Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet of Beefs

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 342 posts

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#301

Post by claudiawerner »

scottishcow wrote: post #278
claudiawerner wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To learn about the link with SSC, it does not at all surprise me that Riboonfarm shows the same aspect of someone talking about various topics (in particular sensitive and sociological ones) without showing any evidence of reading any established research on them. It's perplexing how similar essays on natural world, not taking into account any research on physics in the last 100 years or more, would not be nearly as…

Why is it perplexing? People put more trust in fields where researchers follow (or are expected to follow, at least) the scientific method. I work in what may be called a "soft" science field, I don't complain when people don't view our output as authoritative as that of hard science. I'm proud of my work, but I don't claim to have any monopoly on truth (or even a better grasp of truth, for that matter) just because…

You don't have to put trust in a field to do an overview of the existing literature and show how and where it is wrong. Neither philosophy or mathematics, for example, don't follow the "scientific method" (let's assume the Anglophone conception as opposed to Wissenschaft for the sake of arument), yet I would hope that people would rightly call out a post on utilitarianism that doesn't take into account arguments from the last twenty years, or an argument against metaphysics that stops at Hume, and they'd be skeptical of a proof of the Riemann hypothesis expressed in all but the terms of mathematicians.

If you're more convinced by my mathematics example than my philosophy one, it just shows that this isn't about the scientific method at all, but standards of rigor in argumentation, which soft sciences are perfectly capable of, at least internally within frameworks. In that case, all it would take is for the author to mention which framework they believe has the most explanatory power, and why.

Lastly, I fail to see why this would be such an issue in the first place; as an example, take a claim like "viewing pornography is associated with misogynistic attitudes", or even more strongly, that pornograhy causes such attitudes. The fact that it is a broad claim, that relies on population samples and indirect measurement, does not make the research into the topic (both in support and in denial of the claim) any less valid to be ignorant about, if you're writing an essay on whether porn should be censored or not.

Different epistemic standards are not an excuse for ignorance. "Not as authoritive" is not the same as "no authority at all", and it's especially not the same when the essay in question itself is engaging in that topic.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#302

Post by Plyphon_ »

howlin wrote: post #271
arbitrary_name wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And yes. I'll do anything to hang out with people, especially the ones I like. You sound like you're making an excuse for a lack of friends by implying there is no one worth being friends with? Perhaps I've inferred too much, I sure hope so...

To be fair to the poster, virtually anyone you meet in real life will be far less interesting than chatting with someone in a specialized forum like hacker news.

That's such a narrow view on what value people can offer you, it saddens me.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#303

Post by MisterTea »

my_usernam3 wrote: post #66
MisterTea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have spoke to many people who have said that they feel that work has replaced their social life, myself included to a degree. It also means that people don't want to move on in their careers as they get too comfortable with their work family and pass on better opportunities. I have a coworker who passed on a great opportunity just because he really likes working with everyone. A close friend had to be prodded by hi…

> I have a coworker who passed on a great opportunity just because he really likes working with everyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your tone makes me believe you think your coworker made the wrong decision. I'm actually jealous of your coworker. Currently, if someone offered me a better career opportunity, I'd likely take it without hesitation; but I wish that weren't the case. I don't hate my current position, b…

He did tell me directly that he regretted it later on. Though it didn't keep him up at night.

I think the current tech industry rat race and churn is socially stifling in the sense that you must become nomadic and chase opportunity. By the time you settle in its time to move again. I see people working the same job at the same company with families and homes who although make less than the average tech worker, appear to me much more happy and fulfilled in life.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#304

Post by throwaway92384 »

Lammy wrote: post #12

This article resonates with me and my experiences online to a startling degree. Specifically: “We are not beefing endlessly because we do not desire peace or because we do not know how to engineer peace. We are beefing because we no longer know who we are, each of us individually, and collectively as a species.” I think we are seeing a genuine lack of strong family, social, and organizational ties among most people,…

Chesterton's fence. You removed it, and now it's up to you to prove that you knew what your were doing.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#305

Post by lowdose »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #191
pixl97 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our social connections have been replaced with commercial ones. Where at one point we socialized to relieve boredom and need, now we have never ending entertainment and those that would capitalize on selling it to us over everything else.

And, yet, here you are talking with other people all over the world for free. Someone older than me, of the hippie generation, once said to me "There were like three TV channels and they went off the air at 10pm. If you were still awake after that, there was nothing to do but sex and drugs." I strongly suspect the 24/7 availability of free entertainment, live online discussion, etc is a large contributing factor to t…

But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs so successive generations have to do something. We have become over domesticated chimps that have been conditioned to think having sex with a lot of people is a bad thing and anything other than alcohol is a no no. Good a more open minded sentiment is starting to develop but let's not blame technology when cultural heritage is sufficient to explain trends.

If everybody had sex today tomorrow would be awesome. I welcome a world where women are not slut shamed and it is normal for a 20 year old girl to brag at the office that she had an amazing fuck Yesterday from a random hit-and-run.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#306

Post by watwut »

rriepe wrote: post #113
watwut wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you who did not created ties to a group like that are quite better and less scary then people who have strong loyal unquestioning ties to groups - whether nationalist, traditionalist or radical Christians (some of Catholics in my country lately tie themselves to extremists). Membership and trust in these apparently feels great. That feeling is dangerous. That trust is not build on truths being told, it is…

Everyone is the same amount of religious in my experience. The people who join an established religion gain the quality of being predictable.

The religion as in believe in supernatural is not the issue that much. Who they cooperate with and support is the issue I have - and of course support is related to who have similar/compatible ideologies in some sense.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#307

Post by excalibur »

lowdose wrote: post #305
DoreenMichele wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, yet, here you are talking with other people all over the world for free. Someone older than me, of the hippie generation, once said to me "There were like three TV channels and they went off the air at 10pm. If you were still awake after that, there was nothing to do but sex and drugs." I strongly suspect the 24/7 availability of free entertainment, live online discussion, etc is a large contributing factor to t…

But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs so successive generations have to do something. We have become over domesticated chimps that have been conditioned to think having sex with a lot of people is a bad thing and anything other than alcohol is a no no. Good a more open minded sentiment is starting to develop but let's not blame technology when cultural heritage is sufficient to explain trends. If everybo…

> But that hippie generation forbade all sex & drugs

Say what now

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#308

Post by scottlocklin »

Jesus, people making a big deal out of twitter again. Newsflash: twitter is the comments section you took out of your website. It's a shitty version of Usenet; unlike Usenet or the comments section, it lacks any way of subdividing into interest groups and commonalities, so it's one giant global puke fest. Journalist types love it because ... they're narcissistic wingnats and are addicted to stroking their nerd dildoes. It has nothing to do with social atomization; I'm pretty sure North Korean twitter would be the same thing, because arguing on the internet appeals to people's lizard brains.

TLDR: twitter isn't real and you are mentally ill.

Re: The Internet of Beefs

#310

Post by RugnirViking »

hug wrote: post #237
egypturnash wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After a significant portion of my life spent online, I have kind of come to the conclusion that typing to other people is, in a lot of ways, a fundamentally different experience than talking to them. It fills the same emotional needs just enough to make it hard to get up off your ass and put the effort into going out and finding people with common interests and making friends with some of them, but it does not provid…

I agree with you, but I also think it's worth pointing out that I feel like the inverse is also true. 'Typing to people' is different to talking to them, but it has its own very real and rich reward, that I feel is different to but overlaps with talking. That overlap means that yes, sometimes my need for connection with other people can be sustained entirely by typing, but not forever. Along the same lines, I do not…

I would agree with you, with the caveat that I think that I would much rather live without typing to people online if I had to choose one or the other.

Typing is great, theres a certain density of information and shorthand inherent in how we write and use punctuation (much like how a lot can be said with gestures and facial features) as well as a sort of shared purpose (we all came to this website to have a particular kind of experience, everyone present is in a particular sort of mood)

Post reply on HN