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

211–220 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#211

Post by commandersaki »

lyu07282 wrote: post #155
Jensson wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Ah yes liberal fantasy.

His promises:

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/05/10/trump-promi...

- https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/30/donald-trumps... (see under LGBTIQ issues)

I'm not saying it is the only reason, but it is a big reason.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#212

Post by toomim »

wat10000 wrote: post #198
toomim wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a debunked claim that takes his statement out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what he actually said. https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559 This has the effect of whipping up political anger and violence against people based on false pretenses. You are an embodiment of the p…

I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law…

Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence.

No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his organization, at high levels. To assume that he wanted them stoned to death is absurd, and incredibly ignorant.

Here's Charlie on Gay People: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#214

Post by foobarian »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #191
worik wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame the perpetrators.

Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady. - If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )? - If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )? - If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that…

Bet you wouldn't be this high and mighty had ICE invaded your town and pulled every resident including your family out of their bed at 3am at gunpoint because "they had credible evidence there was an illegal in one of the houses"

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#215

Post by mindslight »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #191
worik wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame the perpetrators.

Interesting. Perpetrators suggests a crime. Separately, it suggests that you believe there is a known cause and a source of the malady. - If true, who, do you believe, the perpetrators are ( be as specific as you think you can be )? - If true, what do you believe the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )? - If true, who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that…

In another comment, you said "You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears". I don't know if that was just a ploy to appear reasonable, but if you really care about that as you purport to then you already know the answers to those questions.

As a libertarian, I've had enough with people feigning condemnation for government/police overreach/unaccountability while writing comments that condone it.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#216

Post by wat10000 »

toomim wrote: post #212
wat10000 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law…

Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence. No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his org…

"No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything."

How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing.

How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we follow, and conclude that he thinks we should follow all of them?

He may have welcomed gay people into his movement but just based on your clip he doesn't seem to love and support them. He says straight out that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle.

I agree that there's a contradiction between "God says we're supposed to kill them" and him standing there chatting with that guy and not trying to rally the crowd to murder him. But I don't see why we have to resolve that in the "he actually loved gay people" direction. If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people, I'm inclined to believe that's what he thinks. He'd hardly be the first religious person who believes their religion demands X and actually does Y when confronted with the situation in reality. It's great that he can stand there and engage in a dialog with someone he believes his God says should be killed, but that doesn't absolve him from that belief or from professing it.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#217

Post by toomim »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #194
toomim wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice points! But as for "causing" violence, they also asked whether "political violence is ever justified", and the difference between left vs. right there was even more — 25% vs 3%.

The data in the link is clear that the opinions are always partisan based on the very last person shot at... that does track.

Wouldn't you expect the conservatives, then, to be the ones who say that violence is justified?

Yet you're seeing the opposite — after the killing of a conservative, it's the left that says violence is justified.

Furthermore, this trend on the left had been building for a while, which we see in surveys done before his killing:

[1] https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1909391943802703899

[2] https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1836511736213704769

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#218

Post by zerosizedweasle »

jonahx wrote: post #210
softwaredoug wrote: post #133

This site makes the wrong conclusion. People game their social scores by being provocative edgelords. There’s almost no incentive on social media to conform. And every incentive to stand out. Just look around at our political situation, you see far less conformity, and extremes in political expression. We even elected President Edgelord.

Yes, provocation is a viable strategy for clicks and audience-building, but few people are attempting that, and among those who do it's not the only strategy. Everywhere else -- in corporate America, on Facebook, at churches and family gatherings, even with many friends -- conformity is still the norm, and there are more landmine topics than ever. Social cooling is real.

Yeah, it's been noticeable. Especially in the last year or so, everyone has gone quiet.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#219

Post by mindslight »

zaphar wrote: post #173
scoopdewoop wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Man, you people will really turn off your basic empathy and reasoning on the flimsiest of excuses. That could just as easily be your family getting attacked at 3AM. And if you dare to exercise your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourselves against a night time home invasion, perhaps even being summarily executed. I assume until this actually happens to you or at least someone in your community, you will just keep on inventing reasons why it couldn't possibly. It's easier than confronting the truth, for sure.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#220

Post by nevertrustcops »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #185
scoopdewoop wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Friend. You want to cry me a river over militarization of police and following the basic rules of engagement, I am all ears. In the meantime, detained is not arrested. Based on your overall posture, I must assume that you know this. Hell, cop can detain you during a traffic stop if they so choose. How is it any different for a building full of people? You are upset, but it is not entirely clear to me why. In a sense,…

Public sympathy for immigrants is in fact at an all time high, as it turns out that most Americans are turned off by secret police squads kicking in doors and abducting people in the middle of the night.
Post reply on HN