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

Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

pewinternet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#71

Post by LordKano »

drhayes9 wrote: post #60
LordKano wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity? To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.

No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point. EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.

I have heard of torturing definitions but you just went full inquisition here.

Having an opinion and donating money to a cause is not remotely the same as refusing to hire LGBTQ individuals or refusing to sell/rent a house to them.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#72

Post by drhayes9 »

LordKano wrote: post #71
drhayes9 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm bigoted against people who send money to organizations who support kicking puppies. Just to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point. EDIT: His donation is actual discrimination based on someone's sexual identity.

I have heard of torturing definitions but you just went full inquisition here. Having an opinion and donating money to a cause is not remotely the same as refusing to hire LGBTQ individuals or refusing to sell/rent a house to them.

I'm not super interested in developing a hierarchy of sins since I don't think it's useful or realistic.

You asked if he'd engaged in actual discrimination -- by donating that money, he had. Having the opinion wasn't what people were mad about.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#73

Post by dasil003 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #50
dasil003 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.

Having the government dictate where you live and work and what you can buy is very much a matter of human rights. And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights. (Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)

I can't tell if you're trolling. Did you really just say that gay marriage rights are about bikeshedding?

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#74

Post by mkr-hn »

seiji wrote: post #48
LordKano wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist…

having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative…

I have a lot of poly friends who I'd be happy to see married.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#75

Post by mkr-hn »

LordKano wrote: post #44
seiji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist…

> Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.

A polyamorous relationship means three or more people have managed to form a happy, loving partnership with each other. If they've managed that, why shouldn't they get married?

Obviously, this doesn't validate marriages to children or pets, since one or more parties are incapable of informed consent.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#76

Post by wzdd »

tbrownaw wrote: post #68
wzdd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a nonsensical post in this topic. Eich didn't post (or fail to post) on social media, he donated to a political campaign. In fact, social media outcry -- in other words, the opposite of what this article is discussing -- is what actually effected the change. I understand that plenty of people don't think that Eich should have been ousted from his position as a result of his political beliefs, but your post is…

One of the things noted in the study, is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person . I'm thinking Eich is an example of just why that might happen. The more involved you are, the more aware you are of just how quickly the crowd can turn on you if you say something wrong.

> One of the things noted in the study is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person

No, that's not noted in the study at all. The study only notes that people who don't want to discuss it in person certainly don't want to discuss it on social media. It didn't say anything about whether a person's use of social media made them less likely to discuss the topic in person.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#77

Post by flatdeviant »

seiji wrote: post #54
flatdeviant wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently. And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.

This is hindsight bias. Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone. Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel impo…

I don't see how you can think your beliefs are the product of "independent thought" while theirs are just an attempt are "feeling important". This is awfully arrogant and dismissive. For the record, I support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to let go of rational thinking: conservatives' opinions are not inferior to mine simply because I disagree with them, and I hope you can understand that. There is no such thing as a "moral high ground", only self-deception.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#78

Post by wtbob »

tedks wrote: post #55
LordKano wrote: post #6

I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…

Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them. There is a straight line from homophobia to the effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis. I think it's entirely correct that Eich was deposed and shamed for what he did. I wish that we had…

> Trying to keep queer people out of acceptable models of life like marriage, having families, and being responsible is a literal attempt to silence and kill them.

You literally didn't use 'literally' properly.

> effective genocide Reagan committed against queer people in the 80s by turning a blind eye to the AIDS crisis.

You literally are wrong about history, c.f. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/01/ronald_... et al.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#79

Post by tbrownaw »

wzdd wrote: post #76
tbrownaw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things noted in the study, is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person . I'm thinking Eich is an example of just why that might happen. The more involved you are, the more aware you are of just how quickly the crowd can turn on you if you say something wrong.

> One of the things noted in the study is that being on social media makes people less likely to discuss topics in person No, that's not noted in the study at all. The study only notes that people who don't want to discuss it in person certainly don't want to discuss it on social media. It didn't say anything about whether a person's use of social media made them less likely to discuss the topic in person.

From the article: For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant.

Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

#80

Post by tbrownaw »

dasil003 wrote: post #73
tbrownaw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the government dictate where you live and work and what you can buy is very much a matter of human rights. And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights. (Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)

I can't tell if you're trolling. Did you really just say that gay marriage rights are about bikeshedding?

From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means.

This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by making the argument about making a narrow change to what's called "marriage" rather than about handling the associated legal rights more flexibly.

So yes, bikeshedding.

Post reply on HN