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

171–180 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#171

Post by zahlman »

presentation wrote: post #27

You don’t need some kind of “social score” to have the chilling effect, if anything I think people self censor more because of the fear of getting berated by others for their beliefs—both by those they know and don’t. Interestingly I don’t think it’s really “cooling” that happened - if anything it’s been some people becoming extremely hot, and then the majority of people, myself included, are experiencing cooling. Un…

> Unfortunately liberals lately reinforce this by being vitriolic over everything and endorsing toxic behaviors like cutting off friends and family because they disagree on politics

Perhaps some American left-wingers do. But these behaviours are fundamentally the opposite of liberal and I would like to see the label taken back from them.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#172

Post by worik »

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.

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

There you are blaming the victims.

That is not cool

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#173

Post by zaphar »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #164
zaphar wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are you talking about? Literally, what? Because I just linked a source: As part of the raid, some U.S. citizens were temporarily detained and children pulled from their beds, according to interviews with residents and news reports. Building hallways were still littered with debris two days later. What was these citizens crime besides living in apartments in Chicago? Flash bangs, guns, zip ties, and being detaine…

I read the link you posted. As far as I can see there was in fact reasonable suspicion that there would be people in those locations who were not supposed to be there. I can both realize that it is traumatizing for those involved and also recognize that the situation exists because there are people who coming in who are not following the process for doing so and Chicago has positioned themselves as the place to look for them.

Chicago as a group has positioned itself as welcoming to immigrants here illegally and antagonistic to finding and taking the appropriate legal action regarding people who aren't following the rules.

This wasn't caused by poverty. This was caused by the combination of Chicago's political position putting them in conflict with ICE regarding the immigrants who don't follow the rules.

If you want to prevent this sort of thing blaming it on poverty is concentrating on the wrong problem. The political climate in Chicago and Nationally is a much more useful place to put your focus on fixing.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#174

Post by zahlman »

anal_reactor wrote: post #36
komali2 wrote: post #11

Is the self censoring of big boy and girl worlds like "murder," "suicide," "execution," "Nazi," and "genocide" on videos and posts related to this? It's been driving me crazy. Do not go quietly into that night and whatnot... Do not comply in advance. The idea of changing my speech so my words look nice next to a Toyota advertisement fills me with disgust and anger.

This is how curse words are born. Which is funnily appropriate because English is really lacking in this department.

> English is really lacking in this department.

Really? As compared to what?

I would have said Japanese is the language that actually lacks in this department.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#175

Post by johnfn »

nathan_compton wrote: post #137
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…

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.

I’m not sure exactly how you mean it, but a lot of the discourse around political violence itself fits in the Overton window of acceptable discourse, so this doesn’t surprise me too much.

But I find statements outside of the Overton window to be punished quite severely, and I think most people now understand that you can very easily lose your job for stating the incorrect thing.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#176

Post by toomim »

radlad wrote: post #148
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/#s4 > When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001).

That's using ancient data from... 1948:

> We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018.

The last 8 years of politics have been very very abnormal. And in today's data, the "very liberal" approve of political violence at a rate of 24% vs. 3% for the "very conservative":

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir...

This ^^^ is the troubling statistic, and there's a 7x difference between the left and the right.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#177

Post by acdha »

toomim wrote: post #170
evilduck wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

His later years involved repeated strong statements against transgender and abortion rights which would be highly incompatible with being a Democrat but quite in line with the Trump supporter his neighbors described him as. He also had a history of lying - for example, claiming law enforcement, security, or military experience – and your description of that letter is highly skewed from the mess of conspiracy and likely misdirection people with direct knowledge described it as.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/17/vance-boelt...

https://www.startribune.com/vance-boelter-letter-klobuchar-w...

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#178

Post by alwa »

toomim wrote: post #170
evilduck wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Today’s “The Western Journal,” that august organ of journalism which you cite here, also features such headlines as “Demonic Compulsion: School Ran Weekly Witchcraft Address, Shut It Down Once They Couldn't Force It on Christians Anymore.”

It saddens me to think that this kind of thing is permeating into HN.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#179

Post by toomim »

nathan_compton wrote: post #140
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Not really relevant to the point, but https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-... That poll from 2020 shows republicans and democrats roughly equal on the question. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the desire for political violence goes up among those currently out of power, anyway.

Try this newer poll from last month, in 2025: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir...

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#180

Post by acdha »

toomim wrote: post #176
radlad wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/#s4 > When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001).

That's using ancient data from... 1948: > We included individuals whose public exposure occurred between 1948 and 2018. The last 8 years of politics have been very very abnormal. And in today's data, the "very liberal" approve of political violence at a rate of 24% vs. 3% for the "very conservative": https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kir... This ^^^ is the troubling statistic, and there's a 7x…

You’re presenting the data for whether it’s okay to be happy about a political figure’s death, not whether it’s okay to cause one. There’s a section about this you should read starting with “YouGov's polling doesn't suggest that young people or liberals are more pro-violence in general”, and in particular the stark divide about self-defense. None of this is great, but it’s hardly surprising that a minority of younger people are more supportive of violence than people who have more life experience and fully-developed frontal cortexes.
Post reply on HN