[flagged]
I don't think about them at all. For all the noise people make about stating pronouns, I yet have to encounter it in real life. I'll wait until that happens.
You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
81–90 of 226 posts
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#82I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romantically." It's really, really true: you don't. No one will blame you for keeping to yourself. In many settings it may even be better (example: a club, where the club organizers find the drama caused by romantic entanglements annoying). But there's a problem behind th…
I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : B…
On the other hand, the interaction is mostly with total strangers and is almost always in text form. Most of the time you don't even have to see their faces!
(also I don't understand why there wouldn't be subtext)
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…
You're not wrong. You can think of internet arguments as a method of developing a thought and collecting counterarguments in a real environment to refine it. The choice of forum affects the quality of the counterargument though, and developing a thought can be done with a crowd more likely to give constructive feedback. If some random website works for you, that's fine. My statement is more that if you're interested…
> I've gotten a lot of value out of reading the different sides of other people's arguments, but I know I personally wouldn't have wanted to spend time being part of it.
The problem with discussions on the internet is that there's a lot of ignorance and ideology out there and a lack of interest in applying a modicum of thought, research and critical thinking. People know what they know because they know what they know, and that's the end of it. This can be incredibly frustrating to those of us who make an attempt to live in some kind of an objective realty, where arguments from reason and facts are considered and respected.
On the internet, the earth can be flat and there is no amount of math and science you can deploy that will convince a certain audience otherwise.
The only exception to this rule are narrowly focused professional discussion groups. HN fits this description ONLY when the topic at hand tends to be in the realm of specific engineering disciplines. In a wide range of other areas, including technical areas, discussions on HN can be just as dumb and pointless as almost anywhere else.
I've been using online forums of various kinds of four decades. You could find good, bad and ugly on USENET and the same is true today in various forms. The only thing that has changed is that the size of the audience and the reach of the nonsense have expanded.
Relevant:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/yale-researchers-how-highly-...
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#84When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus.
If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided the audience is an audience you vaguely care about).
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#85Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.
[deleted]
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#86Nowadays I consciously try to do this even (or specially) on real life. People understimate how liberating is it.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#87I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romantically." It's really, really true: you don't. No one will blame you for keeping to yourself. In many settings it may even be better (example: a club, where the club organizers find the drama caused by romantic entanglements annoying). But there's a problem behind th…
I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : B…
because that's the place where i can find people who actually share my interests.
as nice as the neighbors are, i really don't care to discuss weather or local politics or whatever. on the other hand, i made a number of friends online over shared interests.
of course, one doesn't preclude the other, but both forms can be fulfilling if done well. but finding local friends is just so much harder, especially in the last three years.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#88> Even if you are a formal spokesperson for a company, you don't have to engage. This is key! At a lower level, if you're modding a Discord server or whatever, you can ignore people, and if they become a real problem you can just ban them. You don't need to engage with their drama, you don't owe them anything.
In my experience this leads to accusations about "power tripping mods" who "silence different opinions". Ditto on subreddits.
Not engaging in those cases means stepping down as a moderator or even quitting the community. It will be worse off - moderating aside, it will lose some institutional knowledge. But in the long run you will feel better.
You're right that you don't owe them anything. It's the same in the open source projects.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m surprised that so many people can tickle their social itch over the internet. There is nothing about the dynamics involved that I’d consider social. Interaction is mostly with total strangers, almost always in text form (no subtext, no facial expression, no body language). Comments are written at people, not to people — to illicit support for one’s position or condemnation of the opposing one. Social networks : B…
On the other hand, the interaction is mostly with total strangers and is almost always in text form. Most of the time you don't even have to see their faces! (also I don't understand why there wouldn't be subtext)
Do you mean this one? Please explain, I don’t understand what you’ve meant with the first part of your response.
The subtext that’s missing is how something is said: The sarcastic tone, sing-song intonation, the short pause, the smirk, the small sentence that turns into a little rant, curtness, an abrupt ending, the barely suppressed yawns, crossed arms, smiling eyes.
I think most importantly, a direct, face-to-face, breathed air-to-breathed air conversation is vulnerable, you’re communicating much more than you ever could in textual form, and you immediately get feedback how what you’ve said is perceived, you might try a different approach, and say something you’ve never intended to do whilst in the flow.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#90When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…
You’re also most likely doing it because you’re getting something out of it: You’re exhibiting your own knowledge, you’re looking for validation, or want to demonstrate your own superior morals.
I don’t mean you in particular, but sentences with “one most likely…” are rather hard to read IMO.