3 ms·

Notice how I am discussing things that you said, and you are discussing me, while also making claims about me. What I value on TikTok is lack of unprovoked hos

Notice how I am discussing things that you said, and you are discussing me, while also making claims about me. What I value on TikTok is lack of unprovoked hostility of this kind in the communities that I have discovered there. Enjoy your day, my friend, and try to find another person to argue about.

rvz 5y ago
Nope. I already pointed out your flawed logic earlier and as for the 'claims', you already admitted it right here though? Your comment [0] completely fits the definition of a para-social relationship! [1][2] You won't answer my first question because you know that you are engaging in a para-social relationship with the people you are following on TikTok. Not even remotely a 'personal attack' a simple 'fact' that you already admitted earlier. Given that you continue to avoid the first question, I can assume that the creators you follow don't know you and to them, you are simply a 'fan' or 'follower' of them in a para-social relationship as described in. [1] Now for my other questions that you still haven't answered: >> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction [2] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...
markild 5y ago
I don't have any skin in this game, but I think it's very sad to see that the conclusion being drawn from this discussion is that it's unprovoked hostility. I see disagreements and different values. I hope both parties in this discussion can disconnect the message from the person. Having discussions with people we disagree with about topics we see differently is in my honest opinion the way we get out of the "us vs them" tendency to think.
- rvz 5y ago
  Right but how was that 'unprovoked hostility'? How was disagreeing with someone with a reason being 'hostile'? For the claims, I just used what they already admitted? All I wanted was evidence for their claims and that was it. Instead I got anecdotes, false equivalences in their arguments which is not substantiative. I also just asked a simple question, they couldn't even answer it. For the second question they did not provide any counter evidence to my question. All my questions were left ignored.
  - romwell 5y ago
    I really don't have to do that, but here goes nothing. >Right but how was that 'unprovoked hostility'? Hostility was saying that people "like me" are addicts to parasocial relationships. Don't see how that's hostility? Exercise: "People like rvz are <insert something unpleasant>" >How was disagreeing with someone with a reason being 'hostile'? You don't get to disagree about what I am (e.g. an addict), nor the kind of relationships I'm in. It's not up for discussion by you. So I humbly ask you to cease.
    - rvz 5y ago
      > I really don't have to do that, but maybe if you see this enough times, you will get to learn something. You tried to argue with a false equivalence earlier and then continue to ignore a basic question about the definition of having a 'para-social relationship' with the people you follow on TikTok which you have just described all by yourself in that long post [0] which everyone can see for themselves. Before you try to ignore the question again, isn't what you have just described here [0] a 'para-social relationship' and fits the definition described here? [1][2] > Hostility was saying that people "like me" are addicts to parasocial relationships. So these creators know you personally then and don't treat you like a follower, or a fan then?, and somehow you are not 'addicted' to TikTok then? On top of that you haven't given an answer to these questions: >> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'? > So I humbly ask you to cease. So far you have given zero evidence in all of your own comments and you are actively ignoring my questions right here. Substantiate your comments by answering these questions with evidence and sources, as I'll just continue to assume. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction [2] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...

rvz 5y ago

Nope. I already pointed out your flawed logic earlier and as for the 'claims', you already admitted it right here though? Your comment [0] completely fits the definition of a para-social relationship! [1][2] You won't answer my first question because you know that you are engaging in a para-social relationship with the people you are following on TikTok. Not even remotely a 'personal attack' a simple 'fact' that you already admitted earlier. Given that you continue to avoid the first question, I can assume that the creators you follow don't know you and to them, you are simply a 'fan' or 'follower' of them in a para-social relationship as described in. [1] Now for my other questions that you still haven't answered: >> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction [2] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...

markild 5y ago

I don't have any skin in this game, but I think it's very sad to see that the conclusion being drawn from this discussion is that it's unprovoked hostility. I see disagreements and different values. I hope both parties in this discussion can disconnect the message from the person. Having discussions with people we disagree with about topics we see differently is in my honest opinion the way we get out of the "us vs them" tendency to think.

rvz 5y ago
Right but how was that 'unprovoked hostility'? How was disagreeing with someone with a reason being 'hostile'? For the claims, I just used what they already admitted? All I wanted was evidence for their claims and that was it. Instead I got anecdotes, false equivalences in their arguments which is not substantiative. I also just asked a simple question, they couldn't even answer it. For the second question they did not provide any counter evidence to my question. All my questions were left ignored.
- romwell 5y ago
  I really don't have to do that, but here goes nothing. >Right but how was that 'unprovoked hostility'? Hostility was saying that people "like me" are addicts to parasocial relationships. Don't see how that's hostility? Exercise: "People like rvz are <insert something unpleasant>" >How was disagreeing with someone with a reason being 'hostile'? You don't get to disagree about what I am (e.g. an addict), nor the kind of relationships I'm in. It's not up for discussion by you. So I humbly ask you to cease.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > I really don't have to do that, but maybe if you see this enough times, you will get to learn something. You tried to argue with a false equivalence earlier and then continue to ignore a basic question about the definition of having a 'para-social relationship' with the people you follow on TikTok which you have just described all by yourself in that long post [0] which everyone can see for themselves. Before you try to ignore the question again, isn't what you have just described here [0] a 'para-social relationship' and fits the definition described here? [1][2] > Hostility was saying that people "like me" are addicts to parasocial relationships. So these creators know you personally then and don't treat you like a follower, or a fan then?, and somehow you are not 'addicted' to TikTok then? On top of that you haven't given an answer to these questions: >> So you are saying that there weren't any leaks happening about TikTok then, which suggests that they can suppress any content they want to or shadow-ban tags? So you trust them that they won't do it again then, since you think in your opinion that 'TikTok is the best thing to have happened to the Internet.'? > So I humbly ask you to cease. So far you have given zero evidence in all of your own comments and you are actively ignoring my questions right here. Substantiate your comments by answering these questions with evidence and sources, as I'll just continue to assume. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28135484 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction [2] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100305809 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...