31
votes
Some observations about some of the conversations here
-
A number of people on Tildes tend to be contrarians. If you say black, they have to say white. They pick knits, they split hairs, they are persnickety.
-
A number of people on Tildes jump at any chance to defend the status quo.
There are others who are neither of these things, of course. I've just been noticing the two patterns above ( "no you haven't!" lol ).
Dude, you've posted on threads about Trump and Palestine. What were you expecting there? They're like honey pots for internet rage. If you are sick of reading contrarian opinions, stay out conflict-attracting topics on the internet.
I was wondering where BeanBurrito's opinion was coming from. Turns out his entire Tildes content bubble is exactly aligned within my small tag blocklist.
So far I only see mostly positive, constructive, and interesting dialog here but then again that's what happens when you remove topics that are nothing but incubators for extreme polarization and rhetorical nastiness.
Sometimes you just have to accept that you can't change how people emotionally interact with political dialog and just focus on personally staying abreast of the happenings without seeking opinion from the commons. i.e. read the articles from trusted/varied sources and never read the comments.
Hah I have the exact same experience - but then I filter out politics, sports and some other things I have no interest in (e.g. laws passed in the USA, as most of those are hella depressing to read about as a tree-hugging western European).
All my discourse is pretty much either positive or at minimum super respectful disagreements hah
The problem I’d see here is that effectively nobody’s sources are as varied as they think they are. That goes for all of us, really.
I’d hazard a guess many people here, when they think of source variety, are imagining engaging content from across the political spectrum… but in many cases are actually imagining content from across the American political spectrum. Or at least the imperial core. I mean, how many people here listen to news from, say, Cuba? I’d wager an answer somewhere in the region of “jack squat.”
But this goes for me too. My news sources very much slant socialist. Neutrality is a myth.
It is admittedly very comfortable to escape debates and restrict yourself to newspieces. But I can’t help but see that as inviting yourself into a bubble of your own biases; you selected for the news sources, after all.
(This is not to say that avoiding debate spaces can’t be healthy! Everything in moderation, and all that.)
I'd honestly argue that news these days makes you less informed than if you were to ignore it. The internet has ruined it. It's stuck in the weeds, and so people get preoccupied in small details and sensational stories that just lead to them reaching the wrong conclusions. Look how much people were confused over things like the Muller investigation, Hunter Biden's laptop, or the COVID lab leak hypothesis. Look at how stalwart and certain they were about their positions on them. The dust has settled on them and there is a definitive conclusion, but there are still many who hold on to their predisposed ideas of them.
For the most part, the news is telling you stuff you don't need to know. You don't need to know what Trump's opinion on his legal issues are. You probably don't need to know the latest atrocity happening in overseas wars involving people you don't know. The things that are important usually get conveyed through social means. The last time the news was actually important and effected me was when I was coming back from an overseas trip to discover that the country had been shut down by COVID, and even then it didn't prepare me for what things would be like when I got back.
What I did during COVID lock down, was watching the PBS Newshour and Cuomo's daily briefly (lived in NY) instead of gluing myself to the news. Kept my sanity in check.
I really should go back to watching PBS news hour. It really helps to understand the state of the country in a plain, but informative manner. Without the time sink.
This has been my primary source of news for a year or two now
Highly recommended, if you're wanting to only be informed about big news once, and then only be updated again when there is a significant update
The project uses ChatGPT to read articles and assign a significance score to it, meaning garbage and old news get filtered out
Well this is freaking awesome. Thanks for sharing!
Don’t thank me, thank the the guy that runs it! @vadimyakhin
The Hacker News perspective on moderation is that certain topics will inevitably lead to a bad discussion so we flag the discussions early. (Oddly “culture war” topics get reliably flagged but I don’t have trouble when I post stuff like “Was Trotsky right about the doctrine of permanent revolution?”)
Second this overwhelmingly. I'm not even saying these things should be off topic, just that a filteration option needs to be there for those of us who don't want to participate in this rhetoric. And trust me, there are many of us who are too intertwined in our own micro world to spare a thought for Trump or Palestine.
Topic tag filters should be able to do this for you.
For what it's worth, forums encourage that sort of discourse, and not necessarily in a bad way. If you're talking to someone in real life and they say something, you can nod and go "uh huh" to keep the conversation going. Eventually, the topic will shift to something else and you two keep talking.
But on the internet, nearly all fora have rules (implicit or explicit) against posts that don't move the conversation forward. There's also no changing the topic, because that other topic belongs in that other thread. So the net effect is that you end up posting your disagreements in order to have anything to say at all.
That doesn't change the fact that tildes users are extremely persnickety and they also think they understand things better than they do [ ;) ], but I thought I'd throw another viewpoint out there.
(See what I mean?)
In general “I agree” statements are mostly covered by hitting vote. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way but if you don’t have much more to add what is there to discuss.
And honestly the tone of this sure seems like it’s intended to offend and is kinda drama laden. There is very little productive discussion you can have on this because there’s no data.
I think you somehow drilled in and identified why I'm not involved as much as I'd like. I do read, I lurk, but I don't often comment unless I really do have something to say. I don't like being contrarian for the sake of it, so it's hard to find something "worthy" of posting/commenting, so I often don't.
Not sure how to get past that and be more present.
I like to post I agrees and elaborate when I feel like sharing, which is generally when I read something I also experienced or on a topic I am interested in and I'm generally not interested in controversial topics so that helps.
A good example for me is maybe reading the weekly gaming thread and seeing someone playing a game the same time as me or maybe feeling similar to it but not quite. It's nice to day back oh yeah, I feel or have felt that way and this is how I work though it.
Actually this post itself is another indicator, while I used to be very wordy online back in the day, I don't post as much as I used to, anywhere, not thinking my voice or opinions are intelligent or insightful as most others I see. I also at the same time want to be more engaged in general and miss the seemingly easy ability I had in my younger days to do that.
But anyway this I'd my way to work through that, see something I relate to and give my version of how I work through that. Still, I write and delete a lot of posts, all the time. I'm going to hit post on this one for sure, I think...
There's only one good reason for comments and that's further information. You can get into a little more depth, provide anecdotes and examples, yes. But the most valuable information is probably that which has the potential to counter the original statement.
I agree that there's a childish kind of contrarianism, basically a teenager just training his ability to question the status quo but other than that, I see no problem with it. I've recently thought about what general rule can help against the current problem with people getting their news from a bubble that confirms their biases. "Seeking information that challenges your viewpoint" is the only universal rule I could come up with. Doesn't mean you automatically agree with every counter-point but it's good to have some exposure to it.
Well, one can also post to contribute something helpful or informative, or answer questions.
I do see a lot of that on the site. I've had a lot of my questions answered here!
Yeah totally. I certainly don't mean to imply that the only reason to post is to disagree... Though I think it's pretty great that you posted to disagree with me in a slightly contrarian fashion : )
I'm someone whose comment history mostly consists of disagreements and arguments. I don't think this is because I'm a contrarian---rather, it's because I only comment when I think I have something valuable to say, and the easiest way to have something valuable to say is to have a disagreement to voice. I suspect that this is at least part of what's responsible for what you perceive as contrarianism.
This, I think, is sort of true, though I might not put it so strongly. I would characterize the mean perspective here as upper-middle class moderate liberal millenial. It's certainly far more establishment-friendly than most spaces I inhabit.
There are cases where agreement comments can be valuable, primarily when one has unposted information that reinforces or expands upon the point posed by the thread/comment, but this isn’t nearly as common as disagreements are.
As far as defending status quo goes, it depends heavily on the topic at hand but most of this I see is despite hope and often action to enact change, recognition that the desired change is going to take much more time that anybody wants it to, due to some combination of momentum, need to build political will, availability of resources, strength of the opposition, etc. There are exceptions but generally the most badly needed changes aren’t the type that someone can snap their fingers and make happen overnight or even in a few months or years… often it’s the timescale of decades one is realistically looking at, particularly for anything caught up in the political gears of the US.
The status quo defense also has another driver; namely that on some level, the way we've set up (Western) society works.
People generally do not starve in the streets, there aren't large scale wars and violence, there aren't regular revolutions or government oppression, and before anyone comments to the contrary, I'm speaking relatively here, compared to past human societies.
Because of that, despite there being massive, massive cases of inequality, suffering, persecution in some areas, this isn't the case for most people, so to most people, the systems we have in place work. They could be better, sure, but there are justified reasons for why we do most things we do.
If someone is somewhat uninformed on a topic, and they bring up a perceived flaw, chances are, someone with more knowledge will show up to explain exactly why that system is the way it is, and even though it may be suboptimal, it's not actually a flaw, and was actually well reasoned, thought out, and implemented within constraints that the people doing the reasoning, thinking, and implementation must work within.
That can be taken as status quo defense, when in reality it's just having real world experience and the knowledge for why things must be the way they are in a certain situation.
There are areas where the status quo isn't great, but we just haven't been able to come up with any better ideas, and in those areas, saying "this is the best we've got" is defending the status quo, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Yup. But that is society. Human nature.
I think it is more the Internet, Tildes, and the type of people you find on Tildes.
No disrespect.
Unfortunately, not even Tildes is totally immune to "Internet culture." You're definitely not the first to mention contrarians here, and it's unlikely you'll be the last. Though it's still a helluva lot better here than anywhere else I've seen online these days.
Yes, I'm defending the status quo. No, you can't stop me!
Oi, not contrarian enough!
YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU SHOULD KNOW IT!
Mmkay, there we go.
At the risk of being a nit-picker, I don't think the distinction between society/human nature and the internet is really all that meaningful. Certainly there is an academic interest to why some people may behave differently on the internet, but that's still an aspect of human nature.
Not to add to this, but it would be interesting to look at the data behind this. Sure, you might notice the contrarians more, but does that mean they are over represented?
None would equal a circle jerk. Gotta have balance!
Interesting, I haven't really noticed that. Other than of course people are going to comment more often if they disagree because they have more to say than plain "I agree".
What I have noticed though is an increase in Reddit-like snappy, short comments that have a little attitude and sarcastic tone but don't add much to the topic at hand.
I've noticed those kinds of comments as well, but I'm conflicted about if I should label them as anything or not.
I've begun to label them noise or offtopic but tried to limit that to cases where I haven't participated in the thread.
Yep, true for me. I find contrarian arguments interesting (what if it’s true?), and disagreement is usually what motivates me to write. I try to be nicer about it, though. For example, also noting areas of agreement is important. Sometimes after enough revision, the seed of disagreement that started me off is more hidden.
As someone who often disagrees with you, I don't feel bad blood.
It's that status quo I'll defend....the ability to have contrarian discussions without getting at each others throats and devolving into a shouting match.
The whole point of Tildes staying small/growing slowly is to keep that status quo so we don't devolve into another Voat.
I don't know if you understand just how hostile this position is to users, especially new users.
Maybe I am misreading you here, but how is it hostile to have different viewpoints in a discussion? Contrarian is just an opposing viewpoint and without that, we just have an echo chamber. I would say it is more about the overall tone of the discussions, which I think in most cases are pretty levelheaded here on Tildes.
At its core yes but if you describe a person as a contrarian it usually means they just like to argue a lot and arguing for its own sake is exhausting. Add to that the fact that online discourse is pretty blunt and unemphatic which can translate the comments antagonizing even if the commenter doesn't intend them to be, they just weren't really aware of the fact they were coming off as a bit off an ass.
I may be off base, but my thought on this is that people who are arguing for the sake of arguing can’t usually make substantive arguments or keep it going for too long because chances are they don’t actually know or care all that much about the topic at hand, and likely aren’t very curious about it either.
Of course there are those who are arguing on emotional grounds who will exhibit similar lack of grounding in their position too, but they can usually be distinguished by their civility or lack thereof.
Not sure how to respond to that, but to clarify what I wrote, I was thinking about posting links to contrarian arguments I find interesting, not being contrarian myself for the sake of it. If I disagree, it’s a real disagreement.
Although, sometimes I disagree along the lines of “this is asserting that every right-minded person must believe something when I think it’s unknowable or open for debate.”
Absolutely. I’ve probably not been doing this as much as I should be, but it’s very important and very appreciated. Key to keeping heat down.
Hey, neat, I’m doing it right now!
How did you observe that?
Contrarian implies they don’t believe what they’re writing and being contrary for the sake of it. How do you know what their “true” beliefs are?
Now that I've got a bit more time:
Contrarian and status quo supporter are labels I honestly despise.
Contrarian is just an insult by design. While everyone knows the kind of person it describes and sure has had conversations with one, it's a cheap way to just invalidate someone's opinion or position. "Oh you're just saying that to be difficult" is pretty disrespectful, and often just comes from a place of not believing that anyone can actually hold a position other than yours, so they must be just trying to be difficult. If you actually engage in the discussion and ask questions I've found that it's an extremely overused label.
Further, quite simply put, most of the people throwing it around have no desire to engage with the people they're labeling and discover if they might actually have understandable or even legitimate positions.
Likewise I've noticed that those arguing people are "defending the status quo" often mean "you don't agree with how I'm approaching changing it". I'm pretty constantly accused of this despite never really self identifying as that, but so often it seems my stance doesn't matter. I believe heavily that you must understand something in order to change it, and am constantly disappointed at the raw ignorance surrounding so many issues.
Guns in particular is one where there is an embarrassing amount of easily verifiable disinformation, and yet pointing out "well no that's not true" is somehow "supporting the status quo", not "trying to be an adult who understands the issue and will approach changes with meaningful and accurate arguments, not something you read once on twitter".
There might very well be people supporting the status quo (which is a HUGE moving target), but in my experience it's a hell of a lot less than those accused of doing so.
This reminds me of a pattern I saw frequently when I still used Reddit a lot, particularly on polarizing topics, where it wasn’t uncommon for the veracity of information being spread around to be treated as having little to no relevance — all that mattered is that it supported the poster’s arguments or end goals.
What was perhaps the most surprising was the inconsistency of those engaging in this behavior. The same people who’d take only verified information from proven legitimate sources on one topic seriously would be perfectly happy to repeat badly grounded hearsay on another.
In fairness, this is an easy trap to fall into but it’s something I’m conscious of and actively try to avoid.
As a self-admitted pedant, I don't think this is a necessarily a bad thing. Being more precise, especially around important issues, helps prevent misunderstandings and can even clarify points and hidden assumptions in the original point.
Also, it's better to have disagreement than a fawning echo chamber where ideas are never challenged (not to imply those are the only two options)
I've gone against the common opinion and if I haven't defended the status quo, it's just a matter of time till I do, so this might as well be about me. The reason why I do that here is not because I have to go against the grain, play devil's advocate or some other metareason, but because those are my actual opinions that I think are well reasoned, and because as opposed to reddit it's often actually possible to have those discussions here. That is one of the main reasons why I use this platform.
I haven't looked at this website in something like five years but on the surface point one doesn't necessarily seem like a drawback. I'd rather see thoughtful contrarianism than tedious/asinine conformity.
Maybe they simply disagree
Maybe they simply agree
It would be nice if you were to give more details about your observations, and maybe potential reasons. A slightly more detailed analysis, basically. Because, as it is, this thread is more about declaring rather than discussing.
When it comes to tildes, I personally find that the majority of the time I get out what I put in. When I take part in discussions I know are on contentious topics, or when I enter conversations with an argumentative mindset for one reason or another, I very frequently run into the type of response you're describing here. I get frustrated and I dread seeing new notifications.
When I avoid commenting on topics I know will upset me or that I will argue about, I generally have a much more positive experience on Tildes. Obviously the political topics others have mentioned are often the sources of contentiousness, but that really depends on the specifics -- some political discussions have been lovely and other non-political discussions can get awful. While there are a small handful of usernames I recognize because their comments on contentious topics tend to get on my nerves, I find that my experience on Tildes is better when I don't put myself into these conversations.
I'm not perfect at putting this advice into practice, of course, as a quick glance at my comment history will no doubt show. But I do think it's important when pondering the general culture of the site to consider whether you yourself are contributing to that atmosphere rather than just being subjected to it.
Nits. People pick nits.
See what I mean?
Your response was probably a joke but in situations where an incorrect word is used, would you rather stay uncorrected and continue using the wrong word or phrase indefinitely? Or do you welcome said corrections
I for one think a huge benefit to online discourse is the fact that commenters "pick nits" as this helps to offer a better/different perspective or understanding on various issues
Your post for instance has now taught you nit (which is head lice) vs knit (like knitting something from yarn). "Picking knits" is not an actual phrase, and thanks to your posting here now you know should you ever choose to use the phrase again when posting in family/friend group chat
To be quite frank though, I think the two points you raised are honestly applicable to virtually every online forum/messaging board; I don't think they're specific to tildes. Hell, the biggest difference between discourse on tildes vs reddit imo is that tildes has less toxicity and "asshole-ish" behavior
Fun fact!
You can pick your knitting, or your knit stitches which can be colloquially called a "knit". Picking is a particular style of knitting vs "throwing" which is what I'm more used to. Doesn't make the correction wrong, in context "picking knits" doesn't mean much, but it's interesting to me that there's a connection if you squint real hard.
As someone that likes learning, I do appreciate being corrected if someone thinks I misunderstood something, less so if it's just a typo. Knits could be either.
Interesting! I did not realize one of the styles of knitting is called picking. That's pretty funny
Since you seem to be involved in the knitting community, does that group ever say "knit picking" to extrapolate the phrase nitpicking (in a generally humorous way)?
I've never heard it, but that doesn't mean it isn't the height of humor in some (knitting) circles.
My favorite knitting/crochet term is "frogging" a work. When you make a mistake and you undo one stitch at a time you're "tinking"(tink is knit backward)
But when you just give up and unravel the whole thing, you're frogging it. Because you have to "rip it rip it" which sounds remarkably like "ribbit".
(Merriam Webster isn't convinced about the etymology but they only have a small guess of a possible other theory. And it's what literally every yarn crafter I know means when they say it)
The delicious irony made me laugh :)
I feel like these meta discussions need to have specifics, otherwise the post essentially becomes a Rorschach where people just vent based on a vague constellation of sentiment they have about the site or project what they've been feeling about where the internet/world is headed onto the community.
Could you provide any specifics, even if relatively anonymizing?
The good ol' conservatives-progressives divide LoL!
At a very broad level, that's how the world works and a certain balance is maintained by nature between these two kinds. When one tends to be in excess, a correction usually follows.
I think the more I know about a topic the more (1) I realize how little people really know and (2) the more I become familiar with multiple contradictory arguments.
Before the pandemic I was in a seminar on geoengineering in the engineering department. Although I’m really a software developer in the social sciences department I played the role of a right-wing engineer like Harry Petroski (never met a technology he didn’t like) because somebody has to in an engineering class. If the whole class was filled by people like that I would have played an ecologist like Eugene Odum.
I was supposed to have a debate with another student about whether Brazil should get paid to save the rainforest or add carbon capture to ethanol plants (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage) One of his friends got stabbed trying to stop a fight and he spent that day in the hospital so I wound up presenting for both of us which was pretty easy because we’d prepared together and he’d taken me to a really awe-inspiring lecture about the Amazon a few days before.
In domains like that, one should always be prepared to make multiple arguments, some of which will seem “contrarian”.
One of my favorite books on the nature of truth in the social sciences is
https://www.amazon.com/Crime-America-Cambridge-Studies-Criminology/dp/0521797128
because a number of researchers wrote essays that (mostly) look at the problem from various qualitative angles and (except for one) never come to a conclusive conclusion. The one guy who does come to a conclusion isn’t playing by the quantitative game but develops the compelling narrative that black men in the Bronx in the 1990s quit smoking crack and would instead have a chill time passing a blunt around while sipping from 40’s.
If I agree with a point and have nothing to add to the conversation then it’s a positive vote on the comment. Tildes further arranges the comment box in such a way that it’s a hassle to scroll past a sea of comments just to repeat what has already been said.
It’s always going to be easier to:
The longer the comment or the comment thread, the more opportunities there are to interject. Online conversation I believe will always have a natural back and forth as a result.
There’s also the effect that in any community where comments are upvoted by users the most popular opinion will prevail. Popular opinions are probably also more likely to land as the first comment, which I think also gives heavy weight towards its visibility and ability to gain vote momentum. Tildes isn’t broken down into a massive amount of sub-communities, so I think it tends to have pretty consistent voice. I’m sure the demographics of people who jumped the Reddit ship to come here around the same time also has an effect on that.
And for any newcomers reading: This is a very intentional design decision that consolidates discussion, to encourage reading all (or at least most) of what has been said already before jumping in.
Whats the point of a discussion-focused site if nobody reads?
As an aside I see things from time to time that make me think Tildes could use some more structure.
For instance there was a thread lately where somebody asked “What anime should I watch?” and most of the answers listed 5 or 6 animes out of which I really want to say “Drop everything and watch Psycho-Pass”. Having some conversation where people nominate individual anime and these become a common conversation (if two people recommend Psycho-Pass only one turns up in the site but it gets an extra upvote or comment)
I agree, and I think things would be better with downvotes. I know few people here will agree with me on that, but as it is, if you want to be part of the community, and someone says something you think is harmful (but not reportable) or wrong (but you don't have the time or ability to write a useful counter) then the only tools you have that feel remotely appropriate are the "noise" and "malice" labels. "Malice" requires explanation that (in my experience) mods won't agree with; "noise" doesn't, but still requires a lot of agreement and gives you no signal back.
Downvotes would let the community know what's generally not appreciated, and it would do a better job than just a lack of upvotes, because it's an actual signal and method of participation; it doesn't leave a question as to whether a post or comment is just unseen or ignored. I think labels are usually invisible and unhelpful there.
I think the argument against downvotes is that people are only welcome if they are able and comfortable writing responses to everything, and growth isn't a goal; I can't argue against that, I just think it's short-sighted and insular.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Downvoting is probably one of the driving reasons why conversations on Reddit are so bad. It's too strong; it makes people upset. How often have you clicked on the plus icon to read a collapsed thread and the person has an edit about being downvoted? People already have the power of negative reinforcement with their words, and I don't think that giving people an extra tool for negativity is a positive thing. Especially when it could so easily turn into an "I disagree" button that could mean that their voice doesn't get heard.
People here on TIldes have said things that have made me very upset. But I don't think it's constructive to anyone to give upset people the option to simply make a punitive action a click away. It has no nuance and doesn't explain exactly what the problem is. Negative labels are helpful precisely because they don't tell the person; they simply signal to Deimos that this is something he might need to be scrutinizing to make sure things don't get worse.
No, because whatever theory might be in play, in practice people use downvote as disagreement. As in "I disagree, so downvote." That's it. That's all they use it for.
It's already bad enough, to turn that phrase, to see threads where people didn't upvote comments. You see that and you just know they were all like "yeah no, fuck off." Else they would've given it a vote. But no, they disagreed and had to settle for not upvoting.
Basically, people suck. The problem's always people. Tildes as currently laid out has one of the better systems to ward off the peopleness of people from screwing it all up. Adding in downvotes will just put the whole site right back into that "fuck you, downvote" area which doesn't work at all.
I don't think writing a counter to someone takes that long if they are writing a comment that is malice or noise. You can just reply and say that what they said was out of line just like you would in a real-life discussion.
I actually think that countering someone based on the merits of their argument should be a completely different comment than calling someone out for their commenting behavior. When you combine the two it lowers the credibility of both statements.
The primary risk of adding downvotes is the potential creation of echo chambers, which are not good regardless of the way they’re biased. That’s not to say that leaving them out can’t perpetuate harm, but if a site is to add the feature, a much deeper level of design consideration than is typically afforded is warranted.
For example, perhaps users have only a limited number of downvotes for a given period of time or when downvoting, a reason for the downvote must be given (which is then surfaced to readers), or maybe downvotes can’t bury posts — the precise design is up for debate, but hopefully this conveys the idea, which is to offer a negative signal without recreating one of Reddit’s biggest problems in the process.
Depends on the size of the communities imo. I prefer no downvote system in smaller communities such as here since the responses are fairly manageable. Smaller communities need to encourage more engagement and to decrease the barrier to participate. Moderation also is different in smaller groups since it is more intimate. In my opinion, it's easier for people to call out specific detail or educate a certain topic.
Larger communities like reddit where brigading, spamming, and all sort of nastiness is more common, downvoting is more justifiable. Downvoting helps moderator to weed out bad faith actor, spam, and etc. But the downside, people tend to get more defensive about their argument and meaner. A bad moderator can make the community toxic and uninviting. There is a reason why I associate Reddit with toxicity.
I would say, I dislike upvote and downvote system in general because of their simplicity. And, it would be nice to see a forum or discussion based social media that has a range of stamps that is not facebook, and maybe not emoticon based.
No there's not.
It's been like that forever, and that's good.
Nuh-uh!