4 ms·

If you said that you have no interest whatsoever in cars or electric cars, or no care for things tangentially related (impact on climate or similar).

by prawn 4y ago

nobody9999 4y ago
>If you said that you have no interest whatsoever in cars or electric cars, or no care for things tangentially related (impact on climate or similar). A fair point. However, that's not what GGP[1] said. They said: > Who people think we are is who we are May be true for extroverts, but as an introvert I don't give a cent about what random people think about me (which also explains why I do not use Instagram in the first place). I was responding to a reply[0] to that comment which asserted that: However there is a certain kind of dissonance between deciding to publicly state "I don't care what you think" that sort of implies that they do care actually. It seems to me that people who truly do not care would just not engage in the first place? As I said, I think that's pretty reductive. If you don't care what people on Instagram (or other social media) think, then not using such platforms makes perfect sense. Which is what GGP said. It seems reasonable to comment on the perceived "quest for likes" in a discussion about such things, even if you don't use those platforms and/or don't care what others think. I don't agree with GGP's point about being an introvert, as I'm an extrovert and I don't give a rat's ass about such things either. Nor do I use Instagram or other (mainstream) social media. Despite my (potentially) poor analogy, GP seems to be implying that if you state that you don't care about something, then you actually do care. Which, as I said, seems pretty reductive. And is also a poor use of logic. Please feel free to disagree and/or down-vote me, as I (at least as far as this, and most topics goes) don't really care what others think. Rather, I'm interested in discussion that sparks interesting exchanges. GP's shallow dismissal of GGP doesn't do that. In fact, it may well stifle discussion. And more's the pity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35074290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35074290 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35072080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35072080 Edit: fixed formatting and prose. Clarified my response.

If you said that you have no interest whatsoever in cars or electric cars, or no care for things tangentially related (impact on climate or similar).

by prawn 4y ago

If you said that you have no interest whatsoever in cars or electric cars, or no care for things tangentially related (impact on climate or similar).

nobody9999 4y ago

>If you said that you have no interest whatsoever in cars or electric cars, or no care for things tangentially related (impact on climate or similar). A fair point. However, that's not what GGP[1] said. They said: > Who people think we are is who we are May be true for extroverts, but as an introvert I don't give a cent about what random people think about me (which also explains why I do not use Instagram in the first place). I was responding to a reply[0] to that comment which asserted that: However there is a certain kind of dissonance between deciding to publicly state "I don't care what you think" that sort of implies that they do care actually. It seems to me that people who truly do not care would just not engage in the first place? As I said, I think that's pretty reductive. If you don't care what people on Instagram (or other social media) think, then not using such platforms makes perfect sense. Which is what GGP said. It seems reasonable to comment on the perceived "quest for likes" in a discussion about such things, even if you don't use those platforms and/or don't care what others think. I don't agree with GGP's point about being an introvert, as I'm an extrovert and I don't give a rat's ass about such things either. Nor do I use Instagram or other (mainstream) social media. Despite my (potentially) poor analogy, GP seems to be implying that if you state that you don't care about something, then you actually do care. Which, as I said, seems pretty reductive. And is also a poor use of logic. Please feel free to disagree and/or down-vote me, as I (at least as far as this, and most topics goes) don't really care what others think. Rather, I'm interested in discussion that sparks interesting exchanges. GP's shallow dismissal of GGP doesn't do that. In fact, it may well stifle discussion. And more's the pity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35074290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35074290 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35072080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35072080 Edit: fixed formatting and prose. Clarified my response.