[HN Gopher] How can minorities of regular individuals overturn s...
___________________________________________________________________
How can minorities of regular individuals overturn social
conventions?
Author : yamrzou
Score : 57 points
Date : 2022-02-16 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iaciac.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (iaciac.github.io)
| sleepingadmin wrote:
| Flagged
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Please read the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| sleepingadmin wrote:
| Hello Dang,
|
| Out of curiosity, what rule did I break? I had a fairly long
| post.
|
| I had people responding to me but I guess I can't respond to
| anymore?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30361631
|
| Mikeyouse said:
|
| >And that idiotic CNN chyron was clipped to be troll bait for
| the credulous. If you honestly believe that's how the
| protests were covered, you should spend some time reflecting
| on where you get your news and who you trust.
|
| This was in response to me posting:
| https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1298863702272344064
| and making comment.
|
| This was in the context of my post explaining how non-
| violence similar to MLKjr and Ghandi is an absolute rule.
| That saying 'peaceful protest' while standing in front of
| cars on fire is a violation of the rule.
|
| I feel this is a reasonable and fair discussion.
| dang wrote:
| I interpreted your comment to mean "I flagged this
| submission," which would be breaking the site guideline "If
| you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
|
| Now that I've looked more closely, I realize that you
| actually originally posted a totally different comment and
| then effectively deleted it (by overwriting it with
| "Flagged"). Normally we ask people not to do that--you can
| use the 'delete' link as long as the comment has no
| replies.
|
| In this case, your comment got one reply but the replier
| subsequently deleted it. This is a corner case. It might
| even be a bug in our software if the 'delete' link didn't
| reappear.
|
| Edit: I checked the code and I don't see that bug, so I
| believe there would have been a 'delete' link at the time
| you edited your comment.
| sleepingadmin wrote:
| >I interpreted your comment to mean "I flagged this
| submission," which would be breaking the site guideline
| "If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
|
| I don't have buttons to delete, edit, or flag, never did
| on my previous account neither. My understanding was that
| I do not have these as part of upvote threshold like
| being unable to downvote. Maybe it's my fault and some
| sort of addon doing something?
|
| >Now that I've looked more closely, I realize that you
| actually originally posted a totally different comment
| and then effectively deleted it (by overwriting it with
| "Flagged"). Normally we ask people not to do that--you
| can use the 'delete' link as long as the comment has no
| replies.
|
| I personally did not do this.
|
| >In this case, your comment got one reply but the replier
| subsequently deleted it. This is a corner case. It might
| even be a bug in our software if the 'delete' link didn't
| reappear.
|
| Well no, there was also another comment insulting me
| mostly. I dont recall the username. I wasn't planning to
| reply to that one. It was obvious that they were
| triggered by my comments about the democratic party. I
| didn't really intend to cause a fight over those
| comments.
|
| I guess that Mikeouse has the right of the person who
| replied to me.
|
| Thanks I guess, I'll move on.
| dang wrote:
| Every post to HN has a 'delete' link for a certain amount
| of time after the post is made, as long as the post
| doesn't have replies. (We try not to delete posts that
| got replies, because doing so would be unfair to the
| other commenters in the thread.) This doesn't depend on
| karma.
|
| Flagging depends on karma but the threshold is low (only
| 30) so you can certainly do that. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cflag about how
| to flag comments.
|
| I'm a bit confused here:
|
| > I personally did not do this.
|
| Are we talking about the same 'this"? The logs say that
| you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30361111
| to replace the text with "Flagged" a few minutes after
| you originally posted it.
|
| I'm definitely not meaning to be critical and I don't
| want you to go away feeling unfairly treated, so I'd
| prefer to get this clear. Especially if I'm mistaken
| about something.
| sleepingadmin wrote:
| >Are we talking about the same 'this"? The logs say that
| you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30361111
| to replace the text with "Flagged" a few minutes after
| you originally posted it.
|
| Wasnt me, I assumed I cannot edit my posts in relation to
| the downvote karma threshold thing. Like so I needed to
| prove my worth or something. I stand by my posts even if
| I was wrong. Just like I just was with my recent post
| about the definition of vaccine. I am wrong in my post.
| My brain definition of vaccine certainly included
| 'prevents infection' factor.
|
| It's probably a problem on my end. I was missing the
| reply link when trying to reply to prohobo but now see it
| there. I cannot explain.
|
| This post however was indeed fairly charged/hot post
| about social movements, the requirement to stay
| nonviolent, comments over the democratic party, trump,
| etc. I expected to take heat. I provided a link
| criticizing the democrats over their inaction of
| resolving an obvious problem in the USA. My post did take
| heat quite rapidly in that one.
|
| I dont personally believe my comments were flamebait or
| trolling. I cannot see my original post any longer, maybe
| I did go over the line. So be it. Not to get religious,
| but:
|
| "The past is already gone, the future is not yet here.
| There's only one moment for you to live, and that is the
| present moment" -- Buddha
|
| Let's not waste on further time on the past. Doing so
| will solve nothing.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I wonder if social media has weakened our focus to the point
| where long term change is difficult. BLM matter had a massive run
| out the gate and then nothing really changed. The Amir Locke
| shooting has not really taken on a national protest atmosphere
| like earlier shooting did. There are just so many things to
| notice today on social media that its difficult to focus on one.
| You have both sides politically calling for the end of the world
| if the other side wins, people acting like Joe Rogan is one of
| the four horsemen of the apocalypse, etc. Everything no matter
| how niche is presented as an emergency. Human minds can only
| focus on so many concurrent emergencies so everything just kind
| of fades away eventually.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > BLM matter had a massive run out the gate and then nothing
| really changed
|
| This is quite incorrect. There have been some pretty large
| changes in our criminal justice system over the last 2 years.
|
| The main changes have been:
|
| - Reform District Attorneys like Gascon have been elected in
| many major cities
|
| - Elimination of cash bail in many parts of the US, most
| importantly New York (we were also very close to eliminating
| cash bail in California, but bail bond companies invested
| heavily to stop that)
|
| - Biden appointing a bunch of public defenders to federal
| courts
| jalk wrote:
| Is there anything preventing CA judges from setting bail at
| $1 in cases where a NY judge will now not set bail?
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| Judges can't do that because you can't just wholesale
| eliminate cash bail without other changes as you can't just
| release everyone. The new laws are necessary to introduce
| alternatives as part of that elimination.
|
| For example, the law in California would give judges risk
| scores to switch to a risk based bail system.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Risk scoring has been problematic after AI/expert risk
| scoring systems produced politically unpalatable results.
|
| It is difficult to see a productive way out of this
| dilemma since "correcting" the input data is a priori
| impossible to do in an objective way, and skewing the
| algorithms will almost certainly produce unintended
| effects (e.g. a violent criminal being underscored,
| released, then they victimize innocents again).
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| > This is quite incorrect. There have been some pretty large
| changes in our criminal justice system over the last 2 years.
|
| Do you have any examples? The biggest changes I've seen
| lately have been a result of COVID-19 and a judicial reform
| bill signed by Trump (in contrast to the law & order track
| record of Biden).
|
| > Reform District Attorneys like Gascon have been elected in
| many major cities
|
| Yes, and those crazed Red State loonies in San Francisco are
| trying to recall the king of all progressive DAs, Chesa
| Boudin. Gascon's next.
|
| When San Francisco has a recall vote coming up for the DA of
| San Francisco, just decisively ousted progressive school
| board members, and the entire state had a recall election for
| the governor, one might imagine the progressive agenda isn't
| what normal people want. Claim all you want about the right
| orchestrating these events, but at the end of the day it was
| registered Democrats who got rid of the board members and
| it's registered Democrats that will oust Boudin.
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| Yup, we can credit politicians bending to appease BLM for
| these disastrous policies. The guy who stabbed the woman 40x
| in NY this past week had been arrested and released without
| bail numerous times. Woo-hoo... equity!
|
| It's a massive run they've had, to all our detriment.
| Fortunately, I think it's all backfiring.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent
| enough then they should not be offered bail, not that bail
| should be more expensive. The first option addresses
| violent crime, the second simply punishes poor people. I
| very much doubt someone that habitually performs violent
| crimes is going to think to themselves, no violence today,
| don't want to risk sacrificing my bail money that I may get
| back in a few months.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent
| enough then they should not be offered bail
|
| Won't this ruin your life if someone who looks like you
| commits a violent enough offense, and the police
| accidentally arrest you for it?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Of course, but by focusing bail on violent criminals or
| clear flight risks for financial crimes and those with
| the means to leverage them, you have effectively filtered
| out a good portion of optimally non violent people who
| are not a continuing threat to society. Optimally
| criminal history is part of the decision as well. There
| will always be issues with innocent people being arrested
| and held due to the nature of the accusation but no
| system is perfect. In my opinion holding a person accused
| of a violent enough crime (think a random assault on a
| stranger, intent to cause serious injury, etc. vs a fist
| fight at the bbq) is warranted. The people assaulting
| Asians on the street, the knockout game, etc. should
| absolutely be held, no need for bail. Requiring bail for
| someone accused of stealing diapers should not be
| required as they are not a threat. Of course everyone's
| definition of 'good enough' is going to be different and
| if I ever find myself as that falsely accused person I am
| sure my opinion would change again.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| I presume you're hoping he was poor enough that he would
| have remained imprisoned until his trial, if cash bail were
| imposed?
| lazyeye wrote:
| No presume he's hoping the woman wouldn't have been
| stabbed 40x times.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| Cash bail wouldn't have prevented him from doing anything
| if he was rich. How do you propose to address this
| inequality? Me, I'd prefer we evaluate them immediately
| to decide if they should remain locked up based on the
| merits of the case and not how much money they have, and
| get them into court faster.
| zdragnar wrote:
| This same man was previously arrested over 40 times, 16
| of which occured in one day. After a certain point, _bail
| should not have been offered_. Even if it had, it should
| have been ruinously expensive for anyone, no matter how
| rich.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Whether or not he should have been let out at all is
| completely independent of the cash bail system, unless
| you think that the decision of whether or not to release
| him should be contingent on his financial situation.
| notreallyserio wrote:
| Exactly. Too many people confuse "no cash bail" with "no
| pre-trial jail at all". I'm guessing there is some
| political messaging involved, sponsored by the bail
| industry.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I'm asking in good faith, to be clear:
|
| Can you explain to me the benefit of the elimination of cash
| bail in new york or point me to resources why the elimination
| of cash bail is good? I hear a huge earful about how terrible
| the elimination of cash bail is and pointing at random crimes
| as caused by this elimination but I hear almost nothing as
| for the reasons why it was eliminated in the first place.
| 3729426s73 wrote:
| Keeping a person in jail because they can't afford bail is
| obviously horrible for that person, and that should be
| reason enough to oppose it, but it can also be harmful for
| other people.
|
| A poor person who is finally acquitted after months of
| waiting in jail is likely to be released to homelessness,
| unemployment, and debt. They will also be suffering from
| the mental and physical trauma of their incarceration,
| which makes it more difficult for them to deal with their
| situation. Crime may be the only realistic means for them
| to survive, even if they have never committed a crime
| before.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Eliminating cash bail doesn't get more people out of
| jail. It keeps more people in it.
|
| The purpose of pre-trial release is to let those out who
| are unlikely to cause harm or flee while they await
| trial.
|
| If someone poses a risk, they are detained.
|
| If someone poses a risk and is detained, bail is a tool
| to allow them out and ensure they return. Without it, you
| just keep them in jail.
|
| Cash bail certainly provides advantages to those with
| assets or credit, but this is a separate issue.
| thebean11 wrote:
| The idea is that it's immoral to charge people (who have
| not been convicted of a crime) money to be let out of jail.
| Cash bail hurts poor people who either can't get the money,
| or get charged usurious rates to borrow the money.
|
| It's easy enough to find cases where crime could have been
| avoided if the offender were locked up. Stories of innocent
| people spending time in jail or losing large sums of money
| aren't as enticing.
| josephcsible wrote:
| I feel like saying "charge people money" and "losing
| large sums of money" misrepresents what bail is. It's a
| deposit that gets refunded to you in full as long as you
| don't skip town instead of showing up for your trial.
| howinteresting wrote:
| In practice most people are forced to use bail bonds. If
| your cash bail is set to $150k, you're going to go to a
| bail bondsman and pay them $15k instead (and lose that
| 15k forever).
|
| Cash bail is a monstrous creation.
| nawgz wrote:
| I feel like ignoring that a vast majority of American
| people live paycheck to paycheck and then pretending
| people have "refundable deposit" cash piles sitting
| around is either incredibly disingenuous or the first
| time you've ever thought about poverty
| wonderwonder wrote:
| sure, except most people don't have enough money for bail
| lying around, most can't afford a $400 emergency. So that
| bail money comes from their family rent / food money.
| That or they just sit in prison, and lose their jobs. So
| they may have all charges dropped but still end up
| financially devastated due to bail.
| 3729426s73 wrote:
| It's only refunded (minus fees) if you have thousands of
| dollars lying around. Poor people don't have that. They
| have to use a bail bond company, which means paying large
| sums of money they will never get back. Many poor people
| can't even afford to use a bail bond company and have to
| stay in jail, or plead guilty to a crime they didn't
| commit.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > which means paying large sums of money
|
| And in the wonderful cycle of capitalism, that money is
| then used to fund ballot propositions to keep cash bail
| in place
| 3729426s73 wrote:
| I would say it's statism or cronyism rather than
| capitalism. It doesn't have anything to do with ownership
| of the means of production.
| mc32 wrote:
| Is that due to simple usury or due to cost of risk? In
| other words, if enough of the bailed pop. skips bail
| (complete loss for bondsman), that money has to come from
| somewhere --and that somewhere may be both honest and
| dishonest criminals as well as innocent suspects.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| It's a mix of both.
|
| The bail bond industry (like most "vice" industries) has
| much higher profit margins than comparable insurance
| companies: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2
| 017/05/bail-bo...
| thebean11 wrote:
| The "losing large sums of money" was in reference to
| taking out a loan to pay the money, they are expensive. I
| feel like that was pretty clear in my comment.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| -> _Elimination of cash bail in many parts of the US, most
| importantly New York (we were also very close to eliminating
| cash bail in California, but bail bond companies invested
| heavily to stop that)_
|
| Let's have a look at the latest unintended consequences. One
| example from central New York one man was arrested and
| released without bail on 16 separate occasions between
| November and January. [1] This policy is not working for
| anybody, it isn't helping him, it isn't helping his victims.
| He would have been better off in jail where he could take
| some time to cool off.
|
| [1] cnycentral.com/news/local/oswego-county-man-
| arrested-16-times-in-nearly-three-months-police-cite-bail-
| reform
| micv wrote:
| Do US courts not have the ability to refuse bail to people
| like this? You'd have the same problem if he had enough
| cash to afford bail. It seems like a complete failure of
| the system for him to even have the option of not being
| held on remand until trial.
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| Also NY repealed a state law, 50-A, which is one of the major
| laws preventing scrutiny and review of police departments and
| officers. Still more to go on that front though as the newly
| elected cop mayor rides a minor crime spike as if it were
| major and attempts to bring back the very prejudice/racist
| stop and frisk.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| People have a hard time effectively measuring real change. I
| don't know enough about the instances you cite to speak to them
| but I have at times tracked my own metrics for things that
| mattered to me.
|
| Gradual social change is often more persistent than dramatic
| and obvious change. It's more persistent in part because it
| goes largely unnoticed.
|
| Change happens all the time yet we tend to feel like whatever
| is currently the norm is "normal." People are mostly not
| talented at tracking real change or even noticing it.
|
| We tend to instead notice the crisis du jour.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > The Amir Locke shooting has not really taken on a national
| protest atmosphere
|
| Well, remember - BLM has been around since 2012 (when Trayvon
| Martin was shot). They did sponsor some protests here and there
| (Michael Brown, Freddie Gray) but didn't capture the entire
| country until 2020. So what was different? I really think it
| was two things: Donald Trump and corona virus lockdowns. The
| protests were likely 50% Donald Trump protests and 50% an
| excuse to get out of the house after having been locked down
| for a year. Now we don't have either thing, so we're back to
| "normal" for BLM.
| Izkata wrote:
| > and 50% an excuse to get out of the house after having been
| locked down for a year.
|
| Let's not mess up the timeline - at that point it had only
| been like two or three months.
| csee wrote:
| I'd say it was 1/4 Trump 1/4 lockdowns 1/4 the emotional
| visual imagery of the knee on the neck 1/4 social media
| penetration of 2020s compared to 2012
| gknoy wrote:
| I think that the fact that we had irrefutable video
| evidence of it happening (as opposed to e.g. Martin or
| other "well the officer thought he had a gun" events) made
| it much easier to gain traction in the public
| consciousness. There was no split-second-bad-decisions that
| could be claimed (such as when officers shot the man for
| not obeying conflicting commands), just multiple minutes of
| sickening brutality.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > Everything no matter how niche is presented as an emergency.
|
| It's "appeal to emotion", and it works.
|
| > Amir Locke
|
| This event was one administration too late to make a splash,
| unfortunately.
|
| > BLM
|
| They got exposed as Marxists, and everyone started distancing
| themselves, thankfully.
| batty_alex wrote:
| >> BLM
|
| > They got exposed as Marxists, and everyone started
| distancing themselves, thankfully.
|
| I don't usually do this on Hacker News but, get this racist
| nonsense out of here. This is the most toxic lie I've seen
| posted here in a long time. From your post history, though,
| seems like par for the course. I hope you're just trolling
| and don't truly believe what you post
| lliamander wrote:
| You're not going to persuade anyone by calling them
| "racist" - a term so abused by motte-and-bailey tactics as
| to have lost all meaning. If what they say is false, then
| say so and argue your case.
|
| While BLM can refer to a number of different things, there
| happens to be a non-profit called "Black Lives Matter", the
| founders of which explicitly claimed to be trained
| Marxists.
|
| Whether this organization was rightfully the face of the
| BLM movement is debatable, but regardless it enjoyed a fair
| degree of prominence for a time.
| judahmeek wrote:
| > They got exposed as Marxists
|
| How so? What are the signals of Marxism within the BLM
| movement?
|
| What's the difference between Marxism & just unrealistic
| idealism?
| kbutler wrote:
| One clear difference is the leaders enriching themselves
| without advancing the welfare of the people they claim to
| be promoting.
| Tanjreeve wrote:
| > One clear difference is the leaders enriching
| themselves without advancing the welfare of the people
| they claim to be promoting.
|
| Ah yes that thing that famously only happens in Marxist
| political regimes.
| nradov wrote:
| One of the BLM founders literally described herself and
| another founder as "trained Marxists". However that doesn't
| mean the movement itself is inherently Marxist. Hopefully
| we can all agree that Black lives do matter, even if some
| of the movement leaders hold abhorrent political views on
| other unrelated issues.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-
| lives-m...
|
| I do find it a bit odd though how someone who describes
| herself as a Marxist now owns multiple luxury homes.
|
| https://www.blackenterprise.com/blm-co-founder-patrisse-
| khan...
| raidicy wrote:
| >They got exposed as Marxists, and everyone started
| distancing themselves, thankfully.
|
| What does that mean though? Why would Marxism be a signal for
| avoiding the movement?
|
| I don't know anything about Marxism.
| mantas wrote:
| Ideology responsible for millions of deaths by USSR,
| Communist China, Pol Pot and other similar regimes.
| akomtu wrote:
| If you read the story of famous marxists on wikipedia
| (Lenin & Mao for example), you'll see a lot of parallels
| with the movement. The BLM org corresponds to Red Guard
| probably: the core force of the movement. That's why I
| think they've chosen a fist as their symbol (can you
| imagine a peaceful organisation rooting for unity using
| this symbol?). And just like other marxist regimes, those
| at the top quickly give up ideals, and start enriching
| themselves (I'm talking about that house shopping spree of
| the former BLMGN leader).
| engineer_22 wrote:
| In its own terms, Marxism seeks an end to alienation and
| exploitation. That is to say, the Marxist vision is to
| create a utopian society. Heaven on Earth.
|
| When heaven doesn't come, you need a scapegoat, and the
| Marxists start killing people.
|
| Ukrainian pogroms, Great Leap Forward, Khmer Rouge, there's
| enough examples to be convinced that Marxism is inherently
| genocidal.
| wyre wrote:
| Because in America anything that isn't Capitalism is viewed
| as the enemy after decades of propaganda against the USSR.
|
| Marxism is socioeconomic analysis of class structures. Marx
| and Engel's book Capital is largely a critique of
| capitalism. Vladimir Lenin expanded on these ideas with
| methods to transition to a communist society (another thing
| Marx wrote about). After Lenin died Stalin took power over
| the USSR and committed atrocities against mankind, fighting
| Nazis, and leading the country through an industrial
| revolution. Mao expanded on these ideas in China and is
| still on track with their 100 year plan written ~70 years
| ago (as far as I know).
|
| Dismissing Marxism is good for capital and the ruling class
| as it views BLM as its enemy.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| > This event was one administration too late to make a
| splash, unfortunately.
|
| Nice try but Black Lives Matter started after the Michael
| Brown shooting, which was during the Obama administration.
|
| correction: first started after George Zimmerman was
| acquitted on murder charges for killing Trayvon Martin, which
| the year before Michael Brown was killed, still during the
| Obama administration.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| For all my dislike of BLM, it is hard to argue that they did
| not have impact on culture, nation psyche or even law
| framework. I agree with your 'next emergency' characterization
| though.
| rhacker wrote:
| For me it was Kony 2012 that taught me this. Here you have
| every person in the world with a focus on one goal: capture Joe
| Kony. Did it happen? No.
|
| The internet is a memey money making machine and nothing more.
| vmception wrote:
| yes, sell branded merchandise. dropship Q-branded and BLM
| branded merch. two separate LLCs if you feel you need to.
| Like how Unilever owns Dove brand and Axe brand. Learn from
| the Dutch, they've been doing corporations for 600 years.
|
| and derivatives like pitch fork futures.
|
| and cake futures, because eventually they'll get hungry.
|
| okay for the last two I was being facetious but for the first
| two I am dead serious.
| guerrilla wrote:
| It's called recouperation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)
| vmception wrote:
| I'm doing my part!
| _jal wrote:
| > Everything no matter how niche is presented as an emergency
|
| A phrase I heard recently for this is "Klaxon culture", and it
| seems to fit. Effectively, what used to be called information
| warfare, which was mainly practiced on enemy populations by
| military agents during war and near-war, has become a
| democratized, routine tool of domestic politics.
|
| It destroys community, and atomizes populations, among other
| nasty consequences. I know for me, I have ended up ignoring
| "real" issues I would have had interest in trying to help with,
| because I was ignoring the bullshit-machine.
|
| Welcome to the future.
| lazyeye wrote:
| I'd say its almost certainly true that foreign actors are
| playing a large role in encouraging its appearance in
| domestic politics.
|
| But the biggest driver is the mainstream media who no longer
| have a business model (destroyed by the internet). So now
| they just generate fake controversy as cheaply as possible,
| to attract eyeballs for advertisers. And there is nothing
| cheaper than opinion. Hot-button issues like racism etc are
| perfect for this.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >its almost certainly true that foreign actors are playing
| a large role in encouraging its appearance in domestic
| politics
|
| I would say it's foreign and domestic actors.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I have seen this in real life, my sister cut off contact with
| my family as we differed with her over a couple social
| issues. Not even differed, we just did not take them as
| seriously as she did. Have not spoken to her in over 3 years.
| Pretty strange.
| david38 wrote:
| I've seen this happen. Usually the person who leaves calls
| the others Nazis, un-evolved, redneck, whatever. It's a
| strong sense of superiority.
|
| I'm curious to see how long, if ever it takes for the
| average person who does this to realize they over-reacted,
| or how long it takes for the other party to see the light.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I think it's more about organization and motivation, not just the
| number of people.
|
| The "silent majority" doesn't even get their way in many cases,
| so what hope would a disorganized minority have?
| redisman wrote:
| Most social movements of the last 5 years haven't been all that
| organized though. Usually there's no clear leadership. It's all
| memes
| karpierz wrote:
| This paper presents a hypothetical model for opinion changing,
| but doesn't actually try and validate that the model applies to
| the real world. The empirical datasets that they use are only to
| inform what the graphs look like, not whether the model
| accurately models social change. I don't like that the way this
| work is presented implies that this model says anything about our
| world.
| ihsw wrote:
| navbaker wrote:
| I definitely don't want to go back to the social convention of
| feeling like I have to shake hands every time I meet someone. It
| went away once Covid hit, but I have a feeling it will come
| creeping back. Anyone had luck turning down handshakes without
| coming across as rude, particularly in a business setting? I've
| found it easier to turn down using self-deprecating humor in a
| social setting.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Never understood what problem people have with shaking hands.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Never understood the problem people have with hugs...
|
| Everyone has a different level of physical touch they desire
| and a level that they are comfortable with.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| I honestly lament that the hugging culture in my wider
| social circle has probably permanently gone away (if that
| social circle ever really recovers, considering it was
| built around small venue music and art).
|
| The permanent loss of warmth in my life is very noticeable.
| moron4hire wrote:
| [deleted]
| rhacker wrote:
| That is a pretty rude comment. What is this person
| foisting on other people?
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| OK then.
| klyrs wrote:
| Hugs are great! But, where dudes can be creepy with a
| handshake, a hug is much more vulnerable. Hugs are for
| trusted friends.
| klyrs wrote:
| As a woman, handshakes aren't always great. Some guys take
| the 'firm' thing way too far and try to crush my hand: I'm
| not impressed, I'm angry that my hand is sore. One time that
| was a bruise that lasted several days. Other guys are creeps
| and keep holding on to trap me in conversation; usually to
| flirt or say something completely inappropriate. I get that
| people are touch deprived, but it lends legitimacy to the
| touch depraved. Hug your buds, I'd be happier with the
| Japanese bow in business settings.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Yeah, there are the heavy squeezers, but they are quite
| rare. Otherwise even women can shake hands.
| klyrs wrote:
| You expressed curiosity about why people dislike
| handshakes. I've been in the biz for over 20 years now.
| In my experience, about 1 in 100 guys are going to do one
| of the two behaviors I mentioned. That means I can expect
| at least one every few days at a conference. "Rare" in
| your experience doesn't translate to "uncommon" in mine.
| It's not an irrational fear.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I suspect - with zero evidence - that handshakes are a male
| way of greeting, and women got included in it, because what
| else would you do, but it doesn't work well for them.
| User23 wrote:
| This is consistent with my experience. I can't recall the
| last time I saw a woman shake hands where it wasn't
| basically obligatory. Men on the other hand do. The
| difference in behaviors is most noticeable in informal
| settings where personal preference can dictate behavior.
| klyrs wrote:
| It's also a standard greeting in north American business
| culture. Failing to fit culture is a "legitimate" reason
| to be excluded. And yes, lots of men have expressed that
| handshakes are a men's club. I know guys do the crushing
| handshake thing as a dominance game. I'd _love_ to be
| left out of that garbage without being deprived of equal
| opportunity.
| ska wrote:
| > I know guys do the crushing handshake thing as a
| dominance game.
|
| It's ironic how an attempt to show dominance is actually
| such a clear demonstration of (psychological) weakness.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I can understand the crushing handshake as some kind of
| game between men.
|
| Doing it to a woman seems more like a form of assault.
| klyrs wrote:
| No. Just like ass-slapping, it's assault if it's
| unwanted, regardless of gender.
| 5040 wrote:
| Like everything, it depends on the context. Ass-slapping
| athletes are different than Ass-slapping construction
| workers.
| 3729426s73 wrote:
| No. Consent is the only thing that matters. Gender and
| profession is completely irrelevant. It should be obvious
| that you don't touch people without their consent.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Not sure if it's urban legend or not, but I read
| somewhere that handshakes started in feudal times: you
| shook each others arms to make sure nobody was hiding a
| knife underneath their armor. But that might be another
| "railroad tracks are the width they are because of roman
| war horses" story.
| DeWilde wrote:
| Maybe, I've noticed that most females prefer the hug
| greet over a handshake greet.
| 3729426s73 wrote:
| I don't think it has anything to do with gender. I'm a
| man and have the same complaints about handshaking as
| klyrs, and the person who crushed my hand the hardest was
| a woman.
| s5300 wrote:
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I miss handshakes. As a young male, I value a convention that
| requires men to be in contact with one another, and to look
| each other in the eyes.
|
| I've taken to fistbumps, but I miss handshakes. I also despise
| the idea of everyone being on different wavelengths regarding
| greeting gestures for the next 15 years. I don't want to be a
| part of this friction!
|
| This problem isn't going to keep me from being happy, or
| putting food on the table, but a lot of good work started with
| shared trust and a handshake.
| shard wrote:
| Of course, handshakes are culture-dependent. Large parts of
| Asia had always been handshake free unless meeting
| Westerners.
| tokai wrote:
| Why not touching and keeping eye contact with your friends,
| and let strangers have some space?
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| The entire point of a handshake is as an introduction.
|
| They become no longer strangers via that interaction.
| suslik wrote:
| How else would I make sure their knife hand is empty?
| gowld wrote:
| > requires men to be in contact with one another, and to look
| each other in the eyes.
|
| Why? That favors con artists over honestly nervous people.
| 7steps2much wrote:
| I can only speak for myself, but it's nice to have physical
| contact with people. An easy way to battle the touch
| starvation
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Strangers don't owe you that and there's still a global
| pandemic on.
|
| Pay for a massage or take up ballroom dancing or
| something if touch matters to you.
| 7steps2much wrote:
| Oh they don't owe me anything, and I didn't mean to say
| that they do.
|
| However, I am free to decide who I would rather do
| business with/work with. And as such I am free to prefer
| to work with people who shake my hand.
|
| As for the pandemic, I don't think it will remain an
| issue for forever. And even if it does, I don't mind
| carrying a bottle of hand sanitizer around.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Yes, you are free to decide with whom you choose to do
| business.
|
| The pandemic has dragged on a lot longer than expected.
| We still don't have a clear end in sight and some people
| feel this is "the new normal."
|
| I find it creepy and inappropriate that someone would
| feel that I need to service their touch starvation to do
| business with them when they can't be bothered to arrange
| their personal life to adequately meet that need for
| themselves. It smacks of something just shy of sexual
| favors since sex is a large part of how most people
| quench their need for physical touch.
| dmw1 wrote:
| I would strongly disagree that sex is how most people
| quench their need for physical touch.
|
| Not being able to hug my grandparents during the pandemic
| took a big emotional toll on me.
|
| I pet my dog, hug my kids and shake hands with my
| friends. These are all examples of how I use touch to
| show affection in my life.
|
| However, I strongly agree that your preferences should be
| completely respected especially in a business setting.
| 7steps2much wrote:
| It's a rather far jump to go from handshake to sexual
| favours in my opinion, but if you feel that way then of
| course you can just choose to not shake people's hands.
| Nobody forcing you to after all!
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Nobody's _forcing_ me but if enough people refuse to do
| business with me because I don 't shake their hand, I --
| what? -- get to choose between shaking hands and going
| hungry?
|
| No pressure.
|
| Just an FYI: I'm a woman. In my experience, a lot of men
| looking for excuses to touch me, such as shake my hand,
| are really angling to get next to me sexually.
|
| Maybe that's not a big issue in your life. It
| unfortunately is in mine.
|
| Edit: just to be crystal clear, my reason for not shaking
| hands is germ control, as stated elsewhere.
| 7steps2much wrote:
| What I was referring to is that such a situation is
| highly unlikely. Even if we do not take current labour
| shortage and the historic lack of IT people into account
| I am certain that there would be more than enough
| employers or business partners who do not care about
| whether or not someone is willing to shake their hand.
|
| But yes, in general if a society places enough value on a
| social norm to decide whether or not to do business with
| a certain person it is possible that certain people will
| be alienated based on their willingness to participate in
| such a social norm.
|
| And, to address your edit: I am fully aware that we are
| currently in a pandemic and I am not saying that we
| should go around and start getting overly close to one
| another for no reason.
|
| As the original content all the way up this chain I was
| mostly referring to a time post COVID, assuming that such
| an outset is realistic. If not then hand shaking will be
| the least pressing problem regardless.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I am medically handicapped. My desire to not shake hands
| is not specific to the pandemic.
|
| I don't really think the pandemic will end without social
| norms changing. Handshakes are a social norm that spreads
| germs. I think we would do well to move to something
| else. In many cultures they bow.
|
| So my belief is that we only get to post pandemic by
| doing away with things like handshakes. That's my opinion
| and I can't back it up with studies or anything, but your
| mental models and mine just don't mesh well in that
| regard.
|
| You have a good day. I think you and I are likely
| speaking somewhat past each other and I'm not interested
| in engaging further in what is likely pointless
| miscommunication.
| WWLink wrote:
| You forgot it's not just a handshake. It's often a
| shoulder touch or a tug or a really hard hand squeeze to
| assert dominance or whatever other nonsense they read in
| their book on how to be a creepy con artist.
| WWLink wrote:
| I decide to not do business with people who expect a
| handshake. If they reach out I'm already game over. If
| they bring up sports.. oh hell yea I'm gonna stand up and
| walk right out. We have nothing more to discuss.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Well then problem solved, and both of you don't have to
| interact with each other?
|
| I am not sure why someone else's preferences would offend
| you so much.
|
| Sometimes, different people just have different ways of
| interacting with each other, and that is totally fine,
| and you don't have to be friends.
|
| There is no need to be upset at them.
| [deleted]
| moron4hire wrote:
| Why do you need physical touch from relative strangers?
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| When you don't want them to remain strangers.
| dmw1 wrote:
| Seems to me that the ubiquity of such greetings across
| all cultures would imply that you're the exception here,
| no?
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| A lot of cultures _bow_ rather than shake hands.
| gehatare wrote:
| Other cultures require you to get a lot closer than a
| handshake.
| simonsarris wrote:
| I'm baffled at how millennia old* rituals involved with
| no-longer-being-strangers are lost on some commenters
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Funerary_stele_of_Thra
| sea...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OTArsameiaSockelIIIDex
| ios...
| Dig1t wrote:
| Hey I agree with you on this one, you seem to have a lot of
| people disagreeing with you but I also like handshakes. I
| think they serve a good purpose in establishing a rapport and
| helping to build a conversation with a new person. Elbow
| bumps and fist bumps just don't have the same effect. Of
| course, we're all more health conscious nowadays, I think
| it's pretty easy to not touch my face after shaking someone's
| hand and hand sanitizer is now ubiquitous, so it doesn't seem
| like a big deal to me.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Keep your gross clammy hands to yourself, please and thank
| you.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Same.
|
| I just go for the handshake.
|
| IME the people who reject it are almost universally socially
| awkward in other ways anyway, so whatever. Call it a filter.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Famous speakers I've meet have intercepted the handshake with a
| fist bump in my pre Covid days.
| foobarian wrote:
| At least we don't have the unfortunate custom of two opposite
| cheek kisses like the Italians. Boy was that awkward when I
| realized people here thought I was some kind of Borat weirdo.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Wait to see places where you have to give three kisses!
| moron4hire wrote:
| I used to tell people my carpal tunnel was too bad to do
| handshakes. Or sometimes I'd tell them I had just sneezed on my
| hand.
|
| There was one guy I just flat out told, "I'm not going to shake
| your hand". Ex-coworker, was never polite to me when we were
| working together, actively sabotaged my tenure there, had the
| nerve to look hurt.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Not trying to start a flamewar on anything, but that seems
| very unprofessional/counter-productive, so I'm just trying to
| understand your thought process here.
|
| Do you have a phobia of physical touch?
|
| I shake the hands of departing coworkers even if we have a
| cool relationship. It's a simple, polite, no-frills way of
| saying "goodbye". You're not giving them grace or anything.
| Is it not more difficult to refuse and say "I'm not going to
| shake your hand" than it is to shake and move on? If they
| were impolite, you come across as hostile.
|
| Just curious for more details.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I don't _usually_ avoid handshakes, but I don 't offer
| them, either. Handshakes are very culturally specific. I've
| learned to not assume everyone wants a handshake. For
| example, I've met several Muslim women who felt
| uncomfortable shaking hands with men, but often felt
| obligated to reciprocate. In my current job, I run into so
| many people of so many different cultures that it's best to
| stay on the safe side and avoid putting someone in such a
| situation.
|
| And while I don't have a phobia of most physical touch,
| there are people who use the handshake as an excuse to take
| a hug. When I identify those people, I try to avoid the
| hand shake. "Sorry, I'm just a hugger" is not an excuse for
| violating someone's personal space. I'm not a "hugger". If
| I don't know you, don't touch me in that overly familiar
| way.
|
| As for the guy I flat-out refused: it was a game night
| organized by some of my ex-colleagues, about 50/50 a mix of
| people who were still at the company and folks like me who
| were no longer there. This guy was not invited but somehow
| found out about it and crashed the party. Part of why I was
| no longer with the company was because he had decided he
| didn't like that I had taken leave when my 2nd child was
| born and went out of his way to keep me from getting
| assigned to projects and even tanked a successful project
| that I was building.
|
| I also think "professionalism" is highly overrated,
| especially when people use "professionalism for thee, but
| not for me" to stymie backlash against their toxic
| behavior. In the grand scheme of things, he's a nobody.
| That's not to say I'm a "somebody", but rather I don't
| think refusing his handshake is going to have any kind of
| impact on my career.
| gowld wrote:
| > "I'm not going to shake your hand".
|
| That only had the intended effect because you constrasted it
| against handshaking. It wouldn't work if you didn't touch
| anyone.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Or sometimes I'd tell them I had just sneezed on my hand.
|
| How many people pick their noses when nobody is watching, and
| don't wash their hands?
| moron4hire wrote:
| Sit at a busy traffic intersection sometime and just watch
| people in their cars. It's a lot.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Watch how many men leave public restrooms without washing
| their hands, too.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I have a serious medical condition. I rarely shake hands
| because of it. I get sick easily and avoiding exposure to germs
| is an important means for me to stay off drugs and out of the
| ER.
|
| I work from home. My life is online, so I mostly just avoid the
| issue. To whatever degree you can handle things by phone or
| Zoom or whatever, that's one means to make it less of an issue.
|
| When I have had to meet people, I have successfully turned down
| handshakes at times. Body language can sometimes help sidestep
| the question. Not sure how to explain that but just don't be
| "open" to it and some people won't offer their hand. If they
| offer and I must decline, I'm polite, warm, friendly and assure
| them "It's not you. It's me."
|
| Practice makes perfect. The first few times may feel awkward
| but it gets better.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I don't consider people who refuse to shake my hand to be rude.
|
| Generally I consider them to be hypochondriacs. This places
| them directly in opposition to me, because it strongly
| correlates with their likelihood to be in the 'cus covid' clan.
|
| In that case, there is no way to avoid being rude, because the
| reason you don't want to do the thing is precisely the reason I
| _do_ want to, as a show of resistance against antisocial
| behaviours.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Do you own a dog house?
| notpachet wrote:
| Your skill in resisting antisocial behaviours has increased
| to 76! Your skill in resisting antisocial behaviours has
| increased to 77!
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| You have unlocked "clandestine hang out"!
|
| You have been invited to "meet up guild!"
|
| You have acquired "partner that actually wants to go on a
| holiday!
|
| You get coronavirus! You now have 23,773/23,774 HP! Oh no!
| Cd00d wrote:
| I don't think it's helpful to make assumptions about the
| _reason_ for someone 's personal preference or comfort and
| then to deny them the respect of empathy.
|
| If you're rude because you jump to the conclusion that I
| "irrationally" fear covid, you may need to consider that
| you're at risk of radicalization. Just a thought.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| If conservatism is radical to you, that's cool by me. At
| the end of the day, we don't need to agree.
| ska wrote:
| > If conservatism is radical to you
|
| non-sequitur, I think.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Indeed, I don't think his comment makes sense either.
| [deleted]
| Cd00d wrote:
| TBH that's a very baffling definition of conservatism to
| me. Makes me wonder what the root of your defined values
| are.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| First search result, Wikipedia:
|
| Conservatism Conservatism is an aesthetic, cultural,
| social, and political philosophy, which seeks to promote
| and to preserve traditional social institutions.
|
| Literally that; I place value in traditional social
| institutions.
|
| Like my University, my local pub, the office, lecture
| halls, and yeah, the handshake. Freedom of travel. That
| stuff.
|
| I think they're more important than coronavirus nonsense.
| A lot more. Certainly now, so now we have to fight to get
| them back to where they were. They're worth as much to me
| as one of my limbs would be, they're life itself.
| LoveGracePeace wrote:
| A lot of people including me (and I'm old, conservative,
| technical geek) are not actively social. Not being
| actively social is not at all the same as antisocial.
| Antisocial is associated with a negative behavioral
| aspect, a disorder potentially. Not wanting to have a
| beer at the pub doesn't make me antisocial. I don't mind
| shaking hands but, from a medical perspective it seems
| like a tradition that would best be left in the past.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Disagree on the last part (coronavirus is not transferred
| much if at all via hands), agree on the rest of the post.
|
| If you don't enjoy the pub that's fine, different strokes
| for different folks. That's why we have freedom of
| association, I hang out with my people, you with yours,
| job done.
|
| What I'm calling antisocial is bans, restrictions, shame,
| etc etc. The virus is out there and basically everyone is
| gonna get it, turning onto each other is hate for the
| sake of hate.
| [deleted]
| Cd00d wrote:
| Hey, I get it - the pandemic has been very hard and very
| frustrating.
|
| But, please consider that you're not doing any favors to
| your beloved institutions by being rude to your peers
| there as a result of your assumptions about what
| motivates them.
| [deleted]
| nicoburns wrote:
| To be fair, the reason freedom of travel has been limited
| is precisely because the virus has the power to take away
| people's lives and also the health of their vital organs
| (e.g heart, lungs). I think it's reasonable to want to
| fight for normality and tradition, but there has to be a
| balance.
|
| Here in the UK we're nearly there. Our government is
| considering removing all restrictions sometime in the
| next 2 months (it may end up being a bit more phased -
| lot's of people are in favour of continuing to mandate
| self-isolation _when you actually currently have the
| virus_ ). If you want that where you live then consider
| advocating for vaccination uptake, because that's what's
| allowing us to make these changes here without triggering
| a public health crisis.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I live in the UK and my balance throughout has been
| "completely ignore all of the scaremongering".
|
| 1% risk of death. Wait, now sub 0.1%, thx vaccine.
| Meanwhile schools are still in dystopia mode,
| Universities are nothing like they were when I went,
| almost every job in my field is gone, shitloads of
| businesses have permaclosed, etc.
|
| We can't even reverse it now, loads of it is baked in.
| Remove all legal restrictions and half of the people are
| still wearing face masks and avoiding socialising 'cus
| Covid'.
|
| March-May 2020 kind of sort of made sense (I still think
| we could have just asked people rather than using legal
| force but whatever). Beyond that, sunk cost after sunk
| cost and just an increasingly bizarre game of one-
| upmanship "look, I can make my life worse than yours!".
|
| _This_ is radicalization - believing an ever deepening
| web of bollocks and as a result drastically changing
| one's way of interacting with the world. They don't even
| remember how they used to live and why.
|
| I stand by my statement - it is conservative to accept a
| slightly increased risk in order to maintain our
| traditions. It is radical to flip the world on a dime.
| (The UK Conservative Party is emphatically not
| conservative by any reasonable definition).
| pessimizer wrote:
| Fighting against the germ theory of disease is definitely
| conservatism.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| The germ theory of disease is well established, what's
| that got to do with the price of fish?
| [deleted]
| wonderwonder wrote:
| exactly, its also very important to me that I judge
| individuals over a single polarizing issue and discard
| anything else that makes them a human. My reaction to other
| peoples opinion on that issue also totally makes everyone
| else a whacko and not me. /S
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Refusing a handshake is an action, it's not an opinion.
|
| I don't really care what opinions my friends and business
| contacts hold, but if their actions show that they're
| afraid of even touching me then like, we're just not going
| to get on, what's the point? Call it a day, plenty of fish.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I normally just go for a fist bump if they put their hand out
| for a handshake, and they almost always oblige. I don't find
| myself in formal business situations often, though.
| [deleted]
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable
| one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
| all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
|
| As many here, I am skeptical of the results. There is only a
| reference to 40% of the population as the main finding, but I did
| not see a clear reference to the relative power of each
| individual in the population, power centers or all of the other
| little pieces that could easily undermine the result.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed,
| citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing
| that ever has."
|
| -- Margaret Mead
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| > In particular, we show that the critical mass required to
| induce norm change is dramatically reduced when non-committed
| members of the population are less susceptible to social
| influence than previously assumed.
|
| What precisely does this mean? It's not intuitive that it takes a
| smaller number of people to change a norm when others are less
| likely to change from influence.
| yamrzou wrote:
| A possible explanation is that when non-committed members are
| more susceptible to social influence, they are more likely to
| side with the majority. From the paper:
|
| > However, as consensus becomes easier (increasing b), the
| social influence within groups tends to favour the name of the
| initial majority (B).
| mLuby wrote:
| Perhaps it's commenting on the level of entrenchment of the
| norm: it'd be easier for one good argument to sway those with
| "strong opinions weakly held" than it is to sway folks who say
| "I'll change when everyone else does too."
| adolph wrote:
| See also Taleb's "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of
| the Small Minority"
|
| https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
| dang wrote:
| Discussed a few times here:
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small
| Minority (2015)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171 - Aug 2019 (76
| comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small
| Minority (2016)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16454645 - Feb 2018 (214
| comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small
| Minority_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576184 -
| Sept 2016 (6 comments)
|
| _The Dictatorship of the Small Minority by Nassim Nicholas
| Taleb_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12298753 - Aug
| 2016 (20 comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small
| Minority_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12290770 - Aug
| 2016 (10 comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small
| Minority_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12285545 - Aug
| 2016 (55 comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn
| Minority [pdf]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10687471
| - Dec 2015 (20 comments)
|
| _The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn
| Minority [pdf]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10567630
| - Nov 2015 (52 comments)
| druadh wrote:
| I can't understand what this title is saying
| imwillofficial wrote:
| What do you mean? You don't understand how a special group of
| non special people can change things? ;)
| koreanguy wrote:
| LoveGracePeace wrote:
| I tried to read the article. It comes across to me as unrequited
| teen angst culminating in parabolic disharmony; kind of like a
| Picasso painting.
| shard wrote:
| Just curious what is it about Picasso's paintings that come
| across as unrequited teen angst?
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I'm confused by this analysis. It cites no other resources beyond
| wikipedia, a dude's take on twitter, and an msn article when the
| other article actually has citations to other research. Where is
| your evidence that the 40% is "intentionally wrong; propaganda"?
| It's pointing to numerous other studies where the number ranges
| from 10 to 40% and examines why. This seems like a bad faith
| understanding of what the research is trying to accomplish.
| RobRivera wrote:
| placate the need for change through low effort seemingly
| impactful convenience, you quall motivation for change
| notacoward wrote:
| Key finding:
|
| "the critical mass required to induce norm change is dramatically
| reduced when non-committed members of the population are less
| susceptible to social influence than previously assumed"
|
| This suggests a corollary: that a _general_ weakening of people
| 's receptivity to social influence makes disruption of norms
| easier and thus more frequent. This seems closely related to the
| ongoing "truth decay" efforts which - not specific policy
| positions - are the primary focus of professional disinformation
| groups.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-16 23:02 UTC)