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

731–740 of 784 posts

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

#731

Post by willcipriano »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #728
willcipriano wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But the crack pipe thing was completely made up.

Can you let the New York Times know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...

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

#732

Post by Dylan16807 »

willcipriano wrote: post #731
Dylan16807 wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. Can you let the New York Times know? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...

> there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes

> the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,”

Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.

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

#733

Post by Dylan16807 »

Graffur wrote: post #730
Dylan16807 wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Take this example

That's an example of a reply that is "unsolicited" and "also irrelevant", by your criteria.

I'm not trying to defend that combo here. You said such a screed is "also irrelevant", right?

That means even if a reply wasn't irrelevant, even if it was a useful response, it would still be unsolicited. Right?

Is that what you intended to say? Am I misreading something?

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

#734

Post by willcipriano »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #732
willcipriano wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. Can you let the New York Times know? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...

> there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes > the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,” Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.

What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean? They provide a definition for under resourced:

"Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors:

• By race

• By ethnicity

• By gender (including transgender populations)

• By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0]

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...

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

#735

Post by Dylan16807 »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #729
Dylan16807 wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

According to wikipedia "LGBT" was from 1988 and "LGB" itself was spreading in the "mid to late 80s".

If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.

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

#736

Post by Dylan16807 »

willcipriano wrote: post #734
Dylan16807 wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes > the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,” Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.

What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean? They provide a definition for under resourced: "Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors: • By race • By ethnicity • By gender (including transgender populations) • By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...

> What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean?

Is that a real single quote from somewhere, or is that quoting things from entirely different sections? I see safe smoking kits in the big list of harm reduction equipment. But that list of under-resourced populations is over in the "Addressing Behavioral Health Disparities" section, and is next to the list of social determinants of health:

• Economic Stability

• Education Access and Quality

• Health Care Access and Quality

• Neighborhood and Built Environment

• Social and Community Context

Tracking those sets of data seem like a good way to make sure no subgroups are getting missed, including "groups of people who have systematically experienced greater obstacles to health".

Singling out one of those nine separate factors and acting like the "equity" goal is focused on bad behavior, and possibly even encouraging it, rather than "ensuring that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible", is a pretty misleading way to talk about this program.

Also "A safe smoking kit may contain alcohol swabs, lip balm, other materials to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and hepatitis"

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

#737

Post by nobody9999 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #698
beaconstudios wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the BLM stuff. You would support them privately but not publicly? > Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that. This is a perfect demonstration of the "head in the sand" position that leads to conservatism that I was talking about. The whole point of "black girls…

I doesn't have to do with public or private support. I think people were scammed to a significant degree. To offer solidarity means to let yourself be exploited too. I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me. There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new…

>but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.

New?

Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"?

I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime.

Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies?

Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"?

Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world?

What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies.

And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to.

So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed?

Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin?

If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.

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

#738

Post by nobody9999 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #679
nobody9999 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt. I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit. Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad…

> I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take? Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew y…

Taking a single thing I said without context is quite disingenuous.

I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.

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

#739

Post by Pxtl »

blindmute wrote: post #693
Pxtl wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas just unveiled a law that proposes putting parents who support their children's gender transition in jail for child abuse. That means one side thinks the other side is a child abuser, and the other side thinks that bigots are going to throw them in prison for being a supportive parent. This is not something you can be "polite" about.

I don't think gender transition for kids is compatible with child sex laws. If a kid can't consent to sex, even if they're verbally willing and consenting, how on earth can they consent to cutting off their penis? Seems a bit absurd to me

The problem is that the order extends to puberty blockers, which are a safe and reversible treatment for kids to keep them from maturing into their undesired gender until they're old enough to opt into more drastic treatments like hormones and surgeries... or not, as they choose.

Edit: also wtf does that have to do with sex? Do you mean the larger subject of child consent in general? Because contract law would be a less extreme example of children not having power of informed consent.

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

#740

Post by mechanical_bear »

hedgewitch wrote: post #721
mechanical_bear wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

You will have a lot of conflict in your life if you go looking for it like Pokémon.
Post reply on HN