I Rebooted My Social Life
Key topics
As people poured into the discussion around rebooting one's social life, a fascinating debate unfolded about the concept of "third spaces" - those elusive environments outside of work and home where we can connect with others. Some commenters, like alexfoo, swore by co-working spaces as a solution, while others, like EE84M3i, argued that these were merely "second spaces" if used primarily for work. Meanwhile, a poignant thread emerged around supporting friends struggling with depression and burnout, with commenters like ToucanLoucan and squigz sharing their personal experiences and offering words of encouragement, such as being patient and gently nudging them out of their comfort zones. The conversation revealed a deep empathy and understanding for those navigating these challenges.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
73
0-6h
Avg / period
12.3
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 1, 2026 at 6:01 AM EST
8 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 1, 2026 at 8:28 AM EST
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
73 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 4, 2026 at 7:30 AM EST
5d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
It’ll be a slightly different approach to the other though. For me, I want to start playing some tabletop games (war games and/or RPGs) at my Friendly Local Game Shop. I think these types of interactions are important for community.
This gets us out of the house, gives us some time away from each other and kids, and gives us some interaction with some other people (who work for completely different companies) but are kind of like colleagues in terms of gentle office banter, water-cooler chats, etc.
I know loads of them by name, who they work for, what they do and there are occasional bonus interesting chats where some aspect of our two industries/jobs overlap slightly. There's one person who is just starting out doing something similar to a niche job I did 15 years ago, so it's great to speak to him and act as a kind of mentor.
Fully remote work is great, and I could be a happy recluse, but I'm all for more in-person interaction during the working day. Next job I think I'll go back to hybrid with 1-3 days in an office if possible.
It's more than my second space but not completely a third space. Space 2.67?
It kills me. They are so addicted to their comforts, to their security, to their home. And I get why, they have had a tremendously bad couple of years… but I just see the repeated behaviors reinforcing the issue. I get told over and over “we just need a few months where nothing bad happens” but like… dude. That’s not coming. The bad shit always happens, it’s going to continue until you die. The only way to make that worse is to self isolate and make yourself miserable constantly between those bad things.
If anyone has advice, I would super appreciate it. I’m so worried for them.
Of course, I know that from your perspective, it can be frustrating and painful, and that nobody can be expected to remain infinitely patient. I don't blame people for eventually throwing in the towel...
I wanted to focus on my health, both mental and physical, this meant going to the gym every morning and making time to read and getting rid of social media.
I also wanted to reduce my consumption of alcohol which typically was fueled by social events and always seemed to throw a wrench in taking care of my health (hard to get to the gym in the morning when you were drinking the night before, and for me it was even after just 1 drink).
What I realized was that many of the people I was spending time with, they oriented their communal time around drinking and for me that's pretty detrimental to my goals. After pulling back from social activity, I've felt so much healthier, happier and optimistic about life.
I get the same exact phone calls as you're describing, and I generally weigh the events I'm being invited to with what the focus of the event is - if the goal of the event is to just get together at a bar, I don't go. I think many of my friends feel that I've sort of lost my way, but it's difficult because I sort of see them in the same light.
What I do hope to do eventually is to cultivate some new friendships, because I am missing that social aspect of my life, but for now I've sort of got a good thing going and I'm not too concerned about rushing it into being.
> Renowned author Dan Brown got out of his luxurious four-poster bed in his expensive $10 million house and paced the bedroom, using the feet located at the ends of his two legs to propel him forwards. He knew he shouldn’t care what a few jealous critics thought. His new book Inferno was coming out on Tuesday, and the 480-page hardback published by Doubleday with a recommended US retail price of $29.95 was sure to be a hit. Wasn’t it?
https://jimmyakin.com/2024/03/dont-make-fun-of-renowned-dan-...
I feel like including him in a list next to Hitler is a bit... much.
Completely agreed on Rand though.
Did people also think of National Treasure as historically accurate?
As for comparing him to Hitler, people gonna be people.
I wish people exchanged these kinds of lists.
I have a small curated blacklist and a chrome extension that automatically hides content from them (even on HN, lol).
A rationalist, a mass-market fiction author, a millennial poet, and a dictator walk into a bar...
You have a weird list there
Once you're past a certain age, social life will not be automatic like it used to when you were younger. You need to agro pursue a social life and maintain relationships and friendships. On the flip side, some of my close friendships at this age are super strong since we've been allies for decades.
I did just that, and built https://wonderful.dev
It's based around jobs for devs, but right now it's just a place to chat about tech.
> And this was when I finally realised something that should have been obvious. I had a small group of close friends who were spread across the country. I had a wider group of friends and acquaintances who I’d talk to online.
> But what I lacked was a community.
The “personal brand” and track record might be getting even more important now that the bar to building something has dropped to the floor.
I was about to turn 40 and realized that the place we were staying had a rock wall. In a somewhat "mid life crisis" spur of the moment decision, I decided to go buy shoes, a belt and a chalk bag (I did a lot of indoor rock climbing in college).
We get there and the rock wall is a. closed and b. only for kids.
Get back to the US and COVID lockdown starts. As things open up, I go on the town dad's Facebook group and ask if anyone wants to go rock climbing with me. Multiple dads say "hell, yes!" so I start a rock climbing club.
One of the dads that joins the climbing club loves board games, is inspired by my starting the rock climbing club so he starts the town board game club.
I tell people this story to illustrate that:
- if you don't have a club or org for something that you're into, go start one
- you doing the above can trigger other people to start clubs too
A few years ago I joined my rural neighborhood council, and I’d never been around so many people consistently being generous with their time and energy. It’s really uplifting, and you end up learning a lot from each other in the process too.
Some person somehow gets to be the leader and bosses people around. Those people aren't always the brightest or the most compassionate. They often are pushy, they are somewhat totalitarian, they really don't like their ways to be questioned. Sometimes (not always) they are the most dedicated bust only because they made that volunteering their identity or their main source of self-esteem (this can either happen because they don't have anything else going on in their life OR because what goes on in their life do not satisfy them).
They are often "open to new people, ideas and contribution" only as long as anything new is very well aligned with their line of thinking or does not question their authority in any way.
Either way, I've seen that happen too many times to take volunteering any seriously.
In my case, local community orgs are usually run by older, often retired people. Doesn't mean there's no drama, but it's not the same kind of drama you'll find in predominantly younger organizations.
I stay volunteering for the people I work with even more than my investment in the goals of the organization.
You can find something like that - keep looking.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38158616
The phenomenon began in Australia but it has spread to other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_shed
Freemasonry began as a workers' guild, but the accreted "goals and rituals" take a group far beyond the simplicity of a men's shed.
The simplicity of any club rapidly becomes complex when monotheism or henotheism (any theism) is injected:
From Wikipedia:
* Anglo-American style Freemasonry, which insists that a "volume of sacred law" should be open in a working lodge, that every member should profess belief in a supreme being, that only men should be admitted, and discussion of religion or politics does not take place within the lodge.
* Continental Freemasonry or Liberal style Freemasonry which has continued to evolve beyond these restrictions, particularly regarding religious belief and political discussion.
* Women Freemasonry or Co-Freemasonry, which includes organisations that either admit women exclusively or accept both men and women."
[1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
When we study this we notice very small actual bias at an individual level on socialization preference. The differences are modest and more like slight preferences. There is more overlap than not at a local individual level. What gets missed is that even though the differences are relatively small, the network effect greatly amplifies these small variances resulting in non-linear outcomes. Even small biases at an individual level essentially produce significant effect in socialization behavior.
There seem to be as many Women’s Institute members in England as there are Freemasons.
And that is before you consider more ad hoc organisations like book clubs that are definitely more female dominated (though sports clubs perhaps the opposite?)
I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?
> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity
No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.
That describes you and your wife, and that's great to know yourselves. Why do you feel the need to generalize it to everyone else?
People don't need to justify needs by pointing to some greater power that compels them. People have needs; what's most important is understanding them and their loved one loving and supporting them. That one is yours.
Each person has needs; I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex (though socialization is, to some extent). It doesn't change what I do or how I think of it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051382...
https://psychcentral.com/health/didactic-memory?utm_source=c...
>> I have no data that it has to do with gender or sex, and why would it matter? The needs aren't predictable based on gender/sex
not sure what you're trying to say here, but you seem to have taken a very mild, very general statement incredbly personal.
Also, it assumes that there's a correlation between these behaviors and that definition. For example, it could be more common in people who are non-binary.
<https://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html>
>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.
>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.
----
Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.
[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]
Do you need a 'safe space'?
I haven't heard it before.
> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.
You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?
> incredbly personal
Don't bother with the ad hominem distractions.
>I haven't heard it before.
You learned something, today.
nobody's worrying about you, rest assured.
Social interactions don’t thrive when negative emotions are present.
People want to feel good about what they are doing.
Even the used car salesman that wants to be your friend knows this… bring good energy to HN as well.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
There is more overlap than not. So, how do we reconcile that with how things end up: network effect. Small biases in socialization norms lead to significant non-linear outcomes due to amplification of these biases leading to norms that exaggerate these biases and end up creating norms that are quite distorted from the average. Leads to some significant consequences for how different genders end up socialization.
For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
It might not need to be a pub, but having a club house to do pretty much anything is enormously beneficial to the human brain to have positive social interaction.
We get to decide our own social interaction.
The world is not responsible to not triggering us.
Yes, but isn't it a benefit to society as a whole though? All the prime working years are gone by then and there is no need to pay pension to those men or for expensive medical treatments. And younger generations can be happy for there being one less cishet white male boomer in the world.
I mean, it sure sucks for the individual not being able to enjoy their retirement, but for the society it seems that it will be a benefit.
This idea that people you don't like should die for the "benefit" of society has been tried before. It doesn't end well.
Well, not needed, unless an actual shooting war breaks out and you need a lot more people pulling guard duty or just some very high-risk stuff younger men should not be wasted on. Like that Ukrainian unit of pensioner men in a ground-attack missile unit who source their own missiles by repairing unexploded ones.
The mistake - which leads to disaster - is more fundamental. Modern society isn't an actual thing with needs, just an abstract concept. Individual people are real, and we all have real rights and needs. 'Goverments exist to protect rights' - society exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. Almost all morality includes protecting and helping the vulnerable.
Infants and children are also a 'burden' as are people with all sorts of illnesses (and people spreading disinformation). Only the cruelest fascists have suggested they should die to help society, as if that's a reasonable discussion.
> Just look at how triggered the GP
Ad hominem is against HN guidelines. Just stick to the issues instead of trying to change the subject by attacking and characterizing people who don't agree with you.
Instead we clutch to life far beyond any societal benefit and, in many cases, beyond personal benefit too, spending a fortune to delay death another few weeks or months… but with incredibly low quality of life.
That said, dying at 58 is probably of no real benefit. But everyone dying a few years younger would have prevented Brexit.
I'm all for death with dignity and not being a burden on your loved ones. But people who've worked all their lives deserve to have a period after where they can enjoy life without the burden of "productivity".
> men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
That seems a extremely young. Is that a typo?
(Seriously, I have no idea what the actual statistic is that's being misquoted here)
I'm not discussing things on the basis of what someone else things all people of my gender/sex do - that's irrelevant. Do you redefine your own needs based on what you read someone else thinks half the population does?
Frankly, I don't know why more women doesn't center their social life around activities.
It's an excellent idea. Seriously, what's not to like?
Not that its impossible, but the majority* of men get together to watch, play, or talk about sports the majority of the time... whereas I'm perfectly fine just hanging out where hanging out is the activity!
I eventually just stopped trying to invite most of my guy friends out for 1-1 meals, etc.
* hyperbole
Once you don't need to ask, because it has a standing slot and standing membership, that's a club; once it has organised and centralised payments, that's a club.
"Hey tekno45, pub?" is not an initiation of a drinking club.
Then organically these tend to turn into trips together or simple hangouts for someone's birthday or a holiday.
Prior to Covid, I'd started a Wednesday "Dad's Night" where we just got together from 9-10 in my backyard to hang out and have a beer. Eventually we'd move to random local pubs and often it would go to 11pm. It grew with consistency as people would invite other folks. Had one of the assistant basketball coaches from Clemson show up one time. Some of the guys who home brewed would bring something.
The key was a time, after the kids are in bed on a night in the middle of the week when people didn't have other plans.
Covid killed it, but we eventually just became a "grab lunch" text group.
I think Country Clubs and golf used to be the "default" outlet for a lot of people, but as those prices have increased there's a gap to fill.
> how, for dad’s in particular, there is a massive need for this
- Yes
- And also for single men at 45, because everyone’s busy and they feel like a failure for not having a family (meanwhile having a family is such an incredible performance)
- Teens. There is a massive loneliness epidemic among teens. At least we 40-year-olds have had friends before. But the iphonocene (the era of smart phones) has created a generation of people whose friends were always, constantly, busy with phones.
We play a game (whichyr.com) were we guess the year of random pictures. The first criteria is whether people are bent while walking. Not bent: pre-2013. Bent on the phone: Post-2013. It’s not the invention of the phone, it’s the usage of it.
I mean not just 1 or 2, every single time. It maybe golf, gun range, driving, anything. I'm a introvert that has problem scheduling time, but a lot of Dads don't have male friends and are desperately seeking other male-only quality time.
One of the things that really drove it home for me was going on r/daddit and seeing post after post of dads with young kids talking about how lonely they are.
In the scenario of the "working dad, stay at home mom" + elementary age kids, it's REALLY tough b/c moms can socialize during school hours whereas the dad is only available from 5-6pm onwards which coincides with dinner/bed time.
Some tips for the above:
- Have regularly scheduled "hang out with friends night". Lot easier to manage than "hey, can I hang out with my buddy tonight?"
- Do "swaps" e.g. where after kids are in bed, dad A hangs out with dad B at house B, wife B hangs out with wife A at house A (so you don't need to get a babysitter)
Two years later, that guy and I are best friends, and we cold plunge every Saturday together. Just did a new years plunge with our friend group that is growing. My wife commented this morning that I've really 'farmed' my friend group, whereas a few years ago. I was myself very frustrated with having no real friends anymore.
FYI, my son is in a much better place.
However, the Finns in the winter did not seem to be happy at all, but mostly quite deep in seasonal depression.
- We see each other every week, almost without fail
- I suspect the invitation to a cold plunge pre-selects for people with very high openness, and those people aren’t afraid of deep friendships
- Doing something hard and a little bit scary together strengthens the bond
This can’t be underestimated. Most of my adult friends come from my trekking hobby. Everyone struggles during a trek, group dynamics form, you stay surprisingly close with the people you trekked with.
We initially wanted to do a ride in France called Paris-Brest-Paris, but never got good enough. That's a 1200km ride. Then kids happened, careers, etc. I'm too bad at time management for that kind of riding, haha.
Hats off to you!
I’ve done some long rides to be sure, but the longest I’ve ever ridden non-stop-ish is probably about 14 hours. I think riding through the night is a deal-breaker for me. I’ve never been on the road earlier than 6am, or later than 10pm.
For sure, riding at night is awful. I'm too risk-averse to do it much these days. I've got kids who depend on me to be more careful than that.
We typically left around 4am, and on some rides would finish after midnight if not riding most of the night. Those dark hours were always pleasantly low-traffic, yet I always wondered if the ratio of drunk and/or tired drivers was far worse.
I think that's really the only part I don't miss, come to think of it. Headlights at night were always unsettling.
Also watch Ghost in the Shell which is vaguely set in Hong Kong then feel the vibe when you're there.
My experience is, in the USA, eventually nearly every meetup is ruined by politics. Eventually someone says something unintentionally trigging someone else and then off it goes.
Many people also just put you on a text messaging list when you exchange numbers. They only tell you the number to their list, but they are capable of responding individually from it
When they go somewhere, they tell the list, if you come you come, if you don't, nobody's missing you. No obligation, reply STOP to end. Otherwise you can bond at the event and meet everyone else too
It's really easy to be in the mindset that someone else should have already set up the rock climbing club and that if it doesn't exist it just can't.
Turns out that someone can be you! (and this is the thing people miss out on, you can actively make your world more like the way you want it to be by being that leader yourself and doing so is often way easier than you think)
This is how I met most of my local friends; I went out and started a D&D game.
D&D is slightly tricky, because most people want to play a character, instead of be the DM - so, you either need to find a DM, or be the DM. I'm lucky - I love DMing.
Another problem is maybe similar to what OP was facing; I see many people joining our local Discord, looking for a game, but none of them or the people welcoming them seem to take the actual next step of picking a time and a place to meet and start discussing where and when to actually play.
You don’t even to find a group or friends before you go. Just go to the bouldering area and hang out during a popular time.
Most gyms have partner finder programs and designated social nights.
Every gym I’ve been a member of has also had a bring a friend program where you get to bring one new person for free periodically.
Online groups are also a good way to meet new friends. This is HN so a lot of people will turn their nose up at Facebook but it’s full of groups of people who go out and do things.
I had a colleague who was member of a dance club, then he had to move to another district, making it super uncomfortable to continue on a regular base - up until today they are calling him every few weeks if he can attend because lack of men
If you move somewhere, and find the same circles why are you surprised that you’re still not happy?
> also, no women
Social groups aren’t just a place for unhappy people to meet a partner. I’d look inwards first.
It sounds like his professional life or personal interests naturally being him in contact with a social circle that isn’t fulfilling socially. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with him.
I say, look outward! Intentionally get involved with other social circles.
They can mostly only ever wish you well.
For me, the significant thing about having local community is the ability to throw stuff together last minute. Not every gathering has to have a spreadsheet of guests and canva invites and endless emails booking a band, a keg, whatever else.
A lot can and should just be "hey dudes, anything doing anything? Want to come over for a game/movie/whatever?" Those kinds of low-stakes hangouts are the real backbone of community, and they're hard to do if you don't have a friend group that's physically close by.
It is such a massive boost to quality of life to just be able on a whim to send a text like “i am tryna grab some food+drink in 15min, you down?” and actually make it happen more than half the time (and being able to receive similar texts from the friend too). Lots of spontaneous interactions and (barely-any-)planning for just normal low-pressure outings was absolutely my favorite part of that time period.
On a sidenote, I absolutely despise the “guest spreadsheet canva invites and endless emails booking a band” way of regularly doing social stuff. It is totally chill and reasonable to do so for special occasions and bigger events, but having it as the primary way of socializing makes me want to drill a hole in my skull.
I miss the arco. I miss the arco a lot.
I suppose there are exceptions.
So for me online communities can be a great thing, but they can't replace IRL communities, because the interactions make you feel different. I suspect that the social needs that evolution has imprinted on us can't just be fulfilled by online interactions, they require more senses than just hearing and seeing.
I used the birthday party as an example because it was an eye-opener for me. I used to host my birthday every years and had plenty of friends coming and we had a great time. Then university ended, people move away starting families or build their careers (as I did for the career part too). One day my birthday was coming up and I realized I would have no one to invite that would show up. That devastating feeling of loneliness made me realize I need to make a change. It took years, but it was worth it. Am looking forward to my next birthday party with my friends.
I'm exploring in-office jobs for 2026.
so for me it's nice because i get to have my slow morning and go to the office during lunch break (i live relatively close).
this made me realize that i don't really mind the office (i ended up going almost every day, staying from lunch break 'till 5pm) but i loathe essentially two things:
- shitty coworkers (better to hop job at all, but avoiding them in person does help a lot)
- going to the office being mandatory (as in, not having freedom and autonomy)
in my current setup colleagues tend to autonomously organize when to meet in the office and go out for lunch together. and frankly... it's great.
the work itself has a lot of shortcomings (and i'm fixing things left and right from the first week i joined the company) but the people and the autonomy make it great.
Wework and other coworking spaces have mostly been a disappointment as a way to find community, with just two exceptions over the years (one of which was killed by covid).
I’m still searching.
One big problem with having mostly or only online friends is that you spend all day at work in front of a computer, then if you want to spend time with your online friends you spend more time in front of a computer. It can turn into all day every day screen time.
- This is super relatable (isolation of modern life in a capitalist system, especially as we age)
- I like this reflection on how norms/values can be at odds with modern hyperindividualism
- Woah why are we talking about "woke" all the sudden, red flags. I thought in this year 2026, we all acknowledged that all that "anti-woke"/"free-speech" stuff was a complete lie (at least here in America) now that the same people who fought so hard for it are doing everything they can do undermine it.
- Mild disgust at everything regarding skeptics and the ton of naval-gazing around a community that IMO is obvious to everybody in the world (other than the participants) not even faintly rational (probably more obviously emotional than a random person on the street) and incredibly pretentious to label themselves so.
- A few paragraphs about inviting friends to bars. Okay right, that's why I clicked on this. WTF did I just read?
Tell me you're in an echo chamber without telling me you're in an echo chamber.
We're equating these government actions to lefties being mean on twitter and cancel culture?
0: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/pros...
1: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/democratic-lawmaker...
2: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
3: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/federal-judge-rules-trum...
4: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/trump-threatening-broadcast-...
5: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjg2n3xv7zo
- orange man makes dumb obviously unconstitutional proclamation about flag burning
- most likely nobody does anything about it, but if someone does there is a law suit
- the courts are like 'lol no'
- back to status quo ante
Generally the courts more reasonable than people think. You hear about the inflammatory rulings because that's what drives clicks.
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-part...
538 shows an increase in political polarization, but they're still unanimous on lots of things.
I think you forgot to answer to that comment so I am reminding you
I certainly don't think any camp would be okay with that, let alone MAGAs (and for obvious reasons)
It's a common trope of centrists and republicans to say that it's okay for Trump to explore the outer limits of legal theory and executive power, but at the same time freak out at what a Democrat might do with the government.
No, I wouldn't be fine with it.
Do you imagine this is what Trump is doing? Or that Democrats don't do the same? Democrats ran a long and successful campaign to crush anti-woke dissent, for instance. Broke lots of laws (and still do!) in the process. Questioning woke orthodoxy could get you blackballed or fired in government, and they wielded power to make sure the same was true in many non-gov institutions. They were even on the path to first amendment restrictions to protect this crusade. Even compelled speech in Biden's last Title IX!
Anywho, to steelman I think you would need to explicitly make the leap from "flag burning" to "running a campaign of crushing dissent", because flag burning doesn't seem like even part of a campaign against crushing dissent. It seems like empty pandering to stupider supporters.
Citation/elaboration needed. Same goes for the Title IX comment. How did Biden "compel speech" on campuses?
> and they wielded power to make sure the same was true in many non-gov institutions
Again, cancel culture, no matter how aggressive, is not the same as using the monopoly on violence to get your way. Woke mob vs federal agents. You could argue that some of Trump's actions like his lawsuit against the pollster aren't an official government action, but it certainly is a huge break from norms for a sitting President to sue over speech he doesn't like.
> explicitly make the leap from "flag burning" to "running a campaign of crushing dissent"
It's much more than just flag burning, as I've shown.
1) https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ is the third ddg result for title ix compelled speech. Basically, the feds under Biden were going to compel use of people's preferred pronouns. Ideally it would have failed in court.
Elaboration: For a very long time, in many states and parts of the federal government, there has been overt discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability status, etc. in direct and obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Things like skin-color quotas for hiring, preferences for vendors, etc. You're certainly familiar. They hired people who would, at the very least, not speak out against their regime's practices, and ideally who would help perpetuate them.
> Again, cancel culture, no matter how aggressive... It's not just twitter mobs. To get the large gov't grants necessary to be successful in science, for instance, it was ~mandatory for the past while to have a DEI angle on your application. Many forms actually had a section for it. So, in this case, the gov't isn't using its monopoly on violence exactly, but it's not cancel culture. (and of course there were many grants funded that weren't just a DEI angle, it was 100% DEI bullshit)
"A huge conspiracy to overtly break the law" is what DEI was and still sadly largely is.
This is the exact mindset I mentioned above where Democrats are judged based on what they might've done or might happen, while Trump has clearly done things that go against our basic rights yet they're being shined in the same light. To be clear: I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize policy proposals.
> "A huge conspiracy to overtly break the law" is what DEI was and still sadly largely is.
DEI is a very wide tent, and the intentions of it are to widen the hiring pools to consider more people. If there are specific programs breaking the law, then those can be discussed specifically. Right wingers are typically for meritocracy (which has been shown to be a red herring with this loyalist admin, but w/e) and in theory they'd actually support a wider pool of people being considered.
Academia can be quite left leaning, so training about white supremacy or woke shit there is certainly over the top, but I have a problem with the broad brushes you're applying to something that has a lot more nuance. If this lawlessness was as pervasive as you make it seem in every sector, wouldn't we have seen a major loss in court already that requires these programs to be axed across the board?
> the intentions of it are to widen the hiring pools to consider more people.
I think this is a charitable take. To "consider" more people. But: 1) considering people takes resources, and if there's an optimal amount of "considering" to do and you force the pool one way or another...you're forcing people out as well as in. There's no way to "consider" more people efficiently. It's a nice lie that many people told themselves and others.
2) More importantly, and because of 1), this is not generally how it worked imho. We got quotas and mandates, people were put to the "bottom of the pile" (i.e., their applications not looked at). It was clear-cut illegal discrimination at large corporations and in academia, and there's plenty of direct first-hand evidence of that (including here on HN). I saw it myself many times (admittedly in academia, which as you rightly point out is a white-hot ball of crazy in this regard).
3) I'm not going to do it, but I think it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of high-level people who were inflicting DEI explicitly saying it wasn't about "widening the hiring pools to consider more people", but rather directly about removing white people from power and replacing them with black, brown, gay, female, or ideally some combo people. Nothing to do with "considering", just a power grab under an alternative metric for fairness they called "equity".
As for court losses: https://reason.com/2023/09/07/affirmative-action-loses-in-co... Affirmative action is over, is the biggest one
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ames-v-ohio-depa... is another big one
More minor but: Executive Order 14151 "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing" was blocked but now is un-blocked and enforceable nationwide: https://apnews.com/article/dei-trump-administration-appeals-...
EO 14173 "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" had an injuction, but that injunction was stayed https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/marylan...
It appears to me that these programs pretty much have been axed across the board.
- The entire MAGA zeitgeist takes the president's word as gospel and shifts into overdrive in an attempt to enact his proclamation through: A) social pressure; B) new state laws; and C) lawsuits of their own.
Because the president (this one especially, but also his predecessors) is more than just a person.
I find it interesting that I've thought about the exact social mechanics of making friends before as well - low stakes in person common context where you meet on a regular basis is key.
241 more comments available on Hacker News