7 ms·

You can say you don't enjoy interacting with strangers, but I realize you should realize that you're taking the time to comment on an anonymous social platform.

by vuciv1 5y ago

You can say you don't enjoy interacting with strangers, but I realize you should realize that you're taking the time to comment on an anonymous social platform. Even if you're just reading the comments, you're listening to what strangers have to say

deregulateMed 5y ago
The difference is choosing to engage or closing the web page. Plus, I have no problem talking with programmers about their jobs and hobbies. Compare that to talking to a program manager who's hobbies are comic book related... I'm not sure what to talk about with them... Maybe virtue vs hedonist philosophy? (They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists)
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  > They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists Are comics significantly more hedonistic than other media? (I'm genuinely asking; I've never been interested in comics but I've also never heard that they were all that different from other entertainment media.)
  - deregulateMed 5y ago
    It could be argued that HN, news, and Reddit are less hedonist because they provide education. Although, my long term plan is to eliminate those in favor of non fiction books and personal projects. The best "pro comic book" argument I've heard is that science fiction can help you consider potential futures of humanity. This can reduce being surprised by biotechnology and AI events. This could help humanity vote better and make more ethical software. (or so the argument goes)
    - verall 5y ago
      It could be argued, but I think its a pretty weak argument. HN, Reddit, news, comics, manga, TV: its all a dopamine drip. The specifics can be impactful: a movie that changes your perspective, a great article on HN that helps you accomplish a goal better/faster/stronger. But usually you are just slamming your preferred dopamine drip. SciFi books or comics don't "help humanity vote better", they are enjoyed, the same way some people enjoy reading Reddit and HN.
    - hluska 5y ago
      Are you sure you want to say that people who like comic books are hedonists? That’s an overly cut and dried argument and people aren’t nearly that simple. Isn’t it more charitable and accurate to suggest that people like what they like? I like running obscenely long distances. First, what business is it of yours how others spend their time? Second, what possibly qualifies you to claim people are hedonists because they like what they like?? There’s nothing wrong with recreation or having fun. Life is very short and no matter how hard you work or how much you learn, you’re going to die. Live your life. Don’t let others call you names for being you. The converse is that when you don’t understand how others live, don’t call them hedonists. You just don’t understand because you’re you, not them.
      - deregulateMed 5y ago
        Hedonist is the proper name for the philosophy. Maybe I read too much philosophy because I was merely saying the proper term in the dichotomy between virtue ethics and pleasure ethics. Maybe I should stick to talking sportsball.
        hluska 5y ago
        Or maybe just read more about hedonism? By your definition, you’re a hedonist as well because intellectual pleasure is still pleasure. Instead, I argue that that is a loaded term, we’re all individuals and we like what we like. It’s really nobody’s business and certainly nobody’s place to add a term (especially one with such negative pop connotations) to people who like what they like.
        colinmhayes 5y ago
        Your definition of hedonism leaves a lot to be desired. There's a decent argument that even stoics are hedonists using your definition since they enjoy being stoics.
  - denkmoon 5y ago
    I think it is more a funny poke at the moral panic surrounding comic books in the 50s?
stronglikedan 5y ago
I think Mike Tyson managed to eloquently sum up the Online vs IRL interactions with strangers when he said, "Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."
- watwut 5y ago
  Threat of violence amd violence is not actually improvement over people talking angrily.
  - curryst 5y ago
    I don't think it's quite that black and white. In my experience, most people want there to be some divide between things you can say in public and things you can't say in public. As an example, I think most people agree that shouting racist slurs in the street is unacceptable. There has to be some enforcement mechanism for "you can't say that in public". The government is a poor way to enforce that for a variety of reasons, but there has to be something. In ye olden days, it was the threat of getting smacked. Banning that left a void that we've filled with canceling people. I don't think it's really an improvement. Getting hit let's you know that you've been an ass, but in a way where you have an opportunity to change your beliefs, or at the very least keep them to yourself. Getting cancelled is permanent. You will always be "that person" and it's enshrined in public memory. Why bother changing your views if you're damned anyways? And it has a severe chilling effect, because the fear is "what if I ruin the rest of my life?" rather than "what if I wake up with a black eye?". If I was given the choice, I'd far rather get hit. I'd rather lose some teeth than be digitally lynched. I honestly think being cancelled is a far worse punishment than getting the crap beat out of me. In our quest to remove violence, we've managed to invent something worse, and I'm really not sure it's a good thing.
    - Nasrudith 5y ago
      That is not remotely worse or new - the canceling bogeyman. Just try being an unpopular minority. The threat of violence has deeply embedded many stupid ideas in the past and still scars societies over a millenia later. Look at the undying antisemitic tropes whose origin boil down to "You can criticize Jews but not the clergy or nobility." Or the whole thing with Chinese portrayals of eunuchs. Guess who won't be starting a feud or executing you for disparaging their ancestors? The non-existent descendants of men eunuched as children!

by vuciv1 5y ago

deregulateMed 5y ago

The difference is choosing to engage or closing the web page. Plus, I have no problem talking with programmers about their jobs and hobbies. Compare that to talking to a program manager who's hobbies are comic book related... I'm not sure what to talk about with them... Maybe virtue vs hedonist philosophy? (They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists)

KittenInABox 5y ago
> They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists Are comics significantly more hedonistic than other media? (I'm genuinely asking; I've never been interested in comics but I've also never heard that they were all that different from other entertainment media.)
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  It could be argued that HN, news, and Reddit are less hedonist because they provide education. Although, my long term plan is to eliminate those in favor of non fiction books and personal projects. The best "pro comic book" argument I've heard is that science fiction can help you consider potential futures of humanity. This can reduce being surprised by biotechnology and AI events. This could help humanity vote better and make more ethical software. (or so the argument goes)
  - verall 5y ago
    It could be argued, but I think its a pretty weak argument. HN, Reddit, news, comics, manga, TV: its all a dopamine drip. The specifics can be impactful: a movie that changes your perspective, a great article on HN that helps you accomplish a goal better/faster/stronger. But usually you are just slamming your preferred dopamine drip. SciFi books or comics don't "help humanity vote better", they are enjoyed, the same way some people enjoy reading Reddit and HN.
  - hluska 5y ago
    Are you sure you want to say that people who like comic books are hedonists? That’s an overly cut and dried argument and people aren’t nearly that simple. Isn’t it more charitable and accurate to suggest that people like what they like? I like running obscenely long distances. First, what business is it of yours how others spend their time? Second, what possibly qualifies you to claim people are hedonists because they like what they like?? There’s nothing wrong with recreation or having fun. Life is very short and no matter how hard you work or how much you learn, you’re going to die. Live your life. Don’t let others call you names for being you. The converse is that when you don’t understand how others live, don’t call them hedonists. You just don’t understand because you’re you, not them.
    - deregulateMed 5y ago
      Hedonist is the proper name for the philosophy. Maybe I read too much philosophy because I was merely saying the proper term in the dichotomy between virtue ethics and pleasure ethics. Maybe I should stick to talking sportsball.
      - hluska 5y ago
        Or maybe just read more about hedonism? By your definition, you’re a hedonist as well because intellectual pleasure is still pleasure. Instead, I argue that that is a loaded term, we’re all individuals and we like what we like. It’s really nobody’s business and certainly nobody’s place to add a term (especially one with such negative pop connotations) to people who like what they like.
      - colinmhayes 5y ago
        Your definition of hedonism leaves a lot to be desired. There's a decent argument that even stoics are hedonists using your definition since they enjoy being stoics.
- denkmoon 5y ago
  I think it is more a funny poke at the moral panic surrounding comic books in the 50s?

stronglikedan 5y ago

I think Mike Tyson managed to eloquently sum up the Online vs IRL interactions with strangers when he said, "Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."

watwut 5y ago
Threat of violence amd violence is not actually improvement over people talking angrily.
- curryst 5y ago
  I don't think it's quite that black and white. In my experience, most people want there to be some divide between things you can say in public and things you can't say in public. As an example, I think most people agree that shouting racist slurs in the street is unacceptable. There has to be some enforcement mechanism for "you can't say that in public". The government is a poor way to enforce that for a variety of reasons, but there has to be something. In ye olden days, it was the threat of getting smacked. Banning that left a void that we've filled with canceling people. I don't think it's really an improvement. Getting hit let's you know that you've been an ass, but in a way where you have an opportunity to change your beliefs, or at the very least keep them to yourself. Getting cancelled is permanent. You will always be "that person" and it's enshrined in public memory. Why bother changing your views if you're damned anyways? And it has a severe chilling effect, because the fear is "what if I ruin the rest of my life?" rather than "what if I wake up with a black eye?". If I was given the choice, I'd far rather get hit. I'd rather lose some teeth than be digitally lynched. I honestly think being cancelled is a far worse punishment than getting the crap beat out of me. In our quest to remove violence, we've managed to invent something worse, and I'm really not sure it's a good thing.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    That is not remotely worse or new - the canceling bogeyman. Just try being an unpopular minority. The threat of violence has deeply embedded many stupid ideas in the past and still scars societies over a millenia later. Look at the undying antisemitic tropes whose origin boil down to "You can criticize Jews but not the clergy or nobility." Or the whole thing with Chinese portrayals of eunuchs. Guess who won't be starting a feud or executing you for disparaging their ancestors? The non-existent descendants of men eunuched as children!