40amxn40

Interesting. We should not forget that social media creates this cozy safe place for everyone, so even if you personally realize that, your friends and acquaintances may not. In my own experience, since around 2010 and with the rise of social media and streaming services -especially after covid- people are more inclined to spend time at home instead of hanging out or doing stuff "in real life"

A very eye opening realization I had after 2020 is that the vast majority of people have absolutely zero critical thinking skills, and that applies specially to snobby intellectual circles like academia or this very forum. They are the most indoctrinated people on Earth and it's like talking to a wall.

We should unironically start our own hacker news.

Bingo. You're wasting your time in HN, lots of simpletons here.

I suspect you're correct, but this only applies to businesses or companies in the US. Does it also apply to groups, communities, clubs, etc?

I don't care about the US, and I don't think the laws there should be an example for the rest of the world.

This comment is meaningless to me. You can elaborate if you want.

I have no problem the hypothetical Nazi being removed from that particular bar, just as long as it's possible to have a Nazi-friendly bar.

I suspect you're not happy with that either, and that's my point.

There's no such thing where I live and the definition of Nazi is extremely fickle. In the strictest sense, there are no Nazis after 1945.

One could set up a dress code or any other arbitrary policy as a proxy to refuse entry to any group, without explicitly doing so.

I was talking about speech in the context of exchanging ideas, but you bring up a very good point. In an ideal world, lying would only damage the reputation of the lier.

One indicator of the quality (or lack thereof) of a society is how easy is to damage one's reputation without evidence. That's why the whole "Believe women" movement is complete and utter bullshit.

This problem has always existed, and the social standing of person A and the social standing of person B typically determined the outcome. Platforms such as Twitter where an unfounded claim can be spread so rapidly and to such a vast number of people are also a modern thing. There's no easy answer, but having the state as arbiter of truth is never the solution.

There is no such thing as a protected class.

You're trying to say "people I agree with".

What you're interested in doesn't matter. You have the right to rebut and the right to fuck off.

Never

Yes

Yes

No

Summer* solstice

Southern hemisfere masterrace reporting in

In what world are you living dude? There are hundreds of articles critizing Elon Musk every fucking week. Same as there are hundreds of articles criticising crypto every week. There are hundreds of articles about "online extremism" every week. In the NYT, The Atlantic, WaPo, etc. They are all cheered on here, in Twitter, etc. If anything, anthing "pro-Musk" is the minority today.

But that doesn't even matter, because the REAL, the IMPORTANT stuff is not commented on. Such as the authoritarian creep in the West, the progression to cashless society and 24/7 surveillance. I'm not going to list every point all but you get the idea.

Deeply rethink things, and check if you can find the blind spots.

Interesting theory but I ultimately disagree. I could have ideas that apply to my country on a national level, but not much input for the local scene specifically. I think these are completely different skillsets in fact.

>> But if you rush your ideas to the global audience, you’re adding to a huge trash pile

You're expecting too much altruism here. I don't care if "I'm adding to a huge trash pile".

>> the alternative, resignation such as you have displayed, is repulsive.

It's more of a lack of interest. Small fish in a big pond vs big fish in a small pond, etc.

Can you explain this obsession with locality? There's a place for it, but not always. In HN I've seen it used as a sort of artificial or unorganic "going back to the roots" kind of thing.

My local newspaper is boring, because nothing happens in my small city. There's no Nexdoor. There are very few if any local events. You can create a youtube or tiktok account and get your message spread to a wider range of people and tell if you're charismatic enough or if your ideas resonate in less time and with less effort. You're also competing with people doing this.

No, it's the opposite. The vast majority of studies have dubious methodologies or samples, draw dubious conclusions or extrapoltions using dubious models. Hence the replication crisis.

It's perfectly fine to be skeptical, moreso when colossal monetary incentives are in place.

But, unlike what the HN guidelines say, I think you already know this and that your comment is in bad faith.