10 ms·

You certainly can just throw things out there, but if you are obsessed with making every single person satisfied with your thoughts, you are going to have a bad

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• qrobit 2y ago
  Aren't most of the replies critic or posted by people disagreeing with you though? Especially on HN, where most users would promote discussion with a reply rather than «Agreed» or «lmao»
  • shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Agreed lmao
• mindcrime 2y ago
  The world is full of people who disagree with you, but you need to learn more than ever to recognize and filter out what you don't care about. I don't even view replies to posts any longer, 98% of the time because I am not seeking validation sharing my opinion. This is something it's taken me a while to come to terms with. I used to want to fully engage with everybody and everything. It was anathema to me to just "broadcast something into the void" and ignore replies. But over time I came to realize that a. I don't scale to engaging with every single person who replies to something I say online, and b. I don't owe those people a response or any of my time/attention; especially the trolls and bots and other lamers that are so prevalent these days. So now I'm more comfortable (albeit maybe not 100% comfortable) with treating things in more of a "fire and forget" fashion. I say what I want to say, and people can do with it what they will. I just can't be arsed to engage with the trolls and other randos. But... if somebody has a mature, reasonable, professional response then I am willing, on a selective basis, to dig in deeper and have a longer discussion.
  • Lacerda69 2y ago
    I no longer say things online except some rare occasions. Mass social media online discourse will slowly vanish in the next 15 yrs
    • Teever 2y ago
      That's an interesting thought. What do you think will replace it?
      • Lacerda69 2y ago
        Not sure but I think it will be more focused on offline life instead. AI and enshittification will make the internet and the core error in its monetization based on ads so bad that it will be replaced by a much smaller and more private version.
    • abustamam 2y ago
      Is this one of those rare occasions? :) I don't think HN is immune from the "redditization" of the internet, though it's certainly a better community than most.
      • bondarchuk 2y ago
        I always feel kinda bad about starting/continuing a 1 on 1 conversation on here because of the "don't cross-examine" thing in the guidelines.
      • randomdata 2y ago
        > "redditization" of the internet 'Redditation' of the world. If it were only taking place on the internet it wouldn't be all that concerning.
    • ianmcgowan 2y ago
      Hard agree with this - sometimes find myself typing out a well-intentioned response, but then cancelling because of the potential downside years in the future for some anodyne opinion held today. Not to mention Roko's Basilisk (all hail the benevolent AI! :)
• randomdata 2y ago
  > The world is full of people who disagree with you One should hope. Disagreement is how you learn. It is why we talk to each other. But that's not what we're talking about here. With 'Reddit' behaviour transcending beyond Internet forums, we're losing the disagreement. Now we see ostracization. There is no: "You are wrong because X." or "That is an interesting thought, but have you considered Y?" it has become "There is something wrong with you." and in the extreme "Say goodbye to your job/friends/family."
• gwervc 2y ago
  > You certainly can just throw things out there On 4chan sure, on Reddit absolutely hecking no. On the main subs in French wrongthink comments get deleted super fast, and on one English-speaking about a hobby it's an immediate ban.
  • canadianfella 2y ago
    [dead]
  • miiiiiike 2y ago
    Indiscriminate banning/blocking is the thing that turned me off most social media. I don’t post anywhere but HN so my profiles are always bare. Starting something like 5 years ago I’d follow someone and within a day, flip a coin, on tails I was banned or blocked. I eventually deleted the last of my social accounts. They turned into places where strangers were just there to torment each other or receive unconditional praise.
    • hahamodbanme 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • racked 2y ago
        I gave 4chan a shot again after reading your comment. Seriously the first post that I found was: https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/464559056 https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/464559056 How do you filter out the stuff that's clearly coming from insecure teenage brains? I don't mean literally filtering it as in censoring it, I mean how do you read/navigate this forum in a way where you don't constantly have to read over childish shite?
        • hahamodbanme 2y ago
          [flagged]
        • typicafyxampl 2y ago
• Anotheroneagain 2y ago
  The world is full of people who disagree with you, Don't you think it's worrisome that we can't agree on anything? And that includes things that are supposed to have objective answers. Why can't we find the truth? We now have instant global communication available almost 24/7, shouldn't it bring the period of unprecedented unity?
  • skywhopper 2y ago
    On the contrary, if everyone can see your opinion, then all the people who disagree have the opportunity to say so. There's always someone in the world who disagrees. Add to that the folks who say things they don't believe for fun, and the ones who are paid by businesses and governments to spread propaganda, and you have a real mess.
  • zarathustreal 2y ago
    The notion of truth is an illusion, this has been a philosophical debate since the beginning of time. The fact is, every person occupies unique physical space and thus has unique life experiences and a unique perspective of each “event”. It’s the standard multi-sided coin phenomenon. Ask two people standing on opposite sides what is on the face and they’ll give you two different answers and both be right and both be wrong. It’s not a solvable problem because there is no observable objective reality that we can all agree on. Granted, I’m fairly certain there is an objective physical reality, it’s just not one that we can all observe the same and agree upon
    • lazide 2y ago
      That’s a cop out that allows obvious delusion to spread. If what someone is saying is 90% reality based and verifiable, and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable, that doesn’t make what they say equivalent to someone who says something that is 90% falsified by verifiable reality and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable. The second person is just delusional or lying, full stop. Any other approach is just cowardice.
    • gnramires 2y ago
      I find equally valid (and perhaps more useful) to say that the notion of truth is the basis of all that exists, and this debate is far from simple. If we don't allow anything to be true at all, then even this discussion, any discussion, or anything at all seems rather pointless. If we're just exchanging gobbledygook, what's the point of even talking? I think there's a general presumption in talking that we're approaching something. That something is essentially truth (i.e. some accurate and/or useful model of some part of reality) or some kind of improvement or even enjoyment, which are both connected to ethics. Sure, truth is in some senses unknowable (in particular in the 'The Map is not the Territory' sense), but we can have increasingly accurate and useful enough models that improve our lives. It's also the case that most human matters need specific answers, potentially extremely specific to their situation (and hard or impossible to know things, like what's going on in their minds), as well as some ethical and aesthetic frameworks that allows one thing to be good while other thing is bad. It's not obvious at first that ethics could be based on truth and science (and hence have somewhat-universal rights and wrongs), but I've come to believe that's the case indeed. Ethics really derives from fundamental truths about existence, like the reality and nature of suffering (and the nature of the workings of our minds), the nature of existence (for example, work is ethical insofar as it supports us existing at all), and so on. If you think about it, the notion that anything goes, is really absurd: surely there are things you wouldn't accept essentially no matter what. It's much more absurd than the counterpart that there are true things, even about the nature of existence, that we can approach. The human mind (and minds in general!) can be studied using similar methods to the study of nature (with some necessary generalizations), and I believe that's what the 21st century is going to be all about :) Edit: That's not to say 'vibes' are not important as well! From Goethe[1]: "Art is long, life short, judgment difficult, opportunity transient. To act is easy, to think is hard; to act according to our thought is troublesome. Every beginning is cheerful: the threshold is the place of expectation. The boy stands astonished, his impressions guide him: he learns sportfully, seriousness comes on him by surprise. Imitation is born with us: what should be imitated is not easy to discover. The excellent is rarely found, more rarely valued. The height charms us, the steps to it do not: with the summit in our eye, we love to walk along the plain. It is but a part of art that can be taught: the artist needs it all. Who knows it half, speaks much, and is always wrong: who knows it wholly, inclines to act, and speaks seldom or late. The former have no secrets and no force : the instruction they can give is like baked bread, savory and satisfying for a single day; but flour cannot be sown, and seed-corn ought not to be ground. Words are good, but they are not the best. The best is not to be explained by words. The spirit in which we act is the highest matter. Action can be understood and again represented by the spirit alone. No one knows what he is doing while he acts aright, but of what is wrong we are always conscious. Whoever works with symbols only is a pedant, a hypocrite, or a bungler. There are many such, and they like to be together. Their babbling detains the scholar: their obstinate mediocrity vexes even the best. The instruction which the true artist gives us opens the mind; for, where words fail him, deeds speak. The true scholar learns from the known to unfold the unknown, and approaches more and more to being a master." [1] Wilhelm Meister's Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship) Book VII Chapter IX
• pc86 2y ago
  How many people in their early/mid 20s, let alone teenagers, understand this? I'm just a few years from 40 and I can still vividly remember a time not too long ago where this was not at all how I thought.
  • nmz 2y ago
    I doubt anybody is so naive, we all understand that we can't change everyones minds, however, we are social creatures, and to be accepted in the community is a goal to strive for, Of course, if the platform has a literal form of "dislike" and "like" then popularity and acceptability by the community is the goal. Both of these are not goals to strive for, and yet are of importance in your own survival. BUT, as it turns out, game-ifying social conventions does not lead to lasting friendships or anything of value. Just witty put downs and outrage culture. Another game that is like this is our very own economic system, at least when it comes to aesthetics, money is yet another "upvote"/"like" game. The impact and similarities more clear and apparent.
• hbn 2y ago
  Saying things that were obvious scientific facts 5 years ago are now controversial and can now get you fired from your job -- and people are more gung-ho than ever to seek out anyone who says something "wrong" and try to ruin their life over it. That's why I don't speak my opinions to anyone other than people I'm close with.
  • abustamam 2y ago
    Can you provide some examples? There have always been companies where certain opinions were deemed "controversial" and could get someone fired. I think it's more common now though, and with more opinions being considered controversial, but I can't think of any that would be considered scientific facts. I wouldn't want to work for a company that considers science controversial anyway.
    • pessimizer 2y ago
      > There have always been companies where certain opinions were deemed "controversial" and could get someone fired. Can you provide some examples?
      • abustamam 2y ago
        Sure 1. Being colored 2. Doing recreational marijuana 3. Being a specific faith (like wearing Hijab for women) 4. Heck, just being a woman Society seems to always have reasons to fire people or deny people a job that seem silly in retrospect, but enough people seem to think it's reasonable enough to do en masse. Edit: I'm not saying any of those reasons, or being fired for holding "controversial" opinions are good, I'm just pointing out it's nothing new.
        • randomdata 2y ago
          > 1. Being colored 2. Doing recreational marijuana 3. Being a specific faith (like wearing Hijab for women) 4. Heck, just being a woman In what way are these opinions, controversial or otherwise? Are you suggesting that people of colour, for example, were fired only if they were of the opinion that they were a person of colour? If they were visibly a person of colour, but adamant that they were caucasian, a promotion was in order instead? They just had to believe?
• Xeyz0r 2y ago
  The lesson I learned quite recently was that I'm not able to satisfy everyone and it's OK
• dclowd9901 2y ago
  > You certainly can just throw things out there, but if you are obsessed with making every single person satisfied with your thoughts, you are going to have a bad time I think you nailed it on the head here, though. At a young age, we often don't carry the self confidence or self awareness to stand by our thoughts or opinions (and really, for good reason -- it's a good time to learn!). We have no sense of self or conviction at that age, despite the very unfair way popular media portrays teens (e.g. as mature adults with fully formed sense of self). But the net result of what GP was mentioning is this lack of self confidence + an overly hostile online conversation definitely makes the resultant introversion/misplaced self worth make a lot of sense. I regularly throw my opinions in discussions online, and often (not most the time, but often), get "downvoted" into oblivion. Part of that is that I like to play devil's advocate or I engage folks who don't agree with me, but part of it is also being a 41 year old person who honestly doesn't give a shit if they have a "popular" opinion, just a well-reasoned one. I chock that up to being roughed up by the world for a bit.