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

291–299 of 299 posts

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#291

Post by toomim »

wat10000 wrote: post #290
toomim wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted? You're leaving out the context of Ms Rachel. Charlie is saying everything in response to her. Let me…

Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself. One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing abo…

> Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic.

Yeah. When he said "Just sayin'", that was his cue for sarcasm.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#292

Post by wat10000 »

toomim wrote: post #291
wat10000 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself. One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing abo…

> Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic. Yeah. When he said "Just sayin'", that was his cue for sarcasm.

Is this a thing with him or are you guessing?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#293

Post by worik »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #241
worik wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 gri…

As to the legality of ICE: The law suits are not being heard yet, time will tell

Legal or illegal what they're doing is wrong

As to capitalists and cheap labour: that is what drove the rise in the population of the undocumented community. I was addressing the cause of that problem

The need for a neo-facist to have an "other" to deamonise is what drives ICE

Capitalists and facists do not have perfectly aligned incentives

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#294

Post by FirmwareBurner »

DirkH wrote: post #232
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.

The left is statistically more likely to publicly endorse political violence looking at data over the past few years. The right is more likely to actually commit political violence though looking over all data over decades and that still holds today. Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States One side is all shout and n…

[flagged]

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#295

Post by FirmwareBurner »

estimator7292 wrote: post #139
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.

Like a coup?

Who got killed?

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#296

Post by FirmwareBurner »

evilduck wrote: post #159
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.

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]

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#297

Post by patcon »

testaccount28 wrote: post #153
patcon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've strawmanned me. I'm saying that choosing the "best" places and not stewarding the shared spaces is a form of neglect of shared public goods, public goods that otherwise lead to a strong society that a kid might someday inherit. Some ppl don't just choose the best school, because they think it's best for their individual family unit. Neglect is multi-scalar -- something can be neglect at one level, and care at another. Different families value different scales of concern in their family life

North Americans (esp Americans) tend to not see it that way. Collectivist cultures kinda assume it's a no-brainer, in my experience. Your attempt at painting this as "obvious" and worthy of satirising, that feels kinda misdirected

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#298

Post by testaccount28 »

patcon wrote: post #297
testaccount28 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You've strawmanned me. I'm saying that choosing the "best" places and not stewarding the shared spaces is a form of neglect of shared public goods, public goods that otherwise lead to a strong society that a kid might someday inherit. Some ppl don't just choose the best school, because they think it's best for their individual family unit. Neglect is multi-scalar -- something can be neglect at one level, and care at…

fair point. the true society self-organizes at each level to cooperate with itself. they avoid tragic outcomes by noticing the coordination traps that lead to them, and then not doing that.

i disagree that one must be subject to the rotten institutions in order to care about or fix them. but this is a disagreement of method, not of result.

i agree that seeking only the "best" can be a status-treadmill coordination trap. i turn away from this as well.

i have a strong distaste when "cooperation" is imposed from without. it is unstable. (does your collectivism rely on shared goals and reflective understanding? or is it enforced by artificially raising the cost of defection?)

agreed that i responded not quite to your comment as written. apologies.

Re: Social Cooling (2017)

#299

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

nevertrustcops wrote: post #220
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is an interesting claim. I have no proper anecdata, data or, well, anything to properly gauge that sentiment ( ideally by state ). If you do, I would be very, very interested in something that would give it to me.
Post reply on HN