5 ms·
>"it's increasingly difficult to actually have a dissenting voice online." If willing, I would appreciate some examples, actual or hypothetical. I have left a
by eth0up 7mo ago
>"it's increasingly difficult to actually have a dissenting voice online."
If willing, I would appreciate some examples, actual or hypothetical. I have left a few comments regarding my concerns over AI and have been surprised by the hostile reactions. Much of my research kindof revolves around a central concern matching your statement. But my perspective is in a vacuum, out of touch with what others are dealing with. Feel free to ignore this if not comfortable.
- orangebread 7mo agoDon't apologize for your truth. A lot of people on reddit/HN fancy themselves as free-thinkers and the moment something contradicts their reality they reveal themselves to be as emotionally vulnerable as the rest of humanity.
- scroogedhard 7mo ago[dead]
- zmgsabst 7mo agoIt was already going downhill a decade ago, eg, using bad think on video games. But my personal experience is something snapped in a lot of people during COVID when people asked reasonable questions like — “is an experimental gene therapy really QALY positive in populations not at risk, such as healthy children?” According to government actuarial tables, the answer was no: the UK government concluded that there was no point at which for those under 40 the immunizations prevented more serious outcomes than they caused. But people were (and often still are) absolutely rabid if you point out we (in administering a QALY negative treatment to a vulnerable population) decided to poison children and young adults en masse. I’ve had people look up my mother on Facebook for calmly citing UK government actuarial reports, which did the calculation on COVID vs vaccine harms. That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”. But I’m not sure I qualify for what you’re asking, as I generally post under my true identity, not anonymously.
- datsci_est_2015 7mo agoYour examples are tips of icebergs that indicate much more problematic opinions. I’m not shocked you received pushback.
- zmgsabst 7mo agoThat’s exactly my point: HN is a place where people don’t ask what is true with intellectual curiosity but classify opinions as “problematic” and justify bullying people based on that. HN becomes emotionally upset if you discuss actuarial tables or quote people’s own words from their own presentations because those facts go against the narratives many on HN believe — and like many before them, people on HN believe censorship and bullying are justified by that emotional turmoil. As you just did, impugning my character while carefully avoiding the veracity of my claims — only saying they’re “problematic”, as a good apparatchik would.
- Garnish0062 7mo agoMuch indeed. The word "problematic" is one of the most terribly overused words in today's age.
- gusgus01 7mo agoI mean they made claims about the efficacy and risks of the COVID vaccine without sourcing them and used verbiage like "poisoning our children" to refer to vaccinating them. I think tip of the iceberg for "problematic opinions" is a fair response.
- datsci_est_2015 7mo agoYeah it’s a euphemism and a bit of a shibboleth, which, like all shibboleths, can be a bit triggering to those who feel outgrouped by it. I could’ve been more precise: “opinions that are based on weak evidence that confirm a certain preimagined view of the world rather than challenge it”.