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

The group chats that changed America

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 164 posts

Re: The group chats that changed America

#31

Post by kenjackson »

doom2 wrote: post #14

HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for example, quote in OP from Chris Rufo). I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn. Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives…

> After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.

The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.

Re: The group chats that changed America

#32

Post by cptroot »

As always, Chris Rufo lays the game out in plain terms:

> Rufo had been there all along: “I looked at these chats as a good investment of my time to radicalize tech elites who I thought were the most likely and high-impact new coalition partners for the right.”

Re: The group chats that changed America

#33

Post by dang »

UncleMeat wrote: post #25
dang wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I think I misread the comment somewhat—sorry. I've restored it, and will autocollapse this moderation bit. --- > getting your family out of the concentration camp Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombina…

Up thread there is somebody who is using the phrase "rabid" multiple times to describe the left. And you comment here? People being illegally sent to CECOT is a major nationwide story right now that is real and pertinent.

When I commented here, there was only that comment. I can't reply to posts that don't exist yet!

Re: The group chats that changed America

#34

Post by pbiggar »

ajross wrote: post #29

This tracks with my experience here, watching tech thought leaders. Obviously Andreesen went very hard right, as did Musk, but just in general the tech elite suddenly and surprisingly turned Trumpy over the last few years; Ackman being a really good case study. Note that pg himself took a fairly surpising reactionary turn in right about the 2020/2021 timeframe this article describes. A guy who'd always been a left-ce…

pg has been yelling about the Campus Left's Desire for Cancellation for years and years (I want to say since 2011?). It's been very frustrating to watch because lots of us identified this as right wing propaganda that (imo) pg was unwittingly participating in.

Re: The group chats that changed America

#36

Post by wat10000 »

doom2 wrote: post #14

HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for example, quote in OP from Chris Rufo). I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn. Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives…

[flagged]

Re: The group chats that changed America

#37

Post by dang »

e40 wrote: post #10
dang wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I think I misread the comment somewhat—sorry. I've restored it, and will autocollapse this moderation bit. --- > getting your family out of the concentration camp Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombina…

I don’t think I have ever disagreed with you dang, except in this case. The comment seemed thoughtful to me.

I appreciate the reply. My reaction, like most moderation comments, was shallow and limited in scope to what I know about forum dynamics. If you come out swinging with Nazi references, you're turning the knobs to 11 from the start. That's not compatible with the kind of discussion HN is going for. It's particularly troublesome when the thread is new, because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions. Also it's not as if that was the only such reference in the comment.

Reading it the next morning, though, I think I misread what mindslight meant by "getting your family out of the concentration camp". Now that I'm reading it differently, I can see how my reply came across as too heavy-handed. Sorry all!

Re: The group chats that changed America

#40

Post by dang »

mindslight wrote: post #6
dang wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I think I misread the comment somewhat—sorry. I've restored it, and will autocollapse this moderation bit. --- > getting your family out of the concentration camp Could you please not take HN threads straight into flamewar hell like this? We're trying for something quite different here, and it's way too aggressive to kick off a thread with rhetoric like that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombina…

It's a straightforward reference that shouldn't be controversial to anyone looking to substantively discuss what is happening to our society. I know there are a lot of true believers and bots that want to shout down uncomfortable truths which makes for flamewar, but if we let that prevent good faith discussion then we might as well throw in the towel because that reality distortion field isn't going away. I thought t…

Looking it at again the next morning, I think I just misread your opening sentence. Sorry! (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43823347)

On the other hand, other people would probably have misread it in the same way, so the point still applies, just not as much, and probably not enough to justify my mod response.

This may be a little embarrassing, but I don't read people's comments very closely. There isn't time, and it isn't necessary. It does mean I sometimes guess things wrong, though, (moderation is guesswork*) and that sucks.

* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Post reply on HN