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

771–780 of 784 posts

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

#771

Post by CRConrad »

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…

> and yet I, the one providing examples and countering them, am the one creating the straw man?

Yes, countering "examples" one has oneself provided is AFAIK pretty much the definition of "straw man".

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

#772

Post by CRConrad »

hedgewitch wrote: post #665
raxxorrax wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can stop you if you want to be oppressed but that is not in any way representative of LGBT.

Nobody can stop you from trying to shut down arguments by telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws somehow isn't a form of oppression that is above and beyond what would be called a microaggression, but, if you did, I'd hazard a guess that you aren't part of the op…

> telling people that the insinuation that their existence is somehow so controversial that people can just casually suggest that discussing it in public is akin to discussing abortion and gun laws

Discussing your existence?!? Who the F said your existence can't be mentioned?!?

You're really not doing your cause any good with these ever more ridiculously hysterical arguments.

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

#773

Post by CRConrad »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #387
vorpalhex wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. It was an order, not a law 2. It was a clarification of existing rules 3. It does not make "supporting your child's gender transition" a jailable offense. The order says subjecting a child to invasive medical procedure can be abuse, and that doctors and teachers have a legal requirement to report abuse. Here is the order for your reading pleasure: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-dfps...

"As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic doses of testosterone or estrogen." Where "subject" appears to be the mo…

> "As OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 makes clear, it is already against the law to subject Texas children to ... removals of otherwise healthy body parts"

Wow, finally a law against infant male circumcision!

In Texas, of all places; whodathunkit.

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

#774

Post by nobody9999 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #764
nobody9999 wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems. And you interpreted that incorrectly. the "stance" I take (in this case, support for the equal rights and equal opporunities of all) is the stance of one who doesn't have governmental or corporate power to directly impact change other than my behavior and my a…

I feel like I didn't interpret you incorrectly, because while I missed that it was a rhetorical question, I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action - because let's be real here, US electoral politics is a corporate duopoly between a neoli…

>I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action

My apologies for not listing every possible activity. I'll make sure to write a Phd thesis here in future.

As for the rest of your paranoid (and condescending) blather, I can do without it. From now on, I will.

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

#775

Post by Dylan16807 »

Graffur wrote: post #768
Dylan16807 wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think your understanding is affected by whatever definition of unsolicited is. Can you share your definition of solicited and unsolicited?

It's basically a synonym for invited. Or from a dictionary: "asked or invited to do, provide, or contribute to something". Unsolicited is the opposite.

If you send someone an invite to a discussion, they're invited, whether you meant to or not. At least long enough to send a single reply (which may be multiple tweets).

Whether their response is a polite "you tagged the wrong person" or some awful screed does not change whether a solicitation happened. Especially because tagging someone is not a request for any specific sort of reply.

Relatedly, if someone is eavesdropping in public and steps into a conversation to make the most wonderful helpful and loved comment in the world, doing that was still unsolicited.

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

#776

Post by beaconstudios »

nobody9999 wrote: post #774
beaconstudios wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I didn't interpret you incorrectly, because while I missed that it was a rhetorical question, I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action - because let's be real here, US electoral politics is a corporate duopoly between a neoli…

>I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action My apologies for not listing every possible activity. I'll make sure to write a Phd thesis here in future. As for the rest of your paranoid (and condescending) blather, I can do without it. From…

Alright, I thought we were having a mutual conversation but it was your decision to get offended and act like an asshole, so do what you will.

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

#777

Post by CRConrad »

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.

> So what word would you use to describe people who have the biology to bare children?

"People". Anyone and everyone has the biology to bare children; you just need to help them undress.

(Not that it's recommended, unless you're their parent or otherwise legitimately required to do that.)

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

#778

Post by vecinu »

slingnow wrote: post #251
vecinu wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why cities are less healthy for you as well. Is there a citation for this? First time I've heard this said. If that were true wouldn't all the ultra wealthy avoid living in cities at all?

In your opinion do _all_ of the ultra wealthy also avoid _all_ behaviors that might be considered unhealthy? Seems like a weird conclusion to make.

Good point, there are ultra wealthy that still smoke even though there is a tremendous amount of data proving it will reduce your lifespan.

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

#779

Post by CRConrad »

onion2k wrote: post #255
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…

I know a lot of folks in my field side by the stance that everything is political, even code. Twitter isn't code. Why would you expect someone to limit what they publish to code topics just because you want to limit what you read to just code things? Their Twitter account is their domain. There's no reason why someone shouldn't tweet about code and other stuff if they want to. I honestly have no idea why people think…

> Please don't follow me on Twitter. You'll hate my account.

Followed, of course, just for that.

Hey, an old retweet of yours already got me blocked by some fuckwit who, like Mike Pence, can't trust himself to be alone with women other than his wife, so that's a win all around! :-D

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

#780

Post by spion »

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…

I actually wonder if getting more people involved in politics (well, political activism, which is somewhat distinct from political action) is doing any good. It only works if you involve more people on your side, but it seems like this tends to result with more people getting involved on the other side as well.
Post reply on HN