5 ms·
Goodreads was the future of aggressively biased people shouting their opinions to other people with no discernable value in theirs over others. Rose tinted vie
by weego 3y ago
Goodreads was the future of aggressively biased people shouting their opinions to other people with no discernable value in theirs over others.
Rose tinted view.
- abc_lisper 3y agoCan't tell your post is sarcastic or not. Good reads is a valuable resource, especially for avid readers - without it I wouldn't have read as many good books as I did.
- edgyquant 3y agoI really don’t think so. It’s been awhile since I was on there but there recommendations was the same thing you’d get anywhere (e.g. audible.) Maybe the reviews were better, but I think in general the trend of trying to replace discussing things with people with an automated service or social network leads to a poorer result. I read a ton and have never used a recommendation tool to find them, I just read books, go to bookstores and talk to people about them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoYou mean like what you're doing right now?
- pfdietz 3y agoYou do realize that's both an ad hominem argument and an admission he's correct, right?
- smeagull 3y agoThere's no admission that he's correct there at all. The existence of one bad faith actor doesn't make everyone a bad faith actor.
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoFirst, it's not an argument, it's an observation, as there's no argument the be had. Why? Because... Second, the observation is that you can literally characterize every online discussion forum that way. It's a pointless comment that borders on tautology. Put people in a space together to share their thoughts, and some of them will end up behaving badly. Third, it was an observation of the silliness and, frankly, hypocrisy of simultaneously complaining about the behaviour of shouting baseless opinions on discussion forums by shouting a baseless opinion on a discussion forum.