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

Social Cooling (2017)

socialcooling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#151

Post by martin-t »

baxtr wrote: post #69
arthurofbabylon wrote: post #34

The Americans (†) who grew up with constant surveillance (social media, cameras everywhere) aim for ordinariness. The entire generation is less likely to express a non-consensus opinion than prior generations. For good reason: with everything being recorded and broadcast, personal errors are both accentuated and persist longer with no corresponding rise in upside. Bold opinions and creative ideas are simply too risky…

My best friend from school days has a son who’s now in 7th grade. Recently, when we were talking about him, we realised his school years are far less dramatic than ours. We had drama, lots of bullying, tears, fights, and mean things were done. In contrast, his son’s school days are absolutely harmless and benign. I know it’s n = 1 and maybe we were very unlucky back then. But it also makes me wonder if any chaotic ex…

From what I've seen, all that has happened is that aggressors ("bullies") are better at hiding it.

When it was OK to beat somebody up (for pleasure or social status), they did that. Now, violence is being painted as the greatest evil. So instead they get pleasure and gain social status by less visible kinds of aggression, such as verbal, social and online abuse.

And, worse, the victims have a harder time fighting back because

- Fewer people notice the abuse - fighting is visible but veiled insinuations or in-jokes at the victim's expense are hard to notice and understand by onlookers.

- Responding to verbal abuse with physical retaliation would be seen as an escalation.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#152

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #149
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um. There is a notable difference between state sanctioned violence, for which, state does claim monopoly and semi-random vigilantes. I am concerned that I even have to point this out ( edit ) that the two are not quite the same.

A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith.

My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#153

Post by testaccount28 »

patcon wrote: post #135
drivebyhooting wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m awed that you can be so sanguine when speaking about the abuse your son suffered and the lifelong consequences. I’d be livid and frothing with vitriol.

First off: thanks for sharing how you experience your protective instincts. I can feel your love for your kid With that said -- Wha... your and my reads are so different ... I hear that as: One lived in the real world that most normal unchosen people experience, and the other had means to avoid said world? "Abuse" feels strong, bc putting the select (usually wealthy) kids in the safest place and not choosing responsi…

yes. one should raise one's kids in only the toughest most unrelenting environment. arctic tundra, perhaps, or federal prison. anything else is unfair and abusive to others.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#154

Post by scoopdewoop »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #152
scoopdewoop wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun in your mom's face is a gun in your mom's face. I don't think those kids will find any solace in that being state sanctioned.

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith. My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of?

I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality.

I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#155

Post by lyu07282 »

Jensson wrote: post #104
Marazan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh. What conservative views are those?

That men shouldn't go to women's bathrooms. Trump focused pretty hard on that sort of issue last election.

I think that's just a liberal fantasy, it's simply people's lives got worse over the last few decades under end-stage liberalism/capitalism, Trump successfully made a (albeit bullshit) case for genuine change, liberals didn't. If liberals hold on to that myth, that all they have to do to win is throw trans people and immigrants under the bus, then they will loose again. What they should focus on is the fact that no your lives didn't improve because we took trans people's rights away and threw some brown children in concentration camps, your rent didn't go down did it? So instead perhaps it's your landlord we should be focusing our anger towards...

See that for social cooling: I just pissed off everybody. It can be done lmao

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#156

Post by [deleted] »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138
nathan_compton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.

>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that. Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.

[deleted]

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#157

Post by decremental »

rkomorn wrote: post #45
eastbound wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The racism and selfishness of right-wing politics is just … ugh, honestly, I just can’t. It’s Godless. The first step would be to humbly recognize your side’s shortcomings. To me, aiding the destruction of malls, pardoning authors of crimes is bad, protesting against having borders is worse and defunding the police is a hallmark of criminality (and before you say it: Defunding doesn’t mean rearranging, it means def…

> Once you become milder in your accusations ... > but your side is against law enforcement

[dead]

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#158

Post by mantas »

timeon wrote: post #25
mantas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not specifically far-right thing. The left are snitching and doxing people for the last decade if not longer.

Not sure if you have read whole comment before posting this... Yes it was common from every corner before. However now, it is encouraged from the governments. That means any laws that could help from cyber- or any other form of bullying will disappear. No matter how one think it was weak in practice, freedom of expression is going disappear completely.

Eh. Here we had some leftists in previous government. They had fancy idea to make hate speech an administrative offense. Because apparently penal offense process was too complex so they couldn’t trial as many people for online comments as they wished.

On top of that, they tried to change defamation law to include not only factually wrong information, but also make it a libel if the person felt like it was offensive.

Thankfully neither of above passed. Especially since we have a different crop of lunatics now who would be happy to abuse above laws…

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#159

Post by evilduck »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138
nathan_compton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this but is it true? Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified. That doesn't sound like a safe opinion.

>Young people, for instance, increasingly say that political violence may be justified This is gonna get downvoted for sure because HNs bias, but based on current events, it's only the left that does that. Right-wingers may say hurtful words but don't seem too keen on murdering opponents for political reasons or disagreements. At least not yet.

You're gonna get downvoted for being a bad liar and an obvious troll who degrades the conversation and the overall site, not because of bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Hortman

Getting yourself downvoted doesn't validate your lies either. Farming downvotes isn't being clever, it's being toxic.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#160

Post by zaphar »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #154
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to elaborate. Note that the emotional tone or non-plausible scenarios are not the way to advance your argument here. Still, I will counter to show some good faith. My mom would not have placed herself in a position where there is a gun in her face.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweep... Is this a source you approve of? I am in good faith, I'm sorry that discussions about reality are impolite and seem crass. These aren't non-plausible, its reality. I'm guessing your mom doesn't place herself in situations like being in poverty in Chicago. Lucky her

There are plenty of people in poverty who do not put themselves in a postion to have a government put guns in their face. It is not poverty by and large that causes a government to put guns in their face in America. Poverty may at times be used as a justification for the actual reason that a gun was put in their face but it is not in fact the reason. Neither is it in the general case a good justification either.
Post reply on HN