another_sock

The people who think 4chan is some existential threat to society rather than anti-social people and people with autism blowing off steam and being mean to each other are the people who aren't very familiar with 4chan. 99% of it is just shitposts, the other 0.9% is people who aren't doing anything bad, the 0.1% is removed.

No I don't think he's talking about Trump.

I don't care about Trump being kicked off twitter. He is just a name that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I also don't care about the people you agree with or how they ended up, although I do think it's funny that you seem to care about them and yet you are pushing for a similar environment that will end up with similar results.

Yes we should ban everybody who shows open disagreement and doesn't take the party line in the serious manner we see fit.

I am not trolling, I am highlighting the absurd manner in which so many HN commenters have suddenly become champions of Stalinistic censorship by all these multinational corporations.

Yes, it's a great idea for the community to ban people who say things which are unpopular. That will lead to a very healthy community filled with free thought and critical thinking.

The funny thing is despite your mockery of my reply, literally all the things I've mentioned have already happened to people in real life. It's just a matter of time until it's well known and happening to very milquetoast people. Eventually it will be happening to people you agree with, and when it does, remember this comment.

I'm not throwing a slippery slope anything out. You are failing to see the interconnected nature of all of the things I mentioned. Twitter and all the big tech companies should be nationalized, but they won't be because like financial institutions they are more powerful than any government at this point. If you think this power trip all these companies are currently on is going to end with the bad orange man then you are not very well versed in history.

Yes and I'm sure when all the standards for allowing people on the wrong side of public opinion are removed, that will never end up flipping around on the people who pushed for their removal.

That was debunked by fact-checkers.

Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)

Well it's sarcasm in this case, but it won't be when you see it elsewhere.

Do you have a link from a state-sanctioned and social media site approved source where I can read about this?

Yes like that picture of Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov!

This is good!

I'm not insinuating anything lmao. You are adding a bunch of loaded terms like conspiracy because you can't just enjoy the position you are in. Again, enjoy it while you have it!

You're not afraid to ask what the competing narrative is though, because you have all the institutions pushing the dominant narrative on your side. Enjoy this!

Yes exactly, the riots and burned down buildings across the country over the past few years have just been youthful expressions!

It's not really weird, it's expected. What would be weird is if the HN crowd was able to think for themselves when the media, all governments, and tech companies are pushing the same narrative. Employees of tech companies aren't any different than employees of non-tech companies, their main trait is following orders.

I think a lot of posts on HN are by people not particularly capable of critical thought.

It's so amazingly funny how HN isn't smart enough to figure out how things are trending.

Yes because one is meat and the other is not meat.

The elite need lots of slaves to work the fields and if you can keep them spending all their free time worried and emotionally exhausted about the news item du jour you never need to even whip them, they won't have any energy to cause you problems.

Information used to be hard to reproduce and disseminate across geography. This is no longer the case, and now exploits in human psychology that weren't really feasible to exploit in the past are available.

The "problem" isn't facebook or any social media company, it is with humans as a whole, and it isn't really a problem, just an evolutionary bottleneck. Selection pressures have changed and certain traits that used to be a net positive are now net negatives. People will adjust generationally as those resistant to mass hysteria from information overload succeed and get rich while everybody else (most people on HN included) fail and get poorer. Until the adjustment to the new ecosystem is complete, expect instability and uncertainty.

This is basically high-school level "philosophical" musing and has about as much application in real life, which is none.

Trying to redefine work from something it has been for all of human history (a place where you do work) into some sort of personal self expression is what is arrogant and harmful. Things are the way they are for reasons. Don't remove a fence until you know why it's there, and we know why the fence of no politics or religion is there (most humans aren't good at compartmentalizing their personal feelings on subjective social issues once those personal feelings are out in the open in an environment where you aren't around people who all share your personal feelings)

Most humans can't discuss those topics rationally. It's not arrogant to say this, it's just basic truth. Throughout history, work hasn't been a social club, because everybody has a different preferred social environment and if you add in a social club then the thing people are getting paid for (work) is much harder to focus on. Your comment itself shows how passionate you are about political or social issues, which is fine for you if that is how you wish to proceed in life, but work is not the place for the emotionalism that is paired with passion for 99% of people. Left wing, right wing, authoritarian, libertarian, liberal, communist, fascist, etc doesn't matter, work is best done separated by those can put aside those motivations while working and focus on whatever it is they're being paid to work on.

Don't worry, I don't take much personally and this was not one of those times. The little back and forth that may or may not be sharp is what makes these discussions fun (for me at least) in the first place. I think the added danger and possibility for severe personal consequences might end up being a net positive for everybody in the long run, as you can see in Eastern Europe where Stalinism and its restrictions on free speech resulted in a group of people who generally play things close to the chest by nature but have a very rich inner life and are able to contemplate serious or emotionally charged subjects in a way I find most Americans and first worlders in general lack.

New negatives in environments always come with new positives in the environment's survivors, and I am hopeful that we will all end up with a more thoughtful introspection similar to that which came from "oppression" (I hesitate to call what we are experiencing oppression due to how minor it is compared to gulags.) Some of the world's most beautiful literature as well as brilliant scientists have come out of Eastern Europe, I am optimistic that something similar will be the fruits of what is now underway globally with the advent of social media and its soft tyranny over social relations.

I definitely agree with you on that. Most people are far more likely to have a productive discussion when at least one party goes out of their way to be nuanced and careful in how they word things as well as the discussion not taking place in a performative environment (online or in front of other people.) It is definitely a lesson I have learned over time and through my own biases and misbehavior causing myself unneeded problems that were/are quiet foolish in hindsight.

With that said, all of these topics are not worth getting too into, since even 100% agreement on HBD or esoteric human rights philosophy topics doesn't really accomplish much. I have arrived at a sort of internal understanding that it doesn't matter if most people would disagree with me on this stuff. Also, if I find the common perspective to be ridiculous or stupid that doesn't really matter or entitle me to pressing the issue when it doesn't matter. What genuinely matters is finding common humanity/shared goals that are mutually beneficial and not getting bent out of shape over stuff that doesn't really matter, which in this case is trivia pertaining to generalized (which is practically useless individually) racial outcomes. Hopefully I've explained myself clearly and shown that I don't have any ill will intended towards you or anybody who has different opinions or may even hate or take offense at how I see the world. Have a nice Sunday :)

It is a healthier way to live to keep that sort of stuff to yourself. There used to be a rule not to bring up religion or politics up at work, and this rule was good. Just because the left or what is more commonly known as liberal side of people are increasingly comfortable ignoring that rule doesn't make it any less of a proper rule. Keep the personal feelings aside and do what you're paid to do to the best of your ability, eventually the pendulum will swing in the other direction and the loud people now will be punished for being loud, and then the people on the right will begin to be loud and obnoxious. At that point, even if you agree with things being said, still keep your mouth shut and do your work to your best of your ability. Everybody who is paying attention and values hard work sees who is showing restraint and that restraint gets rewarded in the long term. It's not as fun in the short term to have discipline when very few people around you have discipline, but long term it is much more fun and worthwhile.

My comment was in relation to the topic of the parent comment, which is why I mentioned it at all. Income tax rates and environmental regulation very rarely get brought up in conjunction with why there are gaps in racial outcome that aren't the result of racism. I think we can both agree that the things I mentioned are more more on point with arguments pertaining to racial outcomes, even if you completely disagree with those arguments.

I don't care about you trying to cancel me lol that's why this is a sock account, but it's even more telling that you think basic descriptive (not prescriptive) observations about reality are not moderate.