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

241–250 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#241

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

worik wrote: post #234
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> who, do you believe, the perpetrators are Masked, no ID, claim they are from ICE. Thugs. > the crime of those perpetrators is ( again, be as specific as you can )? Assault an kidnapping. > who or what is, in your mind, ultimately responsible for the issue that has embroiled both victims and perpetrators? Interesting question: Probably capitalists who want cheap labour and are willing to cut corners to get it

Friend. I would advise you against taking posts you read online as some sort of legally binding advice. It.. is just not a good idea. I will make it simple for you. Either ICE is a federal level entity with some rights and immunities assigned to it or not.

If they are and they do, then kidnapping seems like, at best, a mischaracterization. I don't want to belabor the point, but it sounds like you a have an axe to grind.

Interesting indeed. Not your answer, but rather the logical inconsistency it implies. How would removal of illegal aliens result in cheap labor? I suspect you did not think your answer through. May I suggest less reflexive writing?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#242

Post by mindslight »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #235
mindslight wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/unacc…

Friend, whether I know or not is not relevant to this discussion. If you were following my conversation with parent then you know the questions were for his benefit, not mine. That is fair. What would you propose to do about this?

No, don't play coy. OP straightforwardly implied the answers to those questions by the context - the perpetrators are obviously the gang members attacking a building in the middle of a night.

> What would you propose to do about this?

Call out the hypocrisy and the disingenuous invocation of the ideals of liberty, exactly as I am doing here. Your movement often talks of freedom but as soon as dear leader throws you some red meat for your culture war hind brain, you're readily licking boots. It's pathetic.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#243

Post by mindslight »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #239
mindslight wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Friend. The truth is some people should not be in US. And now, after years of kicking a can down the road, we are in a painful process of rectifying this oversight. It is being confronted. I think your concern is that is not being confronted in the manner you find desirable. That is fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind 'I am suddenly concerned about people breaking into my house at 3am'.

> some people should not be in US

This is exactly what I meant by using flimsy excuses to turn off your reasoning. "Some people" being in the US does not invalidate the Constitution. The gross violation of Constitutional rights and individual liberty is exactly the manner I do not find "desirable".

I'm not "hiding" behind concerns. The concerns are as plain as day. There are many possible approaches to "rectifying this oversight" that don't involve wholesale trampling over individual rights and personal liberty. You're the one dressing up your points in a declarative passive voice to paper over the actual actions being done here, to both citizens and non-citizens.

And for what it's worth, I think buying into the narrative that the end goal is even about illegal immigrants is utterly foolish. Trump has already been talking about setting up exceptions for critical businesses in sectors like farming, construction, and landscaping. The whole topic is just being used as another con to consolidate more autocratic authoritarian power.

But I am sure you will just keep on lying to yourself that it's all morally justified, as you continue relishing seeing 'bad' people suffer. We're never going to get actual justice against those who have utterly screwed up our economy over the past several decades, so you might as well settle for a simulation of justice against the proximal scapegoats, right? And certainly don't worry about how you're facilitating the next stage of societal destruction. The next generation can blame the next generation of scapegoats.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#244

Post by whackernews »

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…

> How is that the opposite of what he actually said?

> If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible

Talks about what Charlie “actually said”, proceeds to strawman him.

Mate. You literally got given evidence that debunks an idea you’d like to believe and you still continue to believe and argue for the idea you’d want to be true.

Let it go. You’re egos too big and you’re acting like an idiot. Do you consider yourself an idiot?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#245

Post by softwaredoug »

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.

I don't think its "social cooling" as much as its a fracturing of social media into edgelords / influencers + their fanboys.

Everyone seems to have their own parasocial relationships with some podcast / youtuber / media personality. The fanboys want to conform to their tribe of fanboys and what the influencer wants. The influencer usually wants to sell something.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#246

Post by yapyap »

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.

Social media in 2017 was very different than social media in 2025.

There was a gradual change from social media with your friends to social media, look at these videos chosen by the algorithm to keep you on our platform.

Back in 2017 it was already changing but not nearly as much as where we’d find ourselves in 2025.

I think people could definitely come to the conclusion of being able to game your social score by conforming in 2017, all you had to do was post a few nice pictures but more often.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#247

Post by npodbielski »

immibis wrote: post #109
diggan wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, as long as you're contributing more than you upset people, it seems to balance itself out. I've made some egregious comments in the past (judging by the downvotes at least), yet you can still see this comment and probably my future ones too. And even though some comments I've made been downvoted, they've stilled spawned interesting conversations, so I count that as a win regardless.

HN has not just self-reinforcing consensus through karma, but also imposed false consensus through moderation decisions. I've just been informed that flagging and voting from my account have been disabled (they appear to work, but don't actually do anything) because I didn't flag all political sides in equal numbers. It seems my account has been identified as "a side", therefore is subject to equality requirements. M…

You have been informed that they shadow banned you? For side? In what politics?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#248

Post by npodbielski »

diggan wrote: post #77
npodbielski wrote: post #71

Funny it is posted on HN where your user score, which is called karma here for some reason, decides if you can or can't do stuff to engage with entire community fully. So either you are conformist or you will be downvoted and basically invisible.

Meh, as long as you're contributing more than you upset people, it seems to balance itself out. I've made some egregious comments in the past (judging by the downvotes at least), yet you can still see this comment and probably my future ones too. And even though some comments I've made been downvoted, they've stilled spawned interesting conversations, so I count that as a win regardless.

So conformists that trolls from time to time? :)

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#249

Post by lyu07282 »

commandersaki wrote: post #211
lyu07282 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's idiotic because what do you learn from that? You should also move to the right on LGBTQIA+ rights to win? That's about all you would learn from Trump's win and liberals loss. It's surely is convenient for the corporate democrats and their donors if you think that.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#250

Post by commandersaki »

lyu07282 wrote: post #249
commandersaki wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's idiotic because what do you learn from that? You should also move to the right on LGBTQIA+ rights to win? That's about all you would learn from Trump's win and liberals loss. It's surely is convenient for the corporate democrats and their donors if you think that.

Again you misinterpret, I said a big reason, not the only one. I'm also not just talking about the Trans rights part, it was also about censorhip and self-censorship. Take DEI for example, when you have a contrarian stance to the status quo (at the time) [1], you're villified and outcast. Then there is cancel culture. 1000 paper cuts and all of that, and you'd see people swaying their vote combined with Trump's rhetoric.

Also I'm not suggesting anyone has to learn anything from Trump's win, just stating the reality of what happened.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

Post reply on HN