6 ms·

It’s late, and I can’t give this the effort it deserves, but there’s really a huge conflict when you’re saying “only narcissists use Twitter” in a discussion ab

It’s late, and I can’t give this the effort it deserves, but there’s really a huge conflict when you’re saying “only narcissists use Twitter” in a discussion about how to be kind and productive on the Internet. There’s tons of crap on Twitter, but it’s just absurd to say only narcissists use Twitter. Disclaimer: I use Twitter, I may be biased against the claim that this makes a narcissist.

zapzupnz 6y ago
Yeah, I use Twitter because it’s part and parcel of being a Twitch streamer. Perhaps there’s a certain level of narcissism involved in being an entertainer but that line of argumentation might be a bit of a stretch. To me, it’s just one of the most effective communication tools for that particular arsenal. Announcements, updates, and even matchmaking is done there — it’s too valuable to ignore.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I believe there's a fundamental difference. You're using Twitter as a tool, the problematic people use Twitter for entertainment and social interaction. It's like Paul Erdös using methamphetamine vs some random meth addict, there's a large difference in intent and control of usage (and likely also amount). There are also small groups of professionals and researchers who use Twitter effectively and very tool-like. They don't walk into politics, they use it to update everybody on stuff they find/learn and to be updated by everyone else. On paper, that's the intended way to use Twitter, but obviously they don't spend that much time on the platform, and they certainly don't get notifications on their phone when somebody they follow has tweeted something.
  - zapzupnz 6y ago
    In other words, broad sweeping generalisations about a service’s users are not useful.
    - StandardFuture 6y ago
      Are you genuinely worried about "sweeping generalisations"? Obviously not, as you have no other input on the discussion other than a generalization about "broad ... generalisations about a service's users". Maybe you could address the substance of the point being made? Or are we going to just assume that 140 character snarky comebacks are now the new intellectual standard for humanity? Did you not even notice that your reply looks like a silly tweet? It does not appear like Twitter is doing you or your intellect much of any good.
      - zapzupnz 6y ago
        What exactly is the purpose of this post other than to insult? What contribution did this make? All you’ve written is snarky insults. I’m not responding to any of that. From the HN guidelines: - Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. - When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
        StandardFuture 6y ago
        Hahahaha, is that sarcasm? You really don't realize that your prior comment I was replying too is breaking many of the same HN guidelines you posted? Do you really think that accusing someone of making "sweeping generalizations" and making no explanation of that accusation is "thoughtful and substantive"? Were you really responding "to the strongest plausible interpretation" of the person's comment? You were not. On the other hand, I actually was doing that with your comment. Do you see now? Twitter-style discourse is absolved of intellectual rigor and apparently it also is absolved of self-awareness.
        zapzupnz 6y ago
StandardFuture 6y ago
> Disclaimer: I use Twitter, I may be biased against the claim that this makes a narcissist. Yes, this is the entirety for why you responded the way that you did without actually engaging the proposed hypothesis with any evidence, references, etc. And I find it extremely intellectually dishonest, not merely disingenuous, to say that the Twitter format (and emergent culture) is a global or even local optima for strong intellectual discussion. I have seen many a basic logical deduction derailed at every 140th-280th character. This is not even considering that average tweet sizes are much smaller than that (statistically).
- mrmonkeyman 6y ago
  > without actually engaging the proposed hypothesis with any evidence, references, etc. You mean this "hypothesis"? "Only narcissists use Twitter. [..] the people I like don't use Twitter, those I don't like do use Twitter. I think we should simply shun people use who use it, and treat them with disgust" Hint: projection.
- someguyorother 6y ago
  > ... to say that the Twitter format (and emergent culture) is a global or even local optima for strong intellectual discussion. To be fair, there's quite a bit of space between "absolute crap" and "optimal intellectual discussion". It could be mostly crap, or some crap and some joking about.
  - StandardFuture 6y ago
    I don't think you are being intellectually fair at all. I never implied that anyone was claiming Twitter was optimal. It was an argument against the idea that there are not more optimal formats than Twitter to use for actual intellectual discussion. Also, I am not sure why you are using quotations as if you are quoting my words. I am still waiting for the downvoters (or yourself) to actually offer any evidence to the contrary. But they will not because their intellect is built upon Twitter style discussion. Too bad, the internet is making people dumber.

zapzupnz 6y ago

Yeah, I use Twitter because it’s part and parcel of being a Twitch streamer. Perhaps there’s a certain level of narcissism involved in being an entertainer but that line of argumentation might be a bit of a stretch. To me, it’s just one of the most effective communication tools for that particular arsenal. Announcements, updates, and even matchmaking is done there — it’s too valuable to ignore.

luckylion 6y ago
I believe there's a fundamental difference. You're using Twitter as a tool, the problematic people use Twitter for entertainment and social interaction. It's like Paul Erdös using methamphetamine vs some random meth addict, there's a large difference in intent and control of usage (and likely also amount). There are also small groups of professionals and researchers who use Twitter effectively and very tool-like. They don't walk into politics, they use it to update everybody on stuff they find/learn and to be updated by everyone else. On paper, that's the intended way to use Twitter, but obviously they don't spend that much time on the platform, and they certainly don't get notifications on their phone when somebody they follow has tweeted something.
- zapzupnz 6y ago
  In other words, broad sweeping generalisations about a service’s users are not useful.
  - StandardFuture 6y ago
    Are you genuinely worried about "sweeping generalisations"? Obviously not, as you have no other input on the discussion other than a generalization about "broad ... generalisations about a service's users". Maybe you could address the substance of the point being made? Or are we going to just assume that 140 character snarky comebacks are now the new intellectual standard for humanity? Did you not even notice that your reply looks like a silly tweet? It does not appear like Twitter is doing you or your intellect much of any good.
    - zapzupnz 6y ago
      What exactly is the purpose of this post other than to insult? What contribution did this make? All you’ve written is snarky insults. I’m not responding to any of that. From the HN guidelines: - Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. - When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." - Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
      - StandardFuture 6y ago
        Hahahaha, is that sarcasm? You really don't realize that your prior comment I was replying too is breaking many of the same HN guidelines you posted? Do you really think that accusing someone of making "sweeping generalizations" and making no explanation of that accusation is "thoughtful and substantive"? Were you really responding "to the strongest plausible interpretation" of the person's comment? You were not. On the other hand, I actually was doing that with your comment. Do you see now? Twitter-style discourse is absolved of intellectual rigor and apparently it also is absolved of self-awareness.
        zapzupnz 6y ago

StandardFuture 6y ago

> Disclaimer: I use Twitter, I may be biased against the claim that this makes a narcissist. Yes, this is the entirety for why you responded the way that you did without actually engaging the proposed hypothesis with any evidence, references, etc. And I find it extremely intellectually dishonest, not merely disingenuous, to say that the Twitter format (and emergent culture) is a global or even local optima for strong intellectual discussion. I have seen many a basic logical deduction derailed at every 140th-280th character. This is not even considering that average tweet sizes are much smaller than that (statistically).

mrmonkeyman 6y ago
> without actually engaging the proposed hypothesis with any evidence, references, etc. You mean this "hypothesis"? "Only narcissists use Twitter. [..] the people I like don't use Twitter, those I don't like do use Twitter. I think we should simply shun people use who use it, and treat them with disgust" Hint: projection.
someguyorother 6y ago
> ... to say that the Twitter format (and emergent culture) is a global or even local optima for strong intellectual discussion. To be fair, there's quite a bit of space between "absolute crap" and "optimal intellectual discussion". It could be mostly crap, or some crap and some joking about.
- StandardFuture 6y ago
  I don't think you are being intellectually fair at all. I never implied that anyone was claiming Twitter was optimal. It was an argument against the idea that there are not more optimal formats than Twitter to use for actual intellectual discussion. Also, I am not sure why you are using quotations as if you are quoting my words. I am still waiting for the downvoters (or yourself) to actually offer any evidence to the contrary. But they will not because their intellect is built upon Twitter style discussion. Too bad, the internet is making people dumber.