241–250 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unescaped inner quotes made me cringe...
Ah, but that depends on what your definition of ““is” is” is. Ah, but that depends on what your definition "\"is\" is" is. I hope this makes you feel better!
And that depends on what your definition of "\\" is.
Maybe Twitter IS inherently less warm and more chaotic. I get that feeling too. (I don't even log-in often.) But I sort of use it to create a pseudo-community.
Here me out.
140 characters are limiting, right? That means that the author of a post has two options: risk losing followers by posting chatter, OR make sure each word matters so that it's a saturated snap-shot of their current thought.
Now, imagine that you follow a curated list of influencers (i.e., people that are involved-in and doing things you also are passionate about). THEY may not all know about each other, but YOU know about all them. (Think: one-to-many instead of many-to-many.) As a consequence of this, you're continually getting an influx of musings by people you respect and value the opinions of.
You make excellent points. Twitter IS for broadcasting. It is the counterpart to community interaction. Say, you want to reach those who aren't in your community. That would be difficult on Facebook. In fact, it's a "uniquely defining feature" of Facebook not to facilitate that sort of usage. They both have a purpose. Say, a startup needs to communicate app status to its users so people aren't left hanging in mystery…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If users have difficulty properly using the platform, the platform is at fault. An arbitrarily naive user should never have to fight the platform to do what he wants.
I don't think I agree. If we view twitter as a tool, an arbitrarily naive user can chop his hand with an axe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People don't generally voluntarily use a service unless it is beneficial to them in some way. People are not always the best to judge what benefits them. Case in point: everything from Bush, to heroin addicts, to fast food, to Justin Bieber.
Back to Bush again. Thankfully we have Gauleiter coldtea to bark out orders...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that's problematic at all. If my ideal society is different from that of most other people, it still doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my own opinion.
I'm not suggesting that he's not entitled to his opinion and to voice it. I just think that it's a poor justification for action, and it's also slightly troubling for someone to earnestly desire a service with which millions of people are happy to disappear because it would make that one person happy.
That's, by the way, is his whole point.
Just people people are OK using X now, doesn't mean wanting to take X down is bad, or will necessarily hurt people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where is the line drawn? I think that's the point. With a more community oriented system the line could be drawn at the single user's discretion. Like on Facebook. I don't agree with the author of the article that twitter should die, though.
Oh, I understand that the ability to draw that line himself is part of what he is seeking. I meant to say that the idea of 'safe spaces' can be used to conflate 'preventing harm' with 'indulging arbitrary wants' and even 'pandering to narcissists'. Unlike with physical safety, I don't see a line we can use to semi-objectively declare that one has left one domain of 'emotionally safe' and entered another domain. Notic…
Why, then, do you keep insisting that we should somehow "semi-objectively" declare one? There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful. Why do you think that something as inherently subjective as emotional harm would have to be objectively defined to be considered?
As for "indulging arbitrary wants"; I bid you welcome to the social network business and wish you will have a pleasant stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I understand that the ability to draw that line himself is part of what he is seeking. I meant to say that the idea of 'safe spaces' can be used to conflate 'preventing harm' with 'indulging arbitrary wants' and even 'pandering to narcissists'. Unlike with physical safety, I don't see a line we can use to semi-objectively declare that one has left one domain of 'emotionally safe' and entered another domain. Notic…
> Oh, I understand that the ability to draw that line himself is part of what he is seeking. Why, then, do you keep insisting that we should somehow "semi-objectively" declare one? There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful. Why do you think that something as inherently subjective as emotional harm would have to be objectively defined to be considered? As for "indulging arbitrary wants"; I bid you…
It's very strange that you say 'why, then' while coupling these sentences, as if the existence of the first makes the second less sensible. Its exactly because of the existence of the first that we should consider the 2nd.
> There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful
Obviously, physically damaging one's body works as one line - a line - for physically harming someone. Surely you can see how radically different this is from so called 'emotional harm'.
> inherently subjective as emotional harm would have to be objectively defined to be considered?
Oh, did someone say that, somewhere? Did someone say that something must be objectively defined in order to be _considered_? I wonder what that person might be thinking. Maybe they are constructing false dilemmas and straw men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, I understand that the ability to draw that line himself is part of what he is seeking. Why, then, do you keep insisting that we should somehow "semi-objectively" declare one? There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful. Why do you think that something as inherently subjective as emotional harm would have to be objectively defined to be considered? As for "indulging arbitrary wants"; I bid you…
> Why, then, do you keep insisting that we should somehow "semi-objectively" declare one? It's very strange that you say 'why, then' while coupling these sentences, as if the existence of the first makes the second less sensible. Its exactly because of the existence of the first that we should consider the 2nd. > There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful Obviously, physically damaging one's body…
The idea that emotional harm doesn't involve physical (even if not structural) damage to the body requires that emotions exist in a non-physical realm rather than being epiphenoma of physical states of the body.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why, then, do you keep insisting that we should somehow "semi-objectively" declare one? It's very strange that you say 'why, then' while coupling these sentences, as if the existence of the first makes the second less sensible. Its exactly because of the existence of the first that we should consider the 2nd. > There isn't even a clear line as to what is physically harmful Obviously, physically damaging one's body…
> Obviously, physically damaging one's body works as one line - a line - for physically harming someone. Surely you can see how radically different this is from so called 'emotional harm'. The idea that emotional harm doesn't involve physical (even if not structural ) damage to the body requires that emotions exist in a non-physical realm rather than being epiphenoma of physical states of the body.
The important thing here is that it is easy for reasonable, practical people to agree on what constitutes the act of physically harming another. Your own statement demonstrates that it is not so easy to draw a line on what constitutes 'emotional harm'. Which structural changes deserve the label "results of harm" ? The innate slipperiness of the concept is exploited by those who wish not only to 'protect' themselves from hearing unpleasant opinions, but also to elevate the act of silencing others to a righteous form of 'protection from harm'.