←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 6 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.848s | source | bottom
Show context
ta8645 ◴[15 Nov 24 20:21 UTC] No.42150508[source]▶
I'm still hoping that X wins. I'm hoping that we learn how to coexist with a diversity of viewpoints. It seems counterproductive to partition everyone up into their own little gardens, without any viable opposition to the dominant views.
replies(13): >>42150517 #>>42150544 #>>42150546 #>>42150559 #>>42150564 #>>42150574 #>>42150668 #>>42150724 #>>42150784 #>>42150812 #>>42150959 #>>42152557 #>>42154057 #
1. bagful ◴[15 Nov 24 20:58 UTC] No.42150959[source]▶
Many people hold worldviews which are ontologically incapable of co-existence with other viewpoints. By reducing discourse to intergroup sparring and affinity signaling, the intermingling of various such extremists only solidifies the status quo.
replies(2): >>42150971 #>>42152432 #
2. ta8645 ◴[15 Nov 24 21:00 UTC] No.42150971[source]▶
There is a way to coexist, without it being a constant ideological battle all the time. If we can talk about the things we DO agree about, it makes it easier to talk about the things we don't. That's only possible if we're in proximity to one another.

Hiding in our own echo-chambers does not solve any real problems, and it creates new ones.

3. samatman ◴[15 Nov 24 23:21 UTC] No.42152432[source]▶
True, but those people can move to Bluesky, and a lot of them have.
replies(1): >>42154209 #
4. johnnyanmac ◴[16 Nov 24 04:26 UTC] No.42154209[source]▶
Yes. But The base of this thread is talking about how we can just "talk it out", when the disagreement is of things as base as "are [insert people here] inferior beings?"

No, I had centuries of ancestors fight so that question has a nigh-objective answer. I'm not going to entertain the argument to "expand my worldview". Why would I? That kind of talk is basically saying you don't respect me as a human being, so why talk with someone like that?

replies(2): >>42154624 #>>42154979 #
5. ◴[16 Nov 24 05:48 UTC] No.42154624{3}[source]▶
6. johnnyanmac ◴[16 Nov 24 07:08 UTC] No.42154979{3}[source]▶
If you're going to say something is reductive, maybe they should try not to make outright misogynistic tags trending. This was barely a week ago.