5 ms·

The article is tracking irrelevant information over time and calling it significant. Please don't publish this stuff on Hacker news.

qeternity 2y ago
To say nothing of the article itself, calling something that makes the front page of HN irrelevant is sort of how the US ended up in the situation it finds itself in today. If your only response to a counterpoint is to disparage it, you will find yourself with a large cohort of people that believe they have been shut out of the conversation.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  [flagged]
- linotype 2y ago
  No, being permissive of nonsense is what caused the US to arrive at where it is today. The tea party patriots nonsense should have been the end of it.
  - boredpeter 2y ago
    [dead]
  - qeternity 2y ago
    What do you mean permissive of nonsense? You mean permissive of views you disagree with? Yeah, I absolutely don't agree with that, and a cursory glance at history will show you that stifling dissent is the quickest path to ruin. And for the record, I largely disagree with the nonsense I suspect you are referring to. I also respect that there a bunch of people who don't, and in a democracy, that matters.
    - linotype 2y ago
      Qanon and birtherism were both nonsense at the time and it’s still true today. Lying to score political points should never be tolerated. I’m surprised I have to say this.
- caseyy 2y ago
  I disagree. There is a lot of distracting, dividing, and just trash-tier content in social media that society is only worse off for taking seriously. Politically divisive articles such as ones encouraging identity politics tend to fall in that category. So do articles with emotionally loaded terms like “woke”. Maybe they are loaded not for us, but we all know they are loaded emotionally for many. And it doesn’t matter much if many other people engage in it, it is likely healthier for you and society not to. Now, I agree that maybe “irrelevant” should be grounded in context — it is irrelevant to a discerning reader. It is relevant in society and its discourse, unfortunately.
  - qeternity 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - caseyy 2y ago
      Divisiveness is the wrong solution to real problems. I am happy to discuss any cultural value respectfully and seriously. But nothing productive will come out of a discussion mired by incendiary language and identity politics, it is a waste of time. Just look at how the article dives into divisive controversies from the first sentence. There won’t be meaningful discourse on social media for it. Hate and anxiety is the best it can hope for. It’s just not written in a way to foster collaborative efforts, not in the masses.
      - qeternity 2y ago
        Divisiveness is an outcome, not a solution. So I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm just not sure that you realize your framing of things that you agree with as "respectful and serious" and anything you don't as "incendiary" and "a waste of time" is literally the dynamic that you are railing against. You are half of the problem. Somewhere else on the internet, someone else is saying the very same thing about you. You can't claim the masses won't engage in collaborative debate when you aren't willing to either.
        2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
biorach 2y ago
It's attempting to gauge sentiment through tracking a number of proxies. It's obviously flawed, but it's a reasonable attempt at measuring shifting attitudes in various spheres.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
[flagged]

qeternity 2y ago

To say nothing of the article itself, calling something that makes the front page of HN irrelevant is sort of how the US ended up in the situation it finds itself in today. If your only response to a counterpoint is to disparage it, you will find yourself with a large cohort of people that believe they have been shut out of the conversation.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
[flagged]
linotype 2y ago
No, being permissive of nonsense is what caused the US to arrive at where it is today. The tea party patriots nonsense should have been the end of it.
- boredpeter 2y ago
  [dead]
- qeternity 2y ago
  What do you mean permissive of nonsense? You mean permissive of views you disagree with? Yeah, I absolutely don't agree with that, and a cursory glance at history will show you that stifling dissent is the quickest path to ruin. And for the record, I largely disagree with the nonsense I suspect you are referring to. I also respect that there a bunch of people who don't, and in a democracy, that matters.
  - linotype 2y ago
    Qanon and birtherism were both nonsense at the time and it’s still true today. Lying to score political points should never be tolerated. I’m surprised I have to say this.
caseyy 2y ago
I disagree. There is a lot of distracting, dividing, and just trash-tier content in social media that society is only worse off for taking seriously. Politically divisive articles such as ones encouraging identity politics tend to fall in that category. So do articles with emotionally loaded terms like “woke”. Maybe they are loaded not for us, but we all know they are loaded emotionally for many. And it doesn’t matter much if many other people engage in it, it is likely healthier for you and society not to. Now, I agree that maybe “irrelevant” should be grounded in context — it is irrelevant to a discerning reader. It is relevant in society and its discourse, unfortunately.
- qeternity 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Divisiveness is the wrong solution to real problems. I am happy to discuss any cultural value respectfully and seriously. But nothing productive will come out of a discussion mired by incendiary language and identity politics, it is a waste of time. Just look at how the article dives into divisive controversies from the first sentence. There won’t be meaningful discourse on social media for it. Hate and anxiety is the best it can hope for. It’s just not written in a way to foster collaborative efforts, not in the masses.
    - qeternity 2y ago
      Divisiveness is an outcome, not a solution. So I'm not really sure what you mean. I'm just not sure that you realize your framing of things that you agree with as "respectful and serious" and anything you don't as "incendiary" and "a waste of time" is literally the dynamic that you are railing against. You are half of the problem. Somewhere else on the internet, someone else is saying the very same thing about you. You can't claim the masses won't engage in collaborative debate when you aren't willing to either.
      - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

biorach 2y ago

It's attempting to gauge sentiment through tracking a number of proxies. It's obviously flawed, but it's a reasonable attempt at measuring shifting attitudes in various spheres.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

[flagged]