star gaze and determine my gender, sexuality, race and so on. It's less amazing how often wrong they are. I'd really take a moment and think whether predicting someones identity is aligned with your ethical beliefs on those topics. If you want to fight straw men, please have the courtesy of doing it in pri…

To be completely fair, if you're not a straight white man and people are regularly mistaking you for a straight white man, that generally means only one thing: you're on the wrong side of history. And no, I think you should think a bit harder about what it is you said and how you said it. It's easy to claim that isn't what you meant, but you've yet to provide any concrete examples of what you mean, which I called you…

Btw, this is yet another person claiming that you create strawmen to support your arguments. Maybe “ruminate” on that.
Post reply on HN