5 ms·

> the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone I'm not sure what you're talking about--I wonder if this is just

> the current culture of never disagreeing with anyone so you can never possibly offend anyone I'm not sure what you're talking about--I wonder if this is just your extremely subjective experience of the internet? Because I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement.

nitrogen 5y ago
I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement. Perhaps it's disagreement across tribes, but mandatory agreement within each tribe?
- skissane 5y ago
  > but mandatory agreement within each tribe? There's seems to be a decent market for contrarian opinions within each tribe though. Such as "Conservatives against Trump" [0] and "Liberals against Cancel Culture" [1] [0] e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/disaffected-republicans-launch-new-group-to-impact-2022-midterms https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/disaffect... [1] e.g. https://medium.com/arc-digital/the-whispered-left-wing-dissent-on-cancel-culture-234d0aaa9107 https://medium.com/arc-digital/the-whispered-left-wing-disse...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Both of your examples, I think, counter rather than support your point, because neither of those arr particularly welcomed in the tribe they notionally dissent within, but are trumpeted by the opposing tribe (but only for their dissent, not for the views that mark them as in the tribe thet dissent from.) Unless by “...against cancel culture” you mean “...who deny thr existence of ‘cancel culture’ as a significant new or especially liberal/left phenomenon”, but then, those arent dissenters at all.
    - skissane 5y ago
      > neither of those arr particularly welcomed in the tribe they notionally dissent within I don't think anti-Trump conservatives are particularly unwelcome in mainstream American conservatism though. Take someone like the Orthodox Christian journalist Rod Dreher, who says very negative things about Trump ("Donald Trump is flat-out lying to manipulate the political process", [0]), but who has also written a book (Live Not By Lies) claiming that American progressivism is evolving into Soviet-style totalitarianism. Getting invited on to Tucker Carlson's show is a pretty clear sign of being welcome by mainstream American conservatism, and Carlson has invited Dreher (in September last year) on to promote his book, and I'm sure the Fox News audience loved it. Carlson just avoided asking Dreher about his opinions on Trump, he knows what his audience likes and he didn't get where he is by upsetting them. [0] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/donald-trump-truth-totalitarianism/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/donald-trump-...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Carlson just avoided asking Dreher about his opinions on Trump, Right, there's no market for dissent, only for the tribal-conformist views.
        skissane 5y ago
        It could be worse though – in a more polarized environment, Tucker Carlson would feel unable to invite someone anti-Trump on to his show, even to talk about some topic unrelated to Trump. It is interesting to contemplate, that no matter how bad America's political polarization has become, it could be worse. Actually I do wonder whether centre-left media outlets have the same freedom that Carlson has, to platform dissenters to talk about matters unrelated to their dissent.
sreque 5y ago
I think people disagree with each other all the time right now, but rarely ever actually listen. You can't update your view of the world based on feedback if you refuse to take the feedback seriously in the first place or think critically about opposing points of view.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- unishark 5y ago
  I'd say it's a little more rational. People have different life experiences and have reached different conclusions. When they see other people making claims which they "know" from experience to be wrong, they point them out and explain why. As a metaphor, imagine someone who doesn't live in your country making insulting and incorrect statements about it based on a combination of ignorant stereotypes and misinterpreted facts, long-disproven rumors, etc. You go correct them from a position of knowing more. It's the "someone is wrong on the internet" effect, cycling forever. Also, yes, mentally ill people. I'm sure of it...
cmckn 5y ago
Agreed, I think this sentiment is along the lines of "political correctness run amok" which is a completely subjective interpretation of changing social norms. Whereas I think the article is discussing how some use the impersonal void of social media as an outlet for their anxiety, etc. Personally, I try to limit the amount of time I spend on such websites, and HN is really the only place I read the comments (in moderation). Consuming everyone else's anxiety is unproductive, because it skews how I view the world (and the people in it), and raises my blood pressure. :)
- navbaker 5y ago
  I actively avoid Twitter, but still get force fed Twitter opinions via most news websites. I wish they would stop producing headlines about the latest "backlash" or "outrage" on there.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    But, how would they make money otherwise?! /s I think fucking social butterfly Arianna Huffington [1]'s website Huffington Post is the one that started the trend of headlines like "X {destroys,obliterates} Y" to report on 140 Twitter outbursts. Thanks, lady, for your contribution in destroying the media landscape. https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/11/ariannas-virtual-candidate https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/11/ariannas-virt...
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    I recommend not spending much time on those types of news sites :)
- watwut 5y ago
  But political corectness run amok is literally about people being too eager to tell you when they think you do something wrong. It is about people being more active in pushing when they disagree.
bawolff 5y ago
Its just a way people whine about others disagreeing with them when they can't back themselves up. The statement seems a priori false, since people cant both be disagreeing with you, and also be against people disagreeing.

nitrogen 5y ago

I thought that the internet lately has been nothing but disagreement. Perhaps it's disagreement across tribes, but mandatory agreement within each tribe?

skissane 5y ago
> but mandatory agreement within each tribe? There's seems to be a decent market for contrarian opinions within each tribe though. Such as "Conservatives against Trump" [0] and "Liberals against Cancel Culture" [1] [0] e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/disaffected-republicans-launch-new-group-to-impact-2022-midterms https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/disaffect... [1] e.g. https://medium.com/arc-digital/the-whispered-left-wing-dissent-on-cancel-culture-234d0aaa9107 https://medium.com/arc-digital/the-whispered-left-wing-disse...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Both of your examples, I think, counter rather than support your point, because neither of those arr particularly welcomed in the tribe they notionally dissent within, but are trumpeted by the opposing tribe (but only for their dissent, not for the views that mark them as in the tribe thet dissent from.) Unless by “...against cancel culture” you mean “...who deny thr existence of ‘cancel culture’ as a significant new or especially liberal/left phenomenon”, but then, those arent dissenters at all.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > neither of those arr particularly welcomed in the tribe they notionally dissent within I don't think anti-Trump conservatives are particularly unwelcome in mainstream American conservatism though. Take someone like the Orthodox Christian journalist Rod Dreher, who says very negative things about Trump ("Donald Trump is flat-out lying to manipulate the political process", [0]), but who has also written a book (Live Not By Lies) claiming that American progressivism is evolving into Soviet-style totalitarianism. Getting invited on to Tucker Carlson's show is a pretty clear sign of being welcome by mainstream American conservatism, and Carlson has invited Dreher (in September last year) on to promote his book, and I'm sure the Fox News audience loved it. Carlson just avoided asking Dreher about his opinions on Trump, he knows what his audience likes and he didn't get where he is by upsetting them. [0] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/donald-trump-truth-totalitarianism/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/donald-trump-...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Carlson just avoided asking Dreher about his opinions on Trump, Right, there's no market for dissent, only for the tribal-conformist views.
      - skissane 5y ago
        It could be worse though – in a more polarized environment, Tucker Carlson would feel unable to invite someone anti-Trump on to his show, even to talk about some topic unrelated to Trump. It is interesting to contemplate, that no matter how bad America's political polarization has become, it could be worse. Actually I do wonder whether centre-left media outlets have the same freedom that Carlson has, to platform dissenters to talk about matters unrelated to their dissent.

sreque 5y ago

I think people disagree with each other all the time right now, but rarely ever actually listen. You can't update your view of the world based on feedback if you refuse to take the feedback seriously in the first place or think critically about opposing points of view.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unishark 5y ago
I'd say it's a little more rational. People have different life experiences and have reached different conclusions. When they see other people making claims which they "know" from experience to be wrong, they point them out and explain why. As a metaphor, imagine someone who doesn't live in your country making insulting and incorrect statements about it based on a combination of ignorant stereotypes and misinterpreted facts, long-disproven rumors, etc. You go correct them from a position of knowing more. It's the "someone is wrong on the internet" effect, cycling forever. Also, yes, mentally ill people. I'm sure of it...

cmckn 5y ago

Agreed, I think this sentiment is along the lines of "political correctness run amok" which is a completely subjective interpretation of changing social norms. Whereas I think the article is discussing how some use the impersonal void of social media as an outlet for their anxiety, etc. Personally, I try to limit the amount of time I spend on such websites, and HN is really the only place I read the comments (in moderation). Consuming everyone else's anxiety is unproductive, because it skews how I view the world (and the people in it), and raises my blood pressure. :)

navbaker 5y ago
I actively avoid Twitter, but still get force fed Twitter opinions via most news websites. I wish they would stop producing headlines about the latest "backlash" or "outrage" on there.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  But, how would they make money otherwise?! /s I think fucking social butterfly Arianna Huffington [1]'s website Huffington Post is the one that started the trend of headlines like "X {destroys,obliterates} Y" to report on 140 Twitter outbursts. Thanks, lady, for your contribution in destroying the media landscape. https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/11/ariannas-virtual-candidate https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1994/11/ariannas-virt...
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  I recommend not spending much time on those types of news sites :)
watwut 5y ago
But political corectness run amok is literally about people being too eager to tell you when they think you do something wrong. It is about people being more active in pushing when they disagree.

bawolff 5y ago

Its just a way people whine about others disagreeing with them when they can't back themselves up. The statement seems a priori false, since people cant both be disagreeing with you, and also be against people disagreeing.