HN user
Someone probably write this same thing about news papers when they were a recent invention. Television also.
Well, I don't think television or the news paper is a good place to debate either. They do however give people more than 30 seconds to think about their responses.
I find it more worrying that anyone would want to support this kind of learning. These young people are not being educated on how to identify misinformation; rather, they're being indoctrinated with values that encourage virtue signaling or worse, trolling.
Living inside a bubble of criticism and misinformation doesn't lead one to immediately question and then reform the system. More often, people choose to adapt to their environment which only perpetuates the existing infrastructure.
Instead of pointlessly debating each other on this app, a platform designed to capture attention and manipulate emotions, these people should take time to research and then carefully write an essay. Once they are satisfied with their opinions, they could share their thesis with the public and request contestation.
If we simply continue with this twitter/facebook/instagram trend of summarizing our most important debates in 150 words or less in a brief amount of time, we're only going to become less educated and more vulnerable to coercion.
If someone quotes your triple quote, would they have to use quadruple quotes?
How might this increase the barrier of entry? I would believe that if a transfer protocol was standardized, the startups could focus on innovating rather than convincing people to give up on software they've grown dependent on.
I'm not sure about the rest of HN but I'm definitely excited!
Learn dart instead of swift.
I really liked your blog theme. Very neat!
I do believe it is our purpose to reproduce and extend the lives of future generations, but it is foolish to believe that humanity can prosper by systemically encouraging everyone to raise children. Some individuals are simply predisposed to be bad caretakers given various environmental and genetic factors. Must we actively inspire people who do not have the ability, patience, or the mental capacity to raise children to do just that?
Aside from that, what is it from that we must be "prevail", exactly? If you are suggesting the continuation of our species, I might remind you that our global population is steadily increasing.
Ah, I was not intending for my response to be taken literally, sorry. I was merely trying to show how ridiculous his claim was since there was no rational argument for it.
I'll have to work on my presentation skills next time.
Do you imply that the only way of having a meaningful life when your job is mediocre is by creating a family? What about other recreational activities or hobbies? Somewhat anecdotally, I recall a grade school teacher that was single in her 50s but remained active within a large volunteer community supporting youth. She often discussed how her participation in this circle gave her life purpose.
Maybe the systemic issue is that people who are reaching their 30s often feel pressured by their social group to get married and thus believe their lives are meaningless without that ring or child validating its purpose.
Perhaps the comment was referencing a myriad of different factors which might affect relationships now that didn't exist in 2014? According to the World Happiness Report 2017, there is a trend which suggests Americans are growing less happy each year. So maybe in the interim of 4 years the world has become drastically less optimistic about intimate relationships... Or not.
Vivaldi is an amazing browser! The team behind it actually considers very niche suggestions and implements them in their snapshot releases. Very fast and stylish -- I would definitely recommend!
I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles.
Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they take.
Simply shutting down conflicting political ideologies doesn't really lead to any rational discussion on the matter. To give an example, consider the current legal strife with gun control. Some people want the state to increase gun regulation and others don't. If each party simply supports their case by saying the other party is discriminating against their way of life, the discussion wouldn't lead to anything sensibly intelligent.
People should have the ability to defend any argument they wish, so long as they remain civil about it. This is especially the case in matters which actually concern the people themselves. Their propositions may be wrong and detrimental to society but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to express their thoughts.