[amplex1337]

You certainly can just throw things out there, but if you are obsessed with making every single person satisfied with your thoughts, you are going to have a bad time. The world is full of people who disagree with you, but you need to learn more than ever to recognize and filter out what you don't care about. I don't even view replies to posts any longer, 98% of the time because I am not seeking validation sharing my opinion. I still change my mind sometimes based on others thoughts and opinions, so you can't say I am fostering avoidance too much, just very selective, as my time is valuable.

[mindcrime]

The world is full of people who disagree with you, but you need to learn more than ever to recognize and filter out what you don't care about. I don't even view replies to posts any longer, 98% of the time because I am not seeking validation sharing my opinion.

This is something it's taken me a while to come to terms with. I used to want to fully engage with everybody and everything. It was anathema to me to just "broadcast something into the void" and ignore replies. But over time I came to realize that a. I don't scale to engaging with every single person who replies to something I say online, and b. I don't owe those people a response or any of my time/attention; especially the trolls and bots and other lamers that are so prevalent these days.

So now I'm more comfortable (albeit maybe not 100% comfortable) with treating things in more of a "fire and forget" fashion. I say what I want to say, and people can do with it what they will. I just can't be arsed to engage with the trolls and other randos. But... if somebody has a mature, reasonable, professional response then I am willing, on a selective basis, to dig in deeper and have a longer discussion.

[Lacerda69]

I no longer say things online except some rare occasions. Mass social media online discourse will slowly vanish in the next 15 yrs

[abustamam]

Is this one of those rare occasions? :)

I don't think HN is immune from the "redditization" of the internet, though it's certainly a better community than most.

[randomdata]

> "redditization" of the internet

'Redditation' of the world. If it were only taking place on the internet it wouldn't be all that concerning.

[bondarchuk]

I always feel kinda bad about starting/continuing a 1 on 1 conversation on here because of the "don't cross-examine" thing in the guidelines.

[ianmcgowan]

Hard agree with this - sometimes find myself typing out a well-intentioned response, but then cancelling because of the potential downside years in the future for some anodyne opinion held today. Not to mention Roko's Basilisk (all hail the benevolent AI! :)

[Teever]

That's an interesting thought. What do you think will replace it?

[Lacerda69]

Not sure but I think it will be more focused on offline life instead. AI and enshittification will make the internet and the core error in its monetization based on ads so bad that it will be replaced by a much smaller and more private version.

[dartos]

Idk seems like you post comments on HN almost daily.

[randomdata]

But do they say anything?

[nuancebydefault]

I'm curious. You say what to say. What's the incentive to do this? Educate people or...?

[randomdata]

> What's the incentive to do this?

That is no doubt one of life's mysteries, ultimately, but people writing down their thoughts seems to be a common practice amongst humans. One theory is that it helps the brain process information, but who knows? No matter the exact mechanism, though, the incentive is the same as why anyone writes something they are thinking about down.

> Educate people

Forum-going is a solitary activity. There are no people other than you. Just you and your thoughts, along with some software to prompt you with some ideas to think about (which is the value-add over a traditional journal).

And that is the problem with the 'Redditization' of the world being discussed. That solitary activity, which is fine when done in solitude – whatever floats your boat, is leaking out into the real world where other people are there to feel it and that has consequences. An increasing number of people are failing to recognize that software and people are not the same thing, thereby treating people in the real world as if they are software. But people are not software, so you find these social issues emerging.

[nuancebydefault]

How nice of you to give a rather elaborate answer to a question asked towards somebody else.

It's a funny take, a forum is just you vs software. If I understand things correctly, me, the software is prompting you back! Or maybe it's the other way around? These days, one never can be sure.

[randomdata]

> How nice of you to give a rather elaborate answer to a question asked towards somebody else.

And how wonderful it is that you, dear software, provided another prompt after my last journal entry. I wasn't sure of what to write next, so this prompting has proven quite helpful.

> If I understand things correctly, me, the software is prompting you back!

Prompting is two way street, indeed. Input into the software from the person may produce a result from the software, and the output from the software back to the person may produce a result that is fed back into the software. Lather, rinse, repeat. Again, this is the value that said software offers over a classic journal.

But, regardless, if that is how someone wants to spend their time in solitude, more power to them! But we do see a problem emerging where a growing number of people are not able to differentiate between people and software and are taking that solitary journaling with prompts out into the real world and are treating people as if they are software. But people aren't software, and this leads to social problems. Which isn't terribly surprising. If people treated other people as if they were dogs, you would find an emergence of social problems too. It turns out, for the best outcome of people, people need to be treated like people.

[mindcrime]

I don't really put that much thought into it, TBH. I mean, yes, there are times when "educate people" is explicitly the answer, but not always. Sometimes it's just a reflection of some vague sense of desire to share and communicate with no particular purpose. That seems to be a sort of part of human nature for most of us, to some degree.

[nuancebydefault]

Probably you won't read this anymore but maybe some other people, or maybe nobody. But anyways I appreciate the answer(ing) you did!

[mindcrime]

Just to be clear, I don't mean to say that I don't reply to anybody, ever. Far from it. I enjoy a good conversation - *so long as it's some combination of productive, interesting, polite, professional, etc.*. I was trying to say that I'm more willing now to not reply when it's a response that is clearly just trying to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument, or somebody who is rude / disrespectful / etc.

I reply to people all the time, especially on HN where the S/N ratio tends to be a bit higher.

[nuancebydefault]

Indeed. When the conversation goes for example in the direction of: 'i am right, you are wrong', it is best to categorize as noise not begging a reaction.

[sifttio]

He doesn't reply anymore.

[nuancebydefault]

Mindcrime did in fact

[hbn]

Saying things that were obvious scientific facts 5 years ago are now controversial and can now get you fired from your job -- and people are more gung-ho than ever to seek out anyone who says something "wrong" and try to ruin their life over it.

That's why I don't speak my opinions to anyone other than people I'm close with.

[janetmissed]

What are these obvious scientific facts? Being honest I've only ever heard people complain about not being able to say "obvious scientific facts" in reference to specific beliefs about transgender or gay people.

[tim333]

Popular things for getting into trouble over seem to be there being two sexes of which you are probably born one, heritability of IQ and until recently the origin of covid though I think maybe folk have chilled out a bit there. Also I got some grief for saying natural immunity was likely as good or better as vaccine acquired.

[abustamam]

Can you provide some examples? There have always been companies where certain opinions were deemed "controversial" and could get someone fired. I think it's more common now though, and with more opinions being considered controversial, but I can't think of any that would be considered scientific facts. I wouldn't want to work for a company that considers science controversial anyway.

[pessimizer]

> There have always been companies where certain opinions were deemed "controversial" and could get someone fired.

Can you provide some examples?

[abustamam]

Sure

1. Being colored 2. Doing recreational marijuana 3. Being a specific faith (like wearing Hijab for women) 4. Heck, just being a woman

Society seems to always have reasons to fire people or deny people a job that seem silly in retrospect, but enough people seem to think it's reasonable enough to do en masse.

Edit: I'm not saying any of those reasons, or being fired for holding "controversial" opinions are good, I'm just pointing out it's nothing new.

[randomdata]

> 1. Being colored 2. Doing recreational marijuana 3. Being a specific faith (like wearing Hijab for women) 4. Heck, just being a woman

In what way are these opinions, controversial or otherwise?

Are you suggesting that people of colour, for example, were fired only if they were of the opinion that they were a person of colour? If they were visibly a person of colour, but adamant that they were caucasian, a promotion was in order instead? They just had to believe?

[abustamam]

That's why I was asking OP for examples of facts that were controversial. The one "controversial fact" that came to my mind is the issue of LGBTQ+. Both sides of that coin believe that scientific facts support their side. And it's not unimaginable to me that someone would be fired for making pro/anti-trans comments. Another one is Israel vs Palestine, which of course is a sensitive topic and both sides will cite history to prove that their stance is the "right" one. It's not unimaginable to me that a pro Israel boss would fire an employee with Palestinian flag at their desk, or vice versa.

My point isn't that opinions get people fired (though religious beliefs certainly are opinions), it's that people have always been denied work for a myriad of reasons. People have always had to hide certain aspects of their identity for fear of being fired. Opinions, controversial or not, just seem to be the newest way people get fired. Once cancel culture goes away, bad management will find a new way to fire people they don't like.

It used to be that people would never dare talk about smoking Marijuana at work for fear of retaliation. Now in some US states employers can't retaliate against recreational drug usage, and employees will talk about it casually with no fear.

All in all, I think it's up to us (as a society) to just be accepting of differing opinions. Everything is polarizing now and anyone outside the collective groupthink is ostracized and called names like bigot or monster or supporting genocide or supporting terrorism, etc, etc. I think the current problem stems from members of that groupthink being put into a position of power (IE becoming employers or managers, or even politicians).

There is no simple solution because society is hard to change, but individually we can't judge people because of one "shitty opinion" they may have. That's personally why I like going to large events like concerts; everyone is there for one reason: to have fun listening to music they like. Instead of hating each other because of a shitty opinion, we're united because of a common hobby. That's what we should be looking for in each other imo.

[Xeyz0r]

Actually it's better to do that way nowadays

[gwervc]

> You certainly can just throw things out there

On 4chan sure, on Reddit absolutely hecking no. On the main subs in French wrongthink comments get deleted super fast, and on one English-speaking about a hobby it's an immediate ban.

[miiiiiike]

Indiscriminate banning/blocking is the thing that turned me off most social media.

I don’t post anywhere but HN so my profiles are always bare. Starting something like 5 years ago I’d follow someone and within a day, flip a coin, on tails I was banned or blocked.

I eventually deleted the last of my social accounts. They turned into places where strangers were just there to torment each other or receive unconditional praise.

[fire_lake]

Part of this is ok if the sub has specific purpose and bringing all sorts of identity politics (from any perspective) is a distraction from the topic at hand. Similar to how blocking spam is not a free speech issue. The problem is when there are no avenues for controversial discussion left, which would be the case if the tech megacorps controlled every platform (as they nearly do)

[damsalor]

Nah. Corps just want money. It’s the politically connected prudes that ruin it for everyone

[int_19h]

Out of curiosity, which hobby is it?

[pc86]

How many people in their early/mid 20s, let alone teenagers, understand this?

I'm just a few years from 40 and I can still vividly remember a time not too long ago where this was not at all how I thought.

[nmz]

I doubt anybody is so naive, we all understand that we can't change everyones minds, however, we are social creatures, and to be accepted in the community is a goal to strive for, Of course, if the platform has a literal form of "dislike" and "like" then popularity and acceptability by the community is the goal. Both of these are not goals to strive for, and yet are of importance in your own survival. BUT, as it turns out, game-ifying social conventions does not lead to lasting friendships or anything of value. Just witty put downs and outrage culture.

Another game that is like this is our very own economic system, at least when it comes to aesthetics, money is yet another "upvote"/"like" game. The impact and similarities more clear and apparent.

[randomdata]

> The world is full of people who disagree with you

One should hope. Disagreement is how you learn. It is why we talk to each other.

But that's not what we're talking about here. With 'Reddit' behaviour transcending beyond Internet forums, we're losing the disagreement. Now we see ostracization. There is no: "You are wrong because X." or "That is an interesting thought, but have you considered Y?" it has become "There is something wrong with you." and in the extreme "Say goodbye to your job/friends/family."

[Anotheroneagain]

The world is full of people who disagree with you,

Don't you think it's worrisome that we can't agree on anything? And that includes things that are supposed to have objective answers. Why can't we find the truth? We now have instant global communication available almost 24/7, shouldn't it bring the period of unprecedented unity?

[zarathustreal]

The notion of truth is an illusion, this has been a philosophical debate since the beginning of time. The fact is, every person occupies unique physical space and thus has unique life experiences and a unique perspective of each “event”. It’s the standard multi-sided coin phenomenon. Ask two people standing on opposite sides what is on the face and they’ll give you two different answers and both be right and both be wrong. It’s not a solvable problem because there is no observable objective reality that we can all agree on. Granted, I’m fairly certain there is an objective physical reality, it’s just not one that we can all observe the same and agree upon

[RiverCrochet]

Inaccurate.

> The fact is, every person occupies unique physical space and thus has unique life experiences and a unique perspective of each “event”.

#000000 and #000001 are unique, but most would simply call both colors "black", and not lose any advantage whatsoever. The fact we can communicate using common words and obtain desired effects most of the time disproves that uniqueness created by differing perspectives makes truth an "illusion" or meaningless.

[abustamam]

This appears to be true in a vacuum, but practically it's not for many "truths." For example, we can all agree that the holocaust was an atrocity that should have never happened. Certainly there are folks who don't believe that, or who don't even believe that it ever occurred, but the vast majority of reasonable people would consider those folks irrational (to put it mildly).

Now, I notice that I use "we all agree" and "vast majority," which is no way to explain an objective fact, but what we all agree on as a community or society _is_ reality. A society or community that has a different reality(s) than us is probably not a society or community that we would associate ourselves with.

This operates on several levels and dimensions; the common realities I share with my local Islamic community are different realities than I share with my tech community, or Toastmasters community, or even family.

Going back to the original point, yes, there are no realities that the entire global community can agree on, not even something as seemingly incontroversial as medicine (Christian Science for example https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/mi... ), but no individual is part of the global community. We choose our communities based on the realities that we accept to be true.

[Anotheroneagain]

>Now, I notice that I use "we all agree" and "vast majority," which is no way to explain an objective fact, but what we all agree on as a community or society _is_ reality. A society or community that has a different reality(s) than us is probably not a society or community that we would associate ourselves with.

This is literally schizophrenia, when two such communities meet, a massacre inevitably occurs.

[EnigmaFlare]

> or who don't even believe that it ever occurred, but the vast majority of reasonable people would consider those folks irrational

You're confusing rationally concluding something with feeling morally righteous for believing it. It's not irrational to disbelieve something that people only believe because they'll feel like a bad person or be punished for doubting. See religion, for example.

The only reason most people believe the holocaust happened is because they heard about it from general society. Same way they believe God created the world. Almost no layman has actually studied it. It's just a kind of common faith where being a believer is what's important rather than the content of the belief.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the vast majority of believers aren't believing out of rationality but out of indoctrination.

Same is true of all sorts of beliefs in things that don't directly affect us. We believe them because everyone assures us they're true, not because we sat down and worked out the conclusion for ourselves.

[Anotheroneagain]

I know that you are posing as a teacher, who is sharing knowledge beyond what we would be capable of coming up with ourselves, but this is actually a very primitive thought to us. It's still a very simple thought to understand that the other side of the coin is still there when we're not seeing it, and that the other person is also right. Beyond your comprehension, we can even piece together the objective reality to a profound degree. At least those of us who could avoid the harm that you're doing to us.

Call a more advanced species to take a look, as our intelligence is clearly beyond your comprehension, and you are essentially torturing us here.

[draebek]

I share this viewpoint (is that ironic?), but it's almost entirely unhelpful when it comes time to make decisions, particularly decisions as a society or within a government, right? One powerful person's subjective reality that "all people who look like X should be executed" can most likely become the "subjective reality" of those X people real quick.

[lazide]

That’s a cop out that allows obvious delusion to spread.

If what someone is saying is 90% reality based and verifiable, and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable, that doesn’t make what they say equivalent to someone who says something that is 90% falsified by verifiable reality and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable.

The second person is just delusional or lying, full stop. Any other approach is just cowardice.

[gnramires]

I find equally valid (and perhaps more useful) to say that the notion of truth is the basis of all that exists, and this debate is far from simple. If we don't allow anything to be true at all, then even this discussion, any discussion, or anything at all seems rather pointless. If we're just exchanging gobbledygook, what's the point of even talking? I think there's a general presumption in talking that we're approaching something. That something is essentially truth (i.e. some accurate and/or useful model of some part of reality) or some kind of improvement or even enjoyment, which are both connected to ethics.

Sure, truth is in some senses unknowable (in particular in the 'The Map is not the Territory' sense), but we can have increasingly accurate and useful enough models that improve our lives. It's also the case that most human matters need specific answers, potentially extremely specific to their situation (and hard or impossible to know things, like what's going on in their minds), as well as some ethical and aesthetic frameworks that allows one thing to be good while other thing is bad. It's not obvious at first that ethics could be based on truth and science (and hence have somewhat-universal rights and wrongs), but I've come to believe that's the case indeed. Ethics really derives from fundamental truths about existence, like the reality and nature of suffering (and the nature of the workings of our minds), the nature of existence (for example, work is ethical insofar as it supports us existing at all), and so on.

If you think about it, the notion that anything goes, is really absurd: surely there are things you wouldn't accept essentially no matter what. It's much more absurd than the counterpart that there are true things, even about the nature of existence, that we can approach. The human mind (and minds in general!) can be studied using similar methods to the study of nature (with some necessary generalizations), and I believe that's what the 21st century is going to be all about :)

Edit: That's not to say 'vibes' are not important as well! From Goethe[1]:

"Art is long, life short, judgment difficult, opportunity transient. To act is easy, to think is hard; to act according to our thought is troublesome. Every beginning is cheerful: the threshold is the place of expectation. The boy stands astonished, his impressions guide him: he learns sportfully, seriousness comes on him by surprise. Imitation is born with us: what should be imitated is not easy to discover. The excellent is rarely found, more rarely valued. The height charms us, the steps to it do not: with the summit in our eye, we love to walk along the plain. It is but a part of art that can be taught: the artist needs it all. Who knows it half, speaks much, and is always wrong: who knows it wholly, inclines to act, and speaks seldom or late. The former have no secrets and no force : the instruction they can give is like baked bread, savory and satisfying for a single day; but flour cannot be sown, and seed-corn ought not to be ground. Words are good, but they are not the best. The best is not to be explained by words. The spirit in which we act is the highest matter. Action can be understood and again represented by the spirit alone. No one knows what he is doing while he acts aright, but of what is wrong we are always conscious. Whoever works with symbols only is a pedant, a hypocrite, or a bungler. There are many such, and they like to be together. Their babbling detains the scholar: their obstinate mediocrity vexes even the best. The instruction which the true artist gives us opens the mind; for, where words fail him, deeds speak. The true scholar learns from the known to unfold the unknown, and approaches more and more to being a master."

[1] Wilhelm Meister's Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship) Book VII Chapter IX

[skywhopper]

On the contrary, if everyone can see your opinion, then all the people who disagree have the opportunity to say so. There's always someone in the world who disagrees. Add to that the folks who say things they don't believe for fun, and the ones who are paid by businesses and governments to spread propaganda, and you have a real mess.

[Xeyz0r]

The lesson I learned quite recently was that I'm not able to satisfy everyone and it's OK

[dclowd9901]

> You certainly can just throw things out there, but if you are obsessed with making every single person satisfied with your thoughts, you are going to have a bad time

I think you nailed it on the head here, though. At a young age, we often don't carry the self confidence or self awareness to stand by our thoughts or opinions (and really, for good reason -- it's a good time to learn!). We have no sense of self or conviction at that age, despite the very unfair way popular media portrays teens (e.g. as mature adults with fully formed sense of self).

But the net result of what GP was mentioning is this lack of self confidence + an overly hostile online conversation definitely makes the resultant introversion/misplaced self worth make a lot of sense.

I regularly throw my opinions in discussions online, and often (not most the time, but often), get "downvoted" into oblivion. Part of that is that I like to play devil's advocate or I engage folks who don't agree with me, but part of it is also being a 41 year old person who honestly doesn't give a shit if they have a "popular" opinion, just a well-reasoned one. I chock that up to being roughed up by the world for a bit.

[qrobit]

Aren't most of the replies critic or posted by people disagreeing with you though? Especially on HN, where most users would promote discussion with a reply rather than «Agreed» or «lmao»

[shrimp_emoji]

Agreed lmao