5 ms·

You live in a large metro area where beliefs are fairly uniform. It would be understandable if you share those beliefs that you wouldn't have any disagreements,

You live in a large metro area where beliefs are fairly uniform. It would be understandable if you share those beliefs that you wouldn't have any disagreements, right? And I'm not sharing with HN the details of my family and workplace discussions, sorry. But maybe someone else here will be willing to. If you don't believe me, then that's OK, that's up to you. Edit: I mean, the media even covers the near constant revolts of activist employees at Facebook, Twitter, Coinbase, and many other tech companies. Do you want me to find you some articles? Is this new to you?

standardUser 6y ago
"If you don't believe me, then that's OK, that's up to you." I didn't say, suggest or imply that I didn't believe you. I stated my alternative experience and asked for more information about yours. "the media even covers the near constant revolts of activist employees" From what I see, those are arguments between people who believe in Thing A very strongly and want to act on it and people who also believe in Thing A but would rather not make a huge fuss about it. But the number of people who don't believe Thing A, in the extremely diverse and heavily populated areas I have lived in, are very tiny. For example, I almost never encounter people who think we should censor sex more, or ban abortion, or not fight racism or oppose police oppression, or that we should in any way oppose LGBTQ rights, or enforce religious ideology on the public sphere, etc.
- nikitaga 6y ago
  Step 1: "if you don't support Black lives, unfriend me" (a sentiment you agree with, from your other comment in this thread) Step 2: "I almost never encounter people who think we should [...] not fight racism" You're free to exclude anyone you don't like from your friends – it's your life. But if you do this, maybe don't use the fact that your bubble doesn't have anyone who thinks differently from you as evidence of there being very few people out there who disagree with you on such things?
  - standardUser 6y ago
    My so-called "bubble" includes dozens of uniquely massive metros that represent hundreds of millions of people. They drive, and historically have driven, most advances in art, culture, innovation and economic output. So it's not like I'm living in some remote backwater getting my news from obscure blogs. I'm up in the mix. As far as the current movement that aims to of change policy and perspectives to better protect and respect Black lives, I would point out that the supporting any given civil right movement, at any time in any culture, when viewed from a few decades distance, has a nearly flawless track record. Can you name a couple historic movements that had the goal of expanding rights or ending oppression that you, today, would oppose?
    - monoideism 6y ago
      > So it's not like I'm living in some remote backwater getting my news from obscure blogs. I'm up in the mix. I have rarely met people more in a bubble than most folks in large US cities. You may have ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity and (very limited) racial diversity, but the diversity of thought is near zero. I know you all desperately want to participate in another 1960s civil rights movement, but that battle was won in the...1960s. The vast majority of the remaining issues are socioeconomic. Sorry.
    - nikitaga 6y ago
      > My so-called "bubble" includes dozens of uniquely massive metros that represent hundreds of millions of people. This can also describe the entirety of hard-left twitter, which yes, definitely is a filter bubble and an echo chamber, which has nothing to do with geographic distribution, but everything to do with groupthink, high internal conformity, and not being receptive to foreign ideas. > Can you name a couple historic movements that had the goal of expanding rights or ending oppression that you, today, would oppose? Are you implying there would be a shortage of those? In the US: - Gun rights as they are - Antivax - Pro-life movement - Unrestricted freedom of speech - Certain special religious rights (regarding exemptions from various taxes / rules / etc.) - "Free markets" in specific fields like healthcare - Largely unrestricted rights to political donations - etc. Each of those has many, many millions of passionate defenders. These are legitimate civil rights issues / movements, even if you disagree with them. Something being a "civil rights movement" does not automatically make it right, even if historically that was more often the case than not. Even communism could be described as a civil rights movement, if it won and discredited capitalism. It is described that way in countries where it won. Both pro-life and pro-choice can be correctly described as civil rights movements – rights of the mother vs rights of the fetus. I'm not pro-life, but I am able to engage with other people's opinions without labeling them racists / bigots / etc. and excluding them from my life, because I can be wrong, and I wouldn't see it otherwise.

standardUser 6y ago

"If you don't believe me, then that's OK, that's up to you." I didn't say, suggest or imply that I didn't believe you. I stated my alternative experience and asked for more information about yours. "the media even covers the near constant revolts of activist employees" From what I see, those are arguments between people who believe in Thing A very strongly and want to act on it and people who also believe in Thing A but would rather not make a huge fuss about it. But the number of people who don't believe Thing A, in the extremely diverse and heavily populated areas I have lived in, are very tiny. For example, I almost never encounter people who think we should censor sex more, or ban abortion, or not fight racism or oppose police oppression, or that we should in any way oppose LGBTQ rights, or enforce religious ideology on the public sphere, etc.

nikitaga 6y ago
Step 1: "if you don't support Black lives, unfriend me" (a sentiment you agree with, from your other comment in this thread) Step 2: "I almost never encounter people who think we should [...] not fight racism" You're free to exclude anyone you don't like from your friends – it's your life. But if you do this, maybe don't use the fact that your bubble doesn't have anyone who thinks differently from you as evidence of there being very few people out there who disagree with you on such things?
- standardUser 6y ago
  My so-called "bubble" includes dozens of uniquely massive metros that represent hundreds of millions of people. They drive, and historically have driven, most advances in art, culture, innovation and economic output. So it's not like I'm living in some remote backwater getting my news from obscure blogs. I'm up in the mix. As far as the current movement that aims to of change policy and perspectives to better protect and respect Black lives, I would point out that the supporting any given civil right movement, at any time in any culture, when viewed from a few decades distance, has a nearly flawless track record. Can you name a couple historic movements that had the goal of expanding rights or ending oppression that you, today, would oppose?
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > So it's not like I'm living in some remote backwater getting my news from obscure blogs. I'm up in the mix. I have rarely met people more in a bubble than most folks in large US cities. You may have ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity and (very limited) racial diversity, but the diversity of thought is near zero. I know you all desperately want to participate in another 1960s civil rights movement, but that battle was won in the...1960s. The vast majority of the remaining issues are socioeconomic. Sorry.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    > My so-called "bubble" includes dozens of uniquely massive metros that represent hundreds of millions of people. This can also describe the entirety of hard-left twitter, which yes, definitely is a filter bubble and an echo chamber, which has nothing to do with geographic distribution, but everything to do with groupthink, high internal conformity, and not being receptive to foreign ideas. > Can you name a couple historic movements that had the goal of expanding rights or ending oppression that you, today, would oppose? Are you implying there would be a shortage of those? In the US: - Gun rights as they are - Antivax - Pro-life movement - Unrestricted freedom of speech - Certain special religious rights (regarding exemptions from various taxes / rules / etc.) - "Free markets" in specific fields like healthcare - Largely unrestricted rights to political donations - etc. Each of those has many, many millions of passionate defenders. These are legitimate civil rights issues / movements, even if you disagree with them. Something being a "civil rights movement" does not automatically make it right, even if historically that was more often the case than not. Even communism could be described as a civil rights movement, if it won and discredited capitalism. It is described that way in countries where it won. Both pro-life and pro-choice can be correctly described as civil rights movements – rights of the mother vs rights of the fetus. I'm not pro-life, but I am able to engage with other people's opinions without labeling them racists / bigots / etc. and excluding them from my life, because I can be wrong, and I wouldn't see it otherwise.