Social Cooling (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#251

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 11:50 AM UTC

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #238

ivape wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also rather skeptical of "Great Nation" or "Great Culture" theories of history. Quoting Hateful Eight: ”So, I’m supposed to freeze to death ’cause you find it hard to believe?” - Chris Mannix I can’t do anything about your skepticism. There’s about 7-10 things I casually left out, no cherry picking in sight. You can’t figure out that Lincoln was a great man, then what else is there to say? We’re taking decades of…

>There’s about 7-10 things I casually left out, no cherry picking in sight. If there's no cherry picking, you should also be able to name the 7-10 things I casually left out of my post =)

[deleted]

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#252

Post by lyu07282 » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 11:55 AM UTC

commandersaki wrote: post #250

lyu07282 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rhet…

But if you believe in liberal censorship, cancel culture and DEI and critical race theory and immigrant crimes and all that other culture war/scapegoat nonsense being real then wouldn't you just be a Trump supporter? I'm saying that's all nonsense. That's why I'm saying liberals shouldn't cater to conservative delusions even if they think to be liberals, Trump will always outmatch them, he is a way more convincing bigot. Why do we need two conservative parties, it's just not a winning strategy.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#253

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 12:53 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #243

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Eh. I am as honest with you as I can be on an internet forum. I think you completely misunderstand my position. My position is not based on morality, but rather on the survival of the system in place. It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings. The suffering, as it were, is not a concern here it all. I don't relish it. I nothing it.

Do you understand the difference?

Ooh, this conversation is finally getting interesting. Say I buy this framing, who should I focus my ire on?

Oh man, so many paths to take here. I personally just go with the flow man. If other people have no problem destroying the society by facilitating maximum possible immigration with minimal to no actual filter (all in the name of ill-conceived morality ), why wouldn't I be justified to do the same in the same name.

On a more serious note, be specific. I don't think I facilitate anything. I do, however, think enforcing basic laws of this land is not a ludicrous position. And if it is, either law has to change or it is not ludicrous. Dura lex sed lex and all that jazz.

Story as old as time itself. What are you saying really?

I don't really disagree with you for once, but, and I do mean this, I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.

In a sense, yes. Still, it may be helpful to list those. What are they?

Well, tough noodles. It is too late now. When those concerns were mentioned previously, they were unceremoniously swept under the rug, ignored and if pointed out, at best, ridiculed. Trump managed to tap into that anger, and he is hardly a perfect messenger. Still, he will do, because you know me.. always looking at the bright side.

What do you want me to do? List them by names or something? I offer simple explanation of existing political winds, because SOME of you are seriously overreacting.

This is may be the most reasonable thing you wrote. It is possible and a reasonable take. It also does not change anything. The end result is about the same.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#254

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:06 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #242

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Hmm?

See.. this is what I find fascinating about this framing. US has a fair amount of various enforcement agencies at federal level. I mean, IRS has a division that has agents walking with guns. ATF messes with people in ways that are problematic and documented ways. FBI does morning raids. No one suggests they are a gang or that they kidnap people.

It is interesting, because the linguistic effort to suggest that ICE ( the linked story had border patrol, which adds interesting wrinkle to OP's line of argumentation ) is not a legitimate arm of US government. If there is something flimsy about this, it is that particular attempt. Their legal status will not change just because you say they 'kidnap' people.

You assume a lot about me, but would you be so righteous if I told you I am into feet?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#255

Post by zaphar » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:23 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #237

tptacek wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were not simple detentions; this was ICE taking every door in a 5 story apartment complex at 3:00AM, and detaining every single resident for over 4 hours. Nothing at all like the types of detention Justice Kavanaugh refers to when he talks about the minor inconvenience of a police stop-and-investigate detention. It is not the case that your local police can do this in response to a traffic infraction.

This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.

I do not think ICE is conducting themselves well here. The point of my post above however is that part of the reason ICE is acting like this is because ICE and Chicago have positioned themselves as antagonists and the results are reasonably predictable here. The cause is not poverty it's bad politics.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#256

Post by kmacdough » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 1:47 PM UTC

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.

Provocative, sure. But people are generally provocative within a very narrow, uninformed window. Taking an extreme view on a hot political issue. Democrats are stupid. Republicans are evil. Science is broken and unrecoverable.

There is very little room to have a nuanced perspective. You'll lose viewership on BOTH sides.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#257

Post by wat10000 » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #233

wat10000 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. State-sanctioned violence is a fuckton scarier. Do you think state-sanctioned violence can't be described as "political violence" or that it can't be used to murder political opponents? If so, may I introduce you to most of history?

I think, and I would like to think it was covered in civics, that state sanctioned violence is one of the few types that society allows for practical reasons. What I personally think the problem in this conversation is oddly simple: severe conflation of various related issues. You may be well-intentioned, but you are not exactly convincing me to 'your side'.

Political violence performed by random civilians and political violence performed by the state are not exactly the same thing, but both are very bad, and the latter is much worse. If the argument is that only the left does political violence by random citizens (blatantly false, but even if we grant it) then saying the right is currently doing political violence by the state is a perfectly response even if they are not exactly the same thing.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#258

Post by mindslight » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:39 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #253

mindslight wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Eh. I am as honest with you as I can be on an internet forum. I think you completely misunderstand my position. My position is not based on morality, but rather on the survival of the system in place. It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings. The suffering, as it were, is not a concern here it all. I don't relish it. I nothing it. Do you understand the difference? Ooh, this con…

> My position is not based on morality

This is clear. Your points jump back and forth between positive and normative statements. "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position, nor are the slivers of rationalizations hanging off of it.

> It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings

So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in? That doesn't surprise me, since the only policy goal here is the cruel spectacle to entertain the plebs.

> I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.

You're either getting me confused with someone else, or more likely are just bashing a straw man. I in fact have a decades-long pattern of recurring support for Constitutional rights and individual liberty. So no, my arguments are quite serious. Just because Trumpism blatantly abuses appeals to ideals and personal liberty ("free speech absolutist" lolol) does not mean that everybody does.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#259

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #237

tptacek wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were not simple detentions; this was ICE taking every door in a 5 story apartment complex at 3:00AM, and detaining every single resident for over 4 hours. Nothing at all like the types of detention Justice Kavanaugh refers to when he talks about the minor inconvenience of a police stop-and-investigate detention. It is not the case that your local police can do this in response to a traffic infraction.

This is, by far, the only rational argument put forth so far, but even here I feel obligated to nitpick. What exactly is 'simple detention'? Are they separated in terms of severity or is it just one giant class of detention that is subject to an opinion of the officers on the ground? One would think that a massive crackdown like this would be at least 4h of one's life.

I can't imagine how it would matter. There's basically nothing more sacred in US law than the front door of one's home. There isn't a more intrusive ordinary investigative action any government body can take.

From the photos: they trashed the apartments, too. Again, not that it much matters.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#260

Post by mindslight » Mon, Oct 06, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #254

mindslight wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Hmm? See.. this is what I find fascinating about this framing. US has a fair amount of various enforcement agencies at federal level. I mean, IRS has a division that has agents walking with guns. ATF messes with people in ways that are problematic and documented ways. FBI does morning raids. No one suggests they are a gang or that they kidnap people. It is interesting, because the linguistic effort to suggest that IC…

> No one suggests they [IRS, ATF, FBI] are a gang or that they kidnap people.

Wow, seriously. So either you've never read any libertarian or right-wing anti-government discussions, or more likely you're just flinging nonsense at the wall to see what might stick. This is starting to feel like LLM slop.