You don't have to engage with people on the Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#111

Post by nostromo123 » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:15 AM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #68

hnbear wrote: post #22

I have the "hide comments section" turned on my ad blocker. Makes the internet a much nicer place in general on a lot of general news/info type sites that aren't explicitly for discussion (eg. HN, Reddit). I was pretty excited a couple of years back when some bigger news sites explicitly turned off their comments saying they only generated distracting noise and added no value. Then, after that I can rigorously filter…

>I think there's huge value in going out of you way to block negative noise in bulk. I'll go on a tweet made by a Twitter user with a large follower count and just start blocking people. AOC and Ilhan Omar are great because I can very easily pick out the crap comments being made just to try and troll them, I've started reading George Takei's tweets recently to block the trolling homophobes that respond to him.

[flagged]

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#112

Post by z_zetetic_z » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:19 AM UTC

Watch Rick and morty s6e8 and you will see a great meditation on the topic.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#113

Post by ShamelessC » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:23 AM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #78

I hope I never feel intrinsic motivation to defend my employer.

Yeah that part of this felt highly avoidant. It's one thing to engage in nonsense with random strangers - that is likely useless (irony ensues). But to feel attacked by coworkers who are upset about their jobs is probably just toxic. I assume the author's situation has more nuance than that, but they didn't provide that in their writing.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#114

Post by ianai » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:26 AM UTC

bryan_w wrote: post #54

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“

People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#115

Post by trompetenaccoun » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:30 AM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #97

fullmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.

[flagged]

I had to chuckle and then felt sad that you wrote one of the few meaningful comments - one that wasn't some sort of joke or the 10000th repost of an xkcd - and promptly got downvotes for it.

That's definitely also why some of us comment. Why we have to even though we might not feel like it. https://i.imgur.com/yE6kV9y.jpg

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#116

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:44 AM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #98

undersuit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think there's huge value in going out of you way to block negative noise in bulk. I'll go on a tweet made by a Twitter user with a large follower count and just start blocking people. AOC and Ilhan Omar are great because I can very easily pick out the crap comments being made just to try and troll them, I've started reading George Takei's tweets recently to block the trolling homophobes that respond to him.

Creating an echo chamber where you assume any criticism of members of a certain political faction are motivated by bigotry and are seeking to troll and deceive, and block the critics accordingly, is going to leave you woefully under-informed.

[deleted]

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#117

Post by fragmede » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:49 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #64

beebeepka wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to bed, honey. No can do. Someone has to correct them. It's getting better as I age but there are times when the pressure has to be released

https://xkcd.com/386/

"the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

-Cunningham's law

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#118

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:52 AM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #100

robomartin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've gotten a lot of value out of reading the different sides of other people's arguments, but I know I personally wouldn't have wanted to spend time being part of it. The problem with discussions on the internet is that there's a lot of ignorance and ideology out there and a lack of interest in applying a modicum of thought, research and critical thinking. People know what they know because they know what they kno…

How is this any different from arguing in person? You state 'on the internet' as if it is some kind of exception and makes "People know what they know because they know what they know" a fact that exists only there. What you neglect totally are these: 1. this can be fact of arguments anywhere, and the key to having a decent one is for all members to act in good faith 2. the internet affords the ability to find source…

Simple. Most people do not behave as they do online when in person. Or, put a different way, the online physical gap enables behaviors and interactions not often seen in person.

And, yes, in real life you better know what you are talking about. You can’t google yourself out of it, particularly in professional settings.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#119

Post by ilyt » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:52 AM UTC

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #108

unglaublich wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, all three people think their reasoning equates to '1 + 1 = 2', and don't understand how others are so naive not to see.

In a parallel reality, four out of the three are trolls who know that it equals two, but pretend it doesn't just to trigger those who're outraged by it.

Some of that, sure, but I'd imagine more often it's just "realized they're wrong (consciously or subconsciously), try to save face by derailing conversation".

There is of course flipside of it, "is actually right but can't explain it properly, either by own ineptitude or target audience's ignorance".

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#120

Post by faebi » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 10:56 AM UTC

I see it as some kind of mental training, puzzle or fun game. Find and engage in an opposing view, no matter the topic. Of course, do that without being negative, sarcastic but positive and solution oriented. Try to expand the space of options and opinions. And for extremist left/right politics, push it that far until nothing makes sense anymore, while confusing the author. And sometimes I learn something new from it. I think this does not work if you think you can't be wrong. I'm wrong all the time and I accept it without hurting my ego.