@gilbert189

Let’s play a game of “Fortunately, Unfortunately“. Respond the previous post (the first comment below this post) by replying this post (not the previous post!)

I’ll start with: “I found this website.“

Mass Indifferency: Is Converting A Bad Idea?

(an excerpt of “Me and The Internet”, on the section “Politics: Both Prevalent and Taboo”)

There's a more neutral approach of handling conflicting opinions; neutral enough that it's used by almost everyone, with them either knowing it or not. What's that approach? Be indifferent. Saying anything would only cause more harm than good, so don't say a word on it. Making others convert their beliefs (for the lack of a better term) isn't worth your effort, and so does fighting to defend yours.

As I see it, there are two types of indifferency:

• Aggressive indifferency, that is complete denial of opinion. You do not care if their opinions are right or wrong. They would only steer their beliefs into yours, for better or worse; that is not okay.

  This is the most coercive way of “thinking" about other's opinions, and also the most common one that people use on the Internet, it seems like; popularized with the terms “no u" and the earlier “ur mom gay" (which fell out of favor for obvious reasons). I wrote thinking in quotes there because it's not even thinking, instead you just put their statements in the bin to be shredded later.

  Aggressive indifferency preserves their own beliefs well, however it can be perceived as, well, aggressive. They felt ignored. All the things they perceive as right for them is nullified or even rejected by this one individual/group. This is what drives people to fight for their beliefs.

• Permissive indifferency, which involves consideration of one's opinion, eventual or immediate. You acknowledge the possibility of coming up with that opinion, but you don't want to put or exert your position about it.

  Unlike aggressive indifferency, this school of thought is more lax in terms of thinking about opinions, and also the approach I've used when encountering statements that opposes my beliefs. Other than that, permissive indifferency is mostly used on statements they knew they couldn't do much with, such as worldwide conflicts or something similar.

  Permissive indifferency is a much more forgiving indifferency, however it could make people naïve at perceiving opinions. They're easy to lose grip on their beliefs. All it takes is the thought “hmm, maybe they're not wrong" for their stance to start shifting away. When untreated, this would turn into heresy.

One being indifferent of a certain topic of discussion―one way or the other―gives little reason for the other to exert their opinions on them. I mean, if they don't react even a little bit to what's being said, why bother? So, if the way people handle opposing opinions is by indifferency, is it bad to convert someone? Are any attempts to preach or persuade someone to follow your stances merely an exercise in futility? And if you somehow did, should you feel guilty?

Unfortunately, we as social beings can't cope well with indifferency, one way or another. We are made to interact with each other, be it to help or to hurt. Both are valid ways to exert their opinion. Sure, hurting others is discouraged, but that's not gonna stop people from doing it. World War II is one extreme example.

And it's not just limited to hurting either. Helping someone is also a form of giving attention, both for the helper, the one being helped, and others who witness them. Sympathy and empathy are also one reason why people stand their reasoning on a topic. These actions―conflicts, major or minor; assistance, sympathy, and empathy―are not entirely physical. Verbal abuse like threats, gaslighting, and bullying is a thing, and so does verbal support like appreciation and recognition. All of those are ways to show their way of reasoning.

But okay. Let's suppose that indifferency is the common mindset of the people. People wouldn't exert their opinions because it's not worth their time; they would just ignore what they say. What would that society look like? Here's my take on it:

Everyone would quickly turn asocial. The number of interactions between people would significantly reduce to none, mainly because any form of attention is considered lewd to these people in concept. Even suggestions would be considered taboo. As such, freedom of speech becomes unnecessary. Freedom of will takes over it.

Morality would also be phased out. No one cares what the others are thinking. It's not their business. Instead, they replace it with their ego. And a really grayscale one as well. No one wants or even tolerates boasts here. Because of this, life of the people would be very inert.

Eventually, social integrations, from families to nations, would cease to exist. In this society, if we can call it that, people only care for themselves. Isolation is absolute. Those that couldn't take care of themselves cannot survive on this imaginary world; others wouldn't care if they need help.

It's kinda grim, isn't it? Now I would like to see a novelist illustrating such world. Or at least their interpretation of it.

Just seen someone on YouTube supporting abstension…

…oh wait, you’re telling me this is not how to use social media?

Privacy. That’s iPhone.

—local iPhone advertisement (translated)

Wiktionary has [[Appendix:I don’t speak]] but not [[Appendix:Do you speak]]

why is a news reporter following me

Last decade everyone on the Internet is asked to be cool, high-class, and a masterful person.

Nowadays everyone’s asked to be funny and humorous with a sense of foolishness.

Suggestion: the president candidate that got second on the election should become a vice president

Turns out the reason why my GPU doesn’t speed up my training is because I didn’t batch my data, because the dataset is ragged and I had no idea how to batch it at first

After figuring out how masking works, I got it batching my data. Now I have to figure out how to handle…

…this.

My new laptop will make ML projects faster than ever

sees the GPU at Task Manager barely being utilized

I think I just got scammed

Context since I have no more space left and beta is broken:

This is a snippet of my writing called "Me and The Internet", a highly critical writing about the Internet and their community from my perspective, and some rants about them. I have hesitated to share anything here since I know it will only bring verbal fights to the one reading them, and I really don't want that to happen on this place. This is one of the more chiller writings, but others regarding to human rights, anti-capitalism, and politics are way more spicy than this. If I ever posted them here, I will probably beat myself at "wasteof post worst than oren's" (IYKYK).

Criticality above All

I like to look at the comments when I watch YouTube, when I noticed that there's a theme of the top comment of some videos: the comments are almost all critical. Either they provoke some entity (usually big, greedy corps) or outlining mistakes or overall silliness of one's act. There's some exceptions of course; praises for being different than the others or simply just comments that's on topic with the content (usually funny ones) are some examples of the exceptions.

There must be some method to this madness. Being that the algorithm of YouTube is tuned for attention regarding to giving people content (because more attention = more watchtime = more ad revenue = more money), I have a theory that people just gravitate towards other's opinions, either to agree with them or to disagree with them. It doesn't matter if the opinion is agreeable or controversial; it will be pushed up by the algorithm. The more agreeable or controversial some post is, the more people will talk about it, and the more engaging that post will be.

It doesn't take much for this bias to become apparent; even a single like-dislike number is enough to bias content in this manner. Just look at Urban Dictionary; most of the top definitions are opinions.

This is an interesting fact to learn. Social networking services are tuned to prefer people's preferences, rather than the overall sentiment or relevance of the topic in question. And the Internet grown up to be this way.

me when first past the post

edit: turns out I forgot how FPTP means, whoops. seeing how people voted though means my statement is not that wrong

whoa whoa whoa

since when is there a campaign on wasteof