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

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

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 226 posts

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

#121

Post by guerrilla »

ianai wrote: post #114
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.

> “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.“

This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your point stand and not corrected it, then a lot of people would have taken it to heart rather than reconsidering like some are as they read this.

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

#122

Post by guerrilla »

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.

> four out of the three

I see that you've already been effected by the bad math here ;) Careful out there, kids!

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

#123

Post by isitmadeofglass »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

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.

[dead]

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

#124

Post by goodpoint »

fullmoon wrote: post #90
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

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.

> exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals.

Speak for yourself please. On most forums nobody is going to praise another for their knowledge. Additionally most people are anonymous.

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

#125

Post by jason-phillips »

guerrilla wrote: post #121
ianai wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

> “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.“ This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your poi…

I think you actually just illustrated and proved his point for him, in fact.

However, now I've just made myself a hypocrite and broken my own self-similar rule to never respond to or debate with stupid.

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

#127

Post by guerrilla »

jason-phillips wrote: post #125
guerrilla wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.“ This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your poi…

I think you actually just illustrated and proved his point for him, in fact. However, now I've just made myself a hypocrite and broken my own self-similar rule to never respond to or debate with stupid.

They made two points. One is incorrect and the other is irrelevant, which is my point.

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

#129

Post by neuronic »

SoftTalker wrote: post #26
bluedino wrote: post #13

Reddit is great because someone can says 1 + 1 = 3, get fifty upvotes, you can point out that it's actually 2, get downvoted into oblivion, and then some other idiot will come along and say it's 4

And worth keeping in mind that every sub, every comment section, including this place, is a self-selected narrow group that is very much not representative of public opinion in general.

I have frequented r/de for a long time (German subreddit) and it's very much on the student life / left-leaning site of political opinions as a community. It is fascinating how repeated reality checks with the rest of society regarding political and the social landscape (e.g. national polls, elections) seemingly violate the moralist self-image of this community over and over again which is represented in flabbergasted comments. How can all of these people be against my opinion?

I happen to share many of the popular ideas on r/de - disagreement and mud-slinging is not my point. Just this notable lack of self awareness and the, frankly, authoritarian mods that enforce their political ideas on others in a de facto public forum. I really understand moderation is a hard problem but deleting entire comment sections and putting threads into contest mode if the left-leaning political opinion is in danger is painful to watch since the essence of democracy suffers: pluralistic (but respectful) discussions and arguments. The main points of debate here seem to be nuclear power, COVID and migration. Very divisive topics.

There has been a very interesting example of this in the case of the Bavarian lockdown which enforced an actual curfew of citizens in March 2020 when COVID was new and entirely unpredictable. This law was later taken to the Verfassungsgericht ("Supreme Court") and the discussion did a complete 180 degree turn strictly for political reasons and social media dynamics.

First, there was massive support (against COVID deniers) [1] where top commenters complain about the lockdown being too soft (!) and users even threatened others with violence (pepper spray to cite a specific comment) if they dont wear masks in public or take walks doing the curfew. But later, when the law was challenged in court, COVID became politically irrelvant and it was an opportunity to undermine the conservative leader of Bavaria, Markus Söder. Suddenly the curfew was a sign of a police state [2].

As long as the own agenda is propagated in a specific moment, you can collect upvotes with fitting comments. Facts and consistency just don't matter.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/kcxnin/harter_lockdown_...

[2.1] https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/q2jtka/vgh_bayern_coron... [2.2] https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/z1vwuk/bundesverwaltung...

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

#130

Post by e1g »

goodpoint wrote: post #124
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.

> exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals. Speak for yourself please. On most forums nobody is going to praise another for their knowledge. Additionally most people are anonymous.

All popular internet discussion places are built on likes, upvotes, and other superfluous praise signals.
Post reply on HN