Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I don’t want to be an internet person

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 319 posts

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#301

Post by bitwize »

bdowling wrote: post #299
bitwize wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because no body actually cares, no body will use your made up pronouns. This is why some transgender and nonbinary people have stopped trying to reason with their friends and family about their gender identity, and have resorted to clicker-training them like dogs to use the appropriate pronouns and pay them basic human respect and dignity.

> clicker-training them like dogs to use the appropriate pronouns In my experience, this “clicker-training” consists of childishly threatening to kill themselves if others don’t give them what they want.

I meant actual clicker training, with the clickers they use to train dogs. It's ridiculous, but so is the lack of respect shown when people stubbornly refuse to use the correct pronouns.

There are probably more genderqueer people out there whose families wish them dead, than there are ones who try to manipulate their families by "childishly threatening to kill themselves".

I'm reminded of the fragilely masculine fulminating about false rape accusations when so many actual rapists never even get reported.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#302

Post by fgyj »

bdowling wrote: post #299
bitwize wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because no body actually cares, no body will use your made up pronouns. This is why some transgender and nonbinary people have stopped trying to reason with their friends and family about their gender identity, and have resorted to clicker-training them like dogs to use the appropriate pronouns and pay them basic human respect and dignity.

> clicker-training them like dogs to use the appropriate pronouns In my experience, this “clicker-training” consists of childishly threatening to kill themselves if others don’t give them what they want.

I think he is referring to this absurdity: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1598111269953089536

It's a video of a girl who demands to be referred to as "they" for whatever fashionable reason, and has decided to use a dog-training clicker to remind her family members of this imposition whenever they use "she" as they normally would.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#303

Post by causi »

throwaway32433 wrote: post #9
causi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone could use my writing style to link my online identities together. How does that help them doxx me when there is nothing written under my real name?

https://stylometry.net/user?username=causi You don't need to give out your name and address to be doxxed, there's enough information from your comments across your accounts to reasonably identify you if someone wanted. MIT did a study on 'anonymised' data and found out it only took something like 2 data points to identify someone.

You don't need to give out your name and address to be doxxed, there's enough information from your comments across your accounts to reasonably identify you if someone wanted.

Oh, if a comment needs a personal detail it's randomized. Sometimes I'm married, sometimes I'm straight, sometimes I'm American, etc.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#305

Post by BWStearns »

mkeeter wrote: post #253
BWStearns wrote: post #71

I like the piece. The tone kinda gives me the same vibes as Neil Strauss' The Game (vibe heavy anthropology trip into the distasteful, or at least unnerving, subculture). The part at the very end about the internet people winning is the part that freaks me out (and drives my own middlingly unhealthy doom-scrolling). Just the other day I saw Curtis Yarvin is now some minor Rasputin figure for Peter Thiel, and I couldn…

Ironically, Palladium magazine (which published this article) itself is backed by Peter Thiel, and is... not unsympathetic to that worldview. For example, "Science Needs Sovereigns": https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/10/03/science-needs-sovere...

Interesting on several fronts. The article you linked is a uh, lot to unpack haha. I get where they’re coming from but unless they come out and say thiel is our wise philosopher king so we needn’t worry about men not being angels and such, it’s hard to see what relationship between science and power couldn’t be justified. They nod at Lysenko and basically say “yeah but this bureaucracy is really a drag”. In industry there’s benefit in mad little dictators telling the establishment to stuff it, cause damage is limited and gains are outsized. But it really seems like they dismiss the scientific method as burdensome. Unorthodox thinking is still alive and well but yeah they have to put up or shut up just like the mere mortals who don’t have an easy answer to hard questions.

Edit to add: after a brief read of Samo’s work I’m now somewhat concerned that he’s a much less insane yarvin with indistinguishable goals and a much higher chance of nudging things in his direction.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#306

Post by causi »

costco wrote: post #187
buildsjets wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stylometry does not identify any of my alternate accounts. I ain't skeered.

It might have if I had used an algorithm that wasn’t the easiest to implement on stylometry.net. Unless you are varying your writing style across accounts a more sophisticated algorithm could very likely figure out your alts given enough comments. Which is not to say that you should give up everything and stop posting on HN but just something to consider depending on who your adversaries are.

That's kind of ignoring my original point that it doesn't matter how many of your accounts they ID if you never put your personal details on the internet.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#307

Post by noobermin »

kodah wrote: post #298
noobermin wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The difference being that your community is physical. And more socially acceptable.

The point of my text was to flip what it is to be "socially acceptable" in the modern era on its head. Grotesque manliness at football events to many people is so off-putting they won't be near those events or people. Same can be said for these new internet subcultures. Point is, I think if we zoom out this is just normal human behavior. To be something to talk about, to perceive yourself as someone, to have a common…

In response to your first paragraph, you say that, but so-called "grotesque manliness" is not only socially acceptable, it was literally the gender norm for centuries in the west. May be today or in some corners, such behavior is off-putting, but it definitely is far more the norm than nerd culture was until about ten or so years ago.

I do however agree with your second paragraph that subcultures generally have their own norms which can be rigid and off-putting and rigidity is generally annoying. That said, in line with my contention, certain subcultures do genuinely correlate with certain social groups who do in fact have power in society and so it is a equivocation to presume that all subcultures can be judged on the same terms.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#308

Post by baandam »

amatecha wrote: post #270
jamestimmins wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that this is a misuse of flagging. This isn't spam or an endorsement of their worldview in any way. In fact, it goes out of their way to make the person seem somewhat pathetic. The dialogue taking place about the Internet People is fairly robust, indicating there's value in the content to the HN community.

It's up to the mods to decide whether they think it's acceptable content or not - flagging simply brings it to their attention. I don't think the HN audience needs to spend their time adding such a horribly-acting person to their consciousness. There could be any number of other, non-problematic "internet people" to focus on in an article, and I would welcome such an article being written and/or linked to in place of…

I am glad you feel the need to think for me.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#309

Post by clnq »

lupire wrote: post #274
clnq wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pathetic to some people, sure, but ... what's the harm? Hmm, pathetic doesn't mean harmful. It's closer by meaning to "feeble", which I agree with in the case of Reddit moderators. I don't think they are very influential at all.

Do you think schoolteachers are pathetic? They have much less influence than a reddit mod.

No influence makes a moderator feeble and ineffective because it is the purpose of their job to have and apply influence to conversations.

A schoolteacher's job is different. However, I suppose some could be called pathetic at it, just as workers in any discipline.

Re: I don’t want to be an internet person

#310

Post by [deleted] »

kwyjibo1230 wrote: post #145
zmxz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're uniformly boring in every conceivable way This is such concise and brutally accurate way to sum it up, I salute you for this brilliant description. I could not agree more, such a spot-on assertion!

Your comment sounds almost Seuss-like somehow. Partly that description and assertion is a slant rhyme, but it also feels like there's some kind of (un)intentional pentameter going on

[deleted]
Post reply on HN