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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#71

Post by raverbashing »

jcims wrote: post #63
raverbashing wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement You mean the "anti-maskers" who throw a fit for wearing a face covering for 30min when they have to go to the supermarket?

No because there’s no desire to build or maintain a relationship with the person. You just emotionally reduce them an NPC and do damage control until they are gone. Pretty much how social media works.

Thanks for a good answer, you've got a point, though I suspect it works in similar ways with people you do and don't want to maintain a relationship (and a lot of relationships fail because of similar reasons)

(Unless of course the person is good at manipulation, though eventually things fall apart)

Re: Mark in the Middle

#72

Post by yomly »

zimpenfish wrote: post #48
mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.

A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality?

Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.

Unable to see how they are the sum of their life's experiences we draw up the lines, dig in our heels and choose our side - and in doing so force the other group to take a side.

I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.

Maybe people need to travel outside their comfort zones a little more...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#73

Post by croissants »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #50

I think coverage of Facebook is often too US-heavy and it really misses the point by making it into a US partisan issue - this article mentions Trump but doesn't mention Ethiopia. Here's a Vice Article about how hate speech on Facebook is currently pushing Ethiopia toward a genocide just like it did in Myanmar a few years ago: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac...

I struggle with this issue. On the one hand, I think clear incitement to violence is a line that free speech shouldn't cross, so Facebook really should have deleted posts calling for some people to be burned more quickly.

On the other hand, the idea that Facebook is culpable here seems to take for granted a large chunk of Ethiopians who'll just do what they're told by Facebook posts, which seems to give very little credit to the Ethiopian people or the ability of their government to maintain order. In that sense, it feels prejudiced and patronizing, like arguing that Facebook needs to police its Ethiopian presence because Ethiopia can't police itself.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#74

Post by henearkr »

facebookbadfru wrote: post #70
henearkr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PR is different from what the employees see from within. Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative ste…

Facebook ticks all of those? It's banned on china. https://sustainability.fb.com/ No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint. Any other concrete examples?

That's good to hear.

It seems to me that FB is still a little short on ecological engagements. At least, compared to Google.

So, room for improvement.

About privacy concerns, for example: FB is not guaranteeing anything about not mining your private messages. What I find when googling it does not reassure me neither.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#75

Post by ptsneves »

onion2k wrote: post #43
actuator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. She has changed a lot since writing Harry Potter. It's obvious that she no longer believes in supporting marginalised groups or telling people that it's OK to be who you want to be. Her re…

Damn you see the plot point of a serial killer dressing as a woman as attack on trans? I often wonder if I am crazy, because that would never cross my mind. Why would I associate a serial killer with trans? Maybe a woman serial killer that kills women is also an attack on women? I think this kind of reaction actually harms trans more than the story. So out of this world that people will think that trans or gay or blue bi are not good in their mind and thus not a fellow person.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#76

Post by facebookbadfru »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #50

I think coverage of Facebook is often too US-heavy and it really misses the point by making it into a US partisan issue - this article mentions Trump but doesn't mention Ethiopia. Here's a Vice Article about how hate speech on Facebook is currently pushing Ethiopia toward a genocide just like it did in Myanmar a few years ago: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac...

Yeah, they have been doing lot of shady things in other countries way before US criticism of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

Read the controversial section. Even that is missing a lot and the citations are removed.

Facebook has been used for genocide, mass cultural appropriation, raising anti-ism sentiment, etc by military, government and terrorists.

They don't employ enough moderators likely intentionally in many regions. African continent has less than a 100.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#77

Post by C1sc0cat »

secondcoming wrote: post #62
loxs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

Unfortunately you'll be downvoted to hell once the US west coast gets out of bed.

Yeh I kind of groked that but when you get Cindy McCain and previous Republican Presidents endorsing Biden.

I still maintain that business leaders and journalists have a lot to answer for the rise of far right demagogues that are damaging both Us citizens and pose a threat to world stability.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#78

Post by pirocks »

jcims wrote: post #57
Cederfjard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a take without merit. It’s certainly not clear-cut. Here’s The Economist and FiveThirtyEight both saying that they favor Biden to win (at the time of my posting this): https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Not sure what your saying. But if your saying they got it wrong they gave trump a 25+% of winning. Things with a 1/4th probability happen all the time.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#79

Post by throwaway0a5e »

bitxbit wrote: post #52
mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

There’s no discussion to be had when you’re FOR equality and the other side is arguing against it. There’s equality and fairness. The rest is garbage. There’s no need to meet in between and compromise. If you compromise with sh tty ideas you are gonna get sh t on your shirt.

>There’s no discussion to be had when you’re FOR equality and the other side is arguing against it.

Kind of like how there's a subset of a certain political party that believes fetuses have the same right to life as infants.

Or how some people believe someone who comes from a statistically high crime demographic, has $120 in their checking account and face tattoos has the same right to own a gun as someone from a low crime demographic who can take a weekend class, pay $200 and ace an interview with the police chief?

My point is that it's not as simple as you are stating it is. Whichever side of an issue you are on the other side believes that they are right and you are wrong and that you are the oppressors. They have good logical reasons to reach this conclusion and if you peel back the logic you get to fundamentally incompatble differences of opinion.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#80

Post by bryanlarsen »

jcims wrote: post #57
Cederfjard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a take without merit. It’s certainly not clear-cut. Here’s The Economist and FiveThirtyEight both saying that they favor Biden to win (at the time of my posting this): https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Is there a point? 538 showed Trump having a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election on the day of the election. Flipping a coin twice and getting two heads is not particularly surprising.

538 is showing Trump of having a 1 in 5 chance of winning 2020: not favored but very possible. But if you dig deeper, the main reason that his odds are that high is that there's lots of time for stuff to happen between now and November 4th. If the election were to be held today the odds would be 1 in 19 for Trump.

edit: rereading it sounds like I'm discrediting the 1 in 5 forecast. Not at all, I think they're right about the 1 in 5. There are two main reasons to go from 1 in 19 to 1 in 5:

- future unknown events. Like Comey in 2016. Some of these events will help Biden and some Trump, but if they're random they will pull the odds toward the middle.

- when asked who would better handle the economy, Trump has the lead over Biden. Elections have always been about the economy, but 2020 hasn't been so far. Reversion to the norm is always a good guess.

I'm badly summarizing 538 in my comments, this is not original thought.

Post reply on HN