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

Twitter's Fucked

degoes.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 398 posts

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#361

Post by johncolanduoni »

riboflava wrote: post #279
johncolanduoni wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN changes my opinion on things all the time. If your beliefs never have to stand up to challenge, your faith in them being correct should be very slim.

If your beliefs change all the time, they can't have been held very strongly or justifiably in the first place. Maybe you should stop having beliefs like that. That's direct evidence that you shouldn't be confident in many of your beliefs, given they change so often. A person with stable beliefs, even if they aren't ever challenged, has no such direct evidence to suggest they should be less confident, they can only h…

> A person with stable beliefs, even if they aren't ever challenged, has no such direct evidence to suggest they should be less confident

That's like saying someone who comes up with a bunch of scientific hypotheses and never tests them should have more confidence in them than someone who does. Holding on to your beliefs even in the face of evidence/arguments to the contrary is not a sign of having better or more considered beliefs, it's a sign of arrogance. If you truly think that you're never wrong about anything so there is no reason to even look for contrary data, that is especially arrogant.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#363

Post by forloop »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #360
forloop wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value. In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value. With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy. > It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I just wrote a massive comment. When you say t…

Can you stop, please? You are literally arguing about someone reading the article, and being completely uncivil while doing so.

Literally not.

We were arguing about the following statement:

"The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example."

Why do you keep telling me what to do? I find it odd.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#365

Post by sctb »

forloop wrote: post #356
ivraatiems wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to. Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it fa…

> Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility. But you didn't go back in time and read the article before your comment. That's the point. > The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make…

Please stop. Personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News, and we ban accounts that do so repeatedly.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#366

Post by sctb »

forloop wrote: post #145

> (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.) Amazing your comment is top—given you didn't read the article. > The man deserved what he got From what I've seen (I'm no expert on the subject), that's debatable.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173610 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#367

Post by sctb »

boneheadmed wrote: post #350
rabboRubble wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "safely" follow the @theRealDonaldTrump comedy show. I don't like him or think like him, but it's sure fun to have a firsthand view on the dumpster fire that is the 2016 election.

Funny, I thought the comedy show was the DNC Convention! #Fake #Corrupt #"Missing emails" #BuyInfluence #Pander #DelfectToRussians #LOLOL! http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014...

Please do not comment like this here.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#369

Post by boneheadmed »

sctb wrote: post #367
boneheadmed wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I thought the comedy show was the DNC Convention! #Fake #Corrupt #"Missing emails" #BuyInfluence #Pander #DelfectToRussians #LOLOL! http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014...

Please do not comment like this here.

Why? Truth hurts. If you really want a place with highly regulated comments, go back to FB.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#370

Post by dasil003 »

davidivadavid wrote: post #347
pawn wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"because when your beliefs are wrong, they won't be constructively challenged." Does this ever happen? It seems to me like every time someone says something unpopular, the world goes on a witch hunt to destroy that person's life. That's not what I call "constructively challenged". I call it "just short of hanging them, which is what people really want to do." I'd love to see a world where I could debate a matter with…

I must say I'm similarly perplexed by this notion. Every time I've witnessed a "debate" where people "constructively challenge" people who have opposite views, it ended in a shouting match. I'm happy to avoid any such "debate." In my experience, the kind of debate you describe tends to happen far more often between people who have (paradoxically?) similar views, and who just like to explore ideas and challenge each o…

To me this is the defining problem of the media age.

It used to be that you lived next to your neighbor and you had to talk to them or at least acknowledge their humanity even if you disagreed. In the early days we all heralded the internet as ushering an a new era of enlightenment and democracy with freedom of information for everyone.

Of course the reality is that when there was only one nightly television news program, those creators felt some responsibility to report objectively, and no pressure to pander to some demographic. Now, anyone can get any view point they want at any time. There is no value in thoughtful, reasoned opinions because that doesn't resonate with a highly opinionated audience—it's better to be loved or hated than passively respected. You don't have to talk to your neighbor at all because you can literally stare at your phone every time you are outside. No one ever has to hear an opinion they don't like, and when they do they can find their own bespoke mob to initiate a witch hunt.

Technology has enabled us to have a civil war without needing to be divided by a physical border. The tribes can coalesce from arbitrary locations.

Post reply on HN