2 ms·

From what I have gleaned from the posts made by the so-called 'shriekers' on Twitter, their style is to post and react in hyperbolic and pearl-clutching way. To

From what I have gleaned from the posts made by the so-called 'shriekers' on Twitter, their style is to post and react in hyperbolic and pearl-clutching way. To be worried about something is one thing, to be gravely concerned is another, but it seems like such people routinely catastrophize and grandstand on issues that the average person would not consider that serious. I suspect this is because there is a feedback loop due to the way engagement works on social media. I like your perspective of criticism to a power/derivative level, but that's not the angle I'm trying to come from. Rather, I am saying the nature of the criticism is what distinguishes between the two.

malermeister 4y ago
I must admit, I'm not really a Twitter user and can't speak to the comments made there. I do, however, read HN and every time a company changes policy due to some outrage, the first comment is always somebody saying something along the lines of what OP was saying. That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself. I don't think the nature is fundamentally different and that might be where we disagree.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself." Understandable. And to be honest I'm increasingly fatigued in relation to what discourse has become. You had mentioned earlier that I was trying to police what is and isn't acceptable criticism, and in a way you're right. I would like to see a lot less hyperbolic pearl-clutching sophistry. But the downside is that trying to confront the use of such rhetoric is sadly perceived as negative or equivalent.

malermeister 4y ago

I must admit, I'm not really a Twitter user and can't speak to the comments made there. I do, however, read HN and every time a company changes policy due to some outrage, the first comment is always somebody saying something along the lines of what OP was saying. That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself. I don't think the nature is fundamentally different and that might be where we disagree.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself." Understandable. And to be honest I'm increasingly fatigued in relation to what discourse has become. You had mentioned earlier that I was trying to police what is and isn't acceptable criticism, and in a way you're right. I would like to see a lot less hyperbolic pearl-clutching sophistry. But the downside is that trying to confront the use of such rhetoric is sadly perceived as negative or equivalent.