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

721–730 of 784 posts

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

#721

Post by hedgewitch »

mechanical_bear wrote: post #720
hedgewitch wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or perhaps it's just an attempt from straight men to not have to confront the fact that what they say is harmful.

Again, it's easy to say that I'm creating a straw man, but the facts are thus.

The OP said:

- My games of Catan work because we don't talk about things.

- Social media is bad because I have to confront the fact that I will disagree with people on things.

- These things that I will disagree with my Catan buddies on should either be "agree to disagree" matters or matters that don't get discussed.

- LGBTQ+ issues were one of the examples of such topics. Neither option is acceptable for LGBTQ+ people.

No examples of what sort of "LGBTQ+ political topics" either of you might mean have been given and yet I, the one providing examples and countering them, am the one creating the straw man?

All I can say is that, once again, you need to listen to the people affected when they say that what is said is harmful and stop acting like the LGBTQ+ people are the problem for telling you that it is, in fact, harmful.

EDIT: You're also defending a man who actively tried to justify using a slur. Doesn't reflect well on you, does it?

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

#722

Post by ratww »

mkr-hn wrote: post #576
ratww wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It reminds me of that time I was somewhat viciously verbally assaulted and accused of "self-censorship" for saying strawperson instead of strawman. I just like it better and have always said it that way, but that person was so deep in a culture war mindset that they couldn't imagine I'd chosen that phrasing without any political thought given to it. Sometimes a spade is just a spade and not a leftist mind control plo…

Yep. I find it really amusing how those people are constantly policing other people's language and life, while they spend their free time complaining that it's them that are being policed. Textbook projection.

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

#723

Post by wpietri »

dogleash wrote: post #696
wpietri wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing your political viewpoint here. Because you disagree with mine, and because you want yours to be more common. The power you are exercising is one of influence. If you didn't believe your views mattered, you wouldn't bother to post here.

>If you didn't believe your views mattered, you wouldn't bother to post here. lol wut? Not parent poster, but I post here precisely because I know my views don't matter. This is idle chitchat with people in a similar line of work. There were a few times I've actually had something to say, and you can bet your ass I didn't post it on Hacker News.

Ok? That's you, and I'll take your word for it. But you aren't the one who is very energetically engaged in an extended argument about what constitutes acceptable political dialog in various spheres.

But even taking you at your word, I think you're wrong. You clearly believe the view you're promoting here, and it's obviously important to you to contradict me, important enough to spend both your time and mine on it. There are a million ways you could spend your idle time, and it's not an accident that you picked this one over the other 999,999 options.

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

#724

Post by Dylan16807 »

zaargy wrote: post #638
thrwawy283 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting idea: I wish you could Follow a combination of a person and the #topic they post to. You could choose to follow "all of" a person, but more realistically the default behavior would be to attach to posts from a particular topic that person is generating. This would be similar to your example of playing a game of Catan with someone and enjoying just that limited bandwidth you have with them. Know…

Quoted post unavailable.

Being spammed with every single thing a person posts, on any topic, any hour of the day, is a tech problem. No matter how accepting I am, that's a huge waste of time.

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

#725

Post by Dylan16807 »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #270
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.

I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.

The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.

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

#726

Post by Dylan16807 »

roenxi wrote: post #655
manmal wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s not unreasonable to ban users who are outliers in terms of complaints from other users.

It isn't workable. If you ban the 2% most complained about users there will still be a 2% most complained about users. There should be something as close as possible to an objective standard of what is and isn't allowed.

If you don't delete historic data when calculating outliers, you can avoid that problem. Or using a dozen other methods. You're describing an extreme strawman of an algorithm.

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

#727

Post by Dylan16807 »

Graffur wrote: post #710
xdennis wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam is unsolicited. You don't get to message someone and cry "spam" when he replies.

Don't get emotionally invested in this. His messages are unsolicited even if they tagged his account. They are also irrelevant which makes them spam.

> also irrelevant

It sounds like you're saying that even if the messages were relevant, such as "you tagged the wrong account", that would be unsolicited?

A single burst of tweets is very solidly solicited when you tag someone, even if it was by mistake.

> Don't get emotionally invested in this.

What in the world do you mean by "emotionally invested"? That reads like a weird way of being unwarrantedly dismissive.

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

#728

Post by Dylan16807 »

willcipriano wrote: post #403
jahnu wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Interesting points. I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I can see the other side easily.

The most recent example I think is when prompted to nominate a supreme court justice, the Democratic president openly said that he would do so with a particular skin tone and gender in mind. That is to say even if he found a better candidate, if they didn't have the type of skin or genitals he preferred, he would not nominate them on that basis. What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I thin…

But the crack pipe thing was completely made up.

And that criticism of the supreme court thing depends on the belief that ability can be narrowed down to a single quantity and he isn't picking out of a bunch of basically equally qualified candidates. I'd disagree with that.

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

#729

Post by kerneloftruth »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #725
kerneloftruth wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.

The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.

It was added in the '90s.

https://www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/

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

#730

Post by Graffur »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #727
Graffur wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get emotionally invested in this. His messages are unsolicited even if they tagged his account. They are also irrelevant which makes them spam.

> also irrelevant It sounds like you're saying that even if the messages were relevant, such as "you tagged the wrong account", that would be unsolicited? A single burst of tweets is very solidly solicited when you tag someone, even if it was by mistake. > Don't get emotionally invested in this. What in the world do you mean by "emotionally invested"? That reads like a weird way of being unwarrantedly dismissive.

You're not the person I replied to. It was intended to be dismissive in response to "You don't get to message someone and cry "spam" when he replies.".

As for the response, it would be unsolicited by the fact the original tweeter did not ask/want a response from the Meme-ster. They tagged the wrong account.

Take this example:

John says to the person he thinks is Brad: I can't believe the weather today!

Emily says to John: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals.... etc....

John's reaction to Emily: WTF who the hell is this? Why is she saying these things to me?

Now imagine this happens to be a common mistake that multiple make and Emily responds in this way every time...

Post reply on HN