I'm a 26 year old eternal student. I never want to stop learning. I'm interested in physics, math, philosophy, psychology, education, and literature. I'm optimistic about the world and the future.
followed tags: 70
followed domains: 2
badges given: 4 of 8
member for: 2429 days
I think this article makes for a fantastic performance piece - the author is someone who is clearly over-dramatic and probably knows it deep down, and they're expressing their frustrations about how many people out there signal that they find the author undesirable in their dating profiles.
There's plenty of other articles and internet rants out there of a similar form - e.g. "short man complains about how many women list height requirements in their profiles" but since we generally consider being not tall significantly more socially acceptable and less changeable than being dramatic, the short men can be upfront about how unfair it is that they're being discriminated against for something beyond their control. On the other hand, the author of this article needs to play at a complicated jugglig act - they need to communicate idea that these people who don't want "drama" are stupid and wrong for their relationship preferences - while also simultaneously not admitting that they are an over-dramatic person and therefore not needing to confront the fact that maybe there is something they need to change about themselves. But of course, the article itself is a subconscious admission of guilt, because otherwise no one would have written it - even if it remains factually correct in its entirety.
So, if it's a satire I think brilliant and kinda funny. Otherwise yeah it's just annoying.
Nah I still think it's terrible ignoring things you can regulate: we've traded privacy, mental health, and moderate political discourse for convenience. It's not just that we're amplifying human shittyness - we're also making it actively worse by letting extremist groups propagate, driving moderate people to extremes, and lowering everyone's mental health.
The best thing to do is not use social media - but that only benefits you directly, you still have to live with everyone else who does.
Counterpoint- the internet is terrible, and we all would have been better off if it were never invented. But now we're all stuck with it, and we can't leave,because they drove every alternative away by undercutting them.
If you measure human progress by the amount of free services that no one needed and don't make anyone happier, then I guess we're at a net positive. However, by pretty much any other metric (income distribution, psychological health, overall happiness) we're worse off for it.
- Every choice is of the same moral value as every other choice.
Certainly not. If you're on the path where you're starting to think that this is what everyone who disagrees with you believes this, you might want to be careful about where your headspace is at - you're clearly arguing against someone here, but from what I can tell it isn't me.
Not really - I'm not doing a charity by purchasing a chicken sandwich - I'm just exchanging money for goods and services and consciously choosing not to do so isn't going to change his opinion or put his company out of business. Shit was seven years ago - if it was going to bend the needle either way it would have happened by now.
It's not worth the effort anyway - I'm sure that whoever-he-is CEO-guy does alright regardless of how I feel about his opinions, and if anything he probably finds it amusing how angry people got and it probably only strengthen his conviction that he was right. And I have better things to do than keep a checklist of every corporation I'm supposed to hate and boycott because their CEO or executive board doesn't like me.
This ideological battleground stuff is just tiresome at this point. The last few years have been a profound reminder how truly worthless it is to let yourself get angry over things that don't actually amount to anything.
I think by percentage you may be right but by total amount of content you're wrong.
In my lifetime the internet has slowly transitionedfrom a place where only weird people and outcasts hung out to a place where everyone is, and you're a weird luddite if you aren't on the internet. Naturally, there's more content that caters to the normies than there is that caters to the weirdos because there are more normies than weirdos. So you get a lot more traffic to walled gardens like facebook, youtube, and reddit than you do to websites that are doing something interesting and outlandish.
But people still do weird things with the internet (Homestuck, PokemonGo, and VRChat all come to mind in the time since Hubski started). News websites still try to experiment with ways to make interesting content. Meme culture is alive and well. And ultimately, now that everyone's on the internet, that means all the creative people are now on the internet, so there's tremendous potential for new content and loads of it being created - you just probably won't find it on Facebook.
I honestly don't see why this is an issue and I think it's stupid that people are making a big deal.
Some background -
-I honestly forgot it was pride month and don't really care.
-I've also eaten chick-fil-a in the past week. Their spicy chicken sandwich is pretty good.
-I still think Jack Dorsey is an asshole.
Some people have better things to do then play the victim all the time, y'know? Too many lemon bars to bake to give a shit who the twitter CEO promotes or what a sandwich chain CEO thinks the definition of a family unit is.
- We really are using tech to create a dystopia, aren't we.
I'll bet on disease over dystopia. The people who suffer the most as a result of social media are the people that use it, not the faceless "Other" that they're afraid of. The internet lets people feed on their own insecurities and become worse versions of themselves.
People speculate on what the next big thing is that we'll discover is killing us (e.g. cigarettes, sugar etc.) but I'm now convinced that it will be the internet. If I pulled up reddit right now, I'd probably be able to watch a video of a cute animal, read a news headline that would make me angry at Donald Trump, and see a sarcastic twitter post- all in the range of a minute. There's no way that quickly switching between all of those emotions is psychologically healthy - my best guess is that it's bound to leave you .
paranoid and angry, but unsure why. The only ways to prevent that state are to obsessively curate what you see, or to not use or minimize use of the internet.
I was going to answer "anyone who isn't over 70" but I like 65 better come to think of it.
I hope Bernie decides that some young Democrat with similar values who's decided to run deserves his endorsement. I agree with almost everything he says, but do we really want to elect someone that old? Let him live longer by not being president.