9 ms·

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. Politica

by 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.
    - caseyy 2y ago
      By solution I meant “tool” or “method” to resolve. Divisiveness is not a necessary outcome of most disagreements (political, cultural, societal, interpersonal), and it is not the right tool to solve them. Diplomacy is a better tool, calm and understanding discussion is another, sometimes just listening is enough — there are many good tools. Divisive politics is not one of them. I may not disagree with the message/data of the article, but I do disagree in the delivery/reporting quality. And the overall package is healthier for society to disregard. I do see your point that it can be discussed, but there are better articles to start a helpful and serious debate. I hope you can see my view. Frankly, look at how the HN community reacted to your comments accusing others of being the problem and such. You may have an important and valid message but you should work on its delivery, because serious people (like decision-makers or those who contemplate deeply) won’t engage in a discussion like this. Apologies if this is unpleasant to read.

by caseyy 2y ago

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.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    By solution I meant “tool” or “method” to resolve. Divisiveness is not a necessary outcome of most disagreements (political, cultural, societal, interpersonal), and it is not the right tool to solve them. Diplomacy is a better tool, calm and understanding discussion is another, sometimes just listening is enough — there are many good tools. Divisive politics is not one of them. I may not disagree with the message/data of the article, but I do disagree in the delivery/reporting quality. And the overall package is healthier for society to disregard. I do see your point that it can be discussed, but there are better articles to start a helpful and serious debate. I hope you can see my view. Frankly, look at how the HN community reacted to your comments accusing others of being the problem and such. You may have an important and valid message but you should work on its delivery, because serious people (like decision-makers or those who contemplate deeply) won’t engage in a discussion like this. Apologies if this is unpleasant to read.