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

151–160 of 226 posts

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

#151

Post by xyzelement »

You definitely don't have to engage with anyone on anything, but if you want to see a change in the world, you have an opportunity to influence the bystanders with your knowledge.

I remember being at a party where two people got into an argument about abortion. It was exactly what you would imagine, a completely pointless exchange of rehashed ideas that the 10 people watching the conversation have heard a million times.

Then someone chimed in - not to argue but just to drop a fact they possessed that nobody else in the room knew. It didn't change the arguers' minds but it took the other ten people aback like "how come we heard this debate a 1000 times but this very important fact never gets mentioned?"

So that random quip influenced 10 people on a very polarizing issue. That's powerful.

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

#152

Post by krapp »

Havoc wrote: post #144

>"in-crowd" that totally hates everything corporations have "ruined". These views are not representative of the larger world. Is it though? Agree with overall sentiment expressed on not needing to engage but this part seems off.The mega corps ruined everything sentiment strikes me as quite pervasive throughout society.

It's usually less "the mega corps" and more "the government" and "kids these days."

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

#153

Post by roym6 »

xyzelement wrote: post #151

You definitely don't have to engage with anyone on anything, but if you want to see a change in the world, you have an opportunity to influence the bystanders with your knowledge. I remember being at a party where two people got into an argument about abortion. It was exactly what you would imagine, a completely pointless exchange of rehashed ideas that the 10 people watching the conversation have heard a million tim…

What was the fact?

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

#154

Post by rqtwteye »

One thing I have noticed is that a lot of people who engage a lot on the internet turn from reasonable to argumentative and often outright mean. Examples I can think of right now are Jordan Peterson and Elon musk. I also have some friends that seem to have lost their minds and become zealots that like to score quick points by putting other people down.

It seems that engaging in social media, especially Twitter, is very unhealthy for people.

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

#155

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #132
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.

The 2016 elections were basically contests between “dont feed the trolls” and “only volume matters, feel free to be shitty and unhinged as long as you’re vocal.” Tragically but understandably, all sides have copied the winning strategy.

I don’t really agree that democrats have been shitty and unhinged. I mean, Jan 6, mass book banning, and the latest Republican inability to select a speaker of the house all come off as way more unhinged than anything democrats have done in a similar period of time. What’m I missing?

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

#156

Post by xyzelement »

roym6 wrote: post #153
xyzelement wrote: post #151

You definitely don't have to engage with anyone on anything, but if you want to see a change in the world, you have an opportunity to influence the bystanders with your knowledge. I remember being at a party where two people got into an argument about abortion. It was exactly what you would imagine, a completely pointless exchange of rehashed ideas that the 10 people watching the conversation have heard a million tim…

What was the fact?

It had to do with the number of abortions that take place in the US every year - over 600,000 per year.

This number shocked us because everyone in the room thought we had heard everything about this issue, but tacitly assumed a much smaller scale. In my head Bill Clinton's quote about it being "safe, legal and rare" still ring out.

It kind of smacked us in the face to realize we were talking about an issue for years without even realizing how often it happens. Maybe you had to be there but it really adjusted a lot of people's views.

Maybe it was especially powerful because the fact was dropped on us by someone who wasn't part of the debate, they weren't a prolifer but someone who "could see both sides"

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

#157

Post by Aunche »

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.

This is only true if you're talking about some sort of fringe view like flat earth theory. Once a stupid view reaches a critical mass of popularity, even people capable of rational thought will start to believe in it unless if they see evidence that contradicts it.

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

#158

Post by guerrilla »

bityard wrote: post #150
guerrilla wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Improving the world is getting something out of it. That's in one's own interest by itself.

I would like to hear more about your thesis that arguing with people you don't know on the internet improves the world. :)

I don't appreciate the sarcasm but I think it's obvious that you improve the world by, for example, correcting falsehoods and criticizing bad behavior, not because it effects the target (although I suppose there's a tiny chance it might), but for the rest of the audience, some of who may not know better or just may not have even considered it beforehand. Every little bit counts.

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

#159

Post by anonair »

Sadly (?), in some cultures lying, libel and profanity is not something normally expected even from anonymous strangers, so they basically believe most things on Twitter and Facebook. And applying critical thinking to every piece of info online is too much effort and time-consuming, so that is not practical for the unsophisticated.

May be there should be at least some effort to address "realistic looking" misinfo, so that the lack thereof could not be interpreted as avoiding to engage out of fear.

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

#160

Post by GuB-42 »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #20
bombcar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean hacker news has it too - I’ll come along and point out that 1+1 is 10 in binary or 11 if it’s ASCII.

As the old joke goes, there are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary... and nine others.

I like the "those that understand ternary, those that don't and those that mistake is for binary" version
Post reply on HN