Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 203 posts

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#111

Post by hobbyjogger »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #93
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't give a fuck about the constitution of a country I don't live in but I too have rights.

I agree. In fact I would say these words mean any living person regardless of nationality (though the courts would disagree with me): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, derivin…

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Some parts of the Constitution apply to non-citizens, some parts don't. For example, the 14th Amendment makes a distinction on this point--note the use of "citizens" vs. "any person":

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#112

Post by edanm »

Ccecil wrote: post #108

I have asked no less than 10 people why they listen to talk radio when it is clearly propaganda. The response is strangely always almost verbatim "I like to stay informed". It amazes me that they always say the same thing in response. I have found a similar thing when I mention I have no Facebook account...the response is almost always "I just like to keep in touch with people"...but they never seem to point out thes…

I have lots of family that I am not in daily contact with. I still like to see pictures of them and know what's going on in their lives.

Same goes for some friends that I'm not in active contact with.

You can disagree with how other people conduct their lives, but I'd be careful to conclude it's "brainwashing".

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#113

Post by Ccecil »

edanm wrote: post #112
Ccecil wrote: post #108

I have asked no less than 10 people why they listen to talk radio when it is clearly propaganda. The response is strangely always almost verbatim "I like to stay informed". It amazes me that they always say the same thing in response. I have found a similar thing when I mention I have no Facebook account...the response is almost always "I just like to keep in touch with people"...but they never seem to point out thes…

I have lots of family that I am not in daily contact with. I still like to see pictures of them and know what's going on in their lives. Same goes for some friends that I'm not in active contact with. You can disagree with how other people conduct their lives, but I'd be careful to conclude it's "brainwashing".

When was the last time you just called one of them? Or stopped by for a visit?

I apologize if I upset you by implying mass brainwashing...I just find it odd that many share the same reasoning.

In my personal opinion...social media furthers the disconnect from actual relationships and creates imaginary ones that are based on reading posts and looking at pictures but you never really get to see the real person.

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#114

Post by L_Rahman »

Bartweiss wrote: post #91
dbingham wrote: post #35

I think some of the fear is justified. Climate change is a very real threat and it's justifiably scary. Our government, in the last 8 years, used remotely operated drones to carry out extrajudicial killings of American citizens -- including a teenage boy. Our security state now engages in mass surveillance of us in a time when our government is engaging in extraordinary rendition of suspected "terrorists" in secret w…

Without diving into specifics, I'm usually annoyed by people pitching "we're safer now than ever!" That argument almost always hinges on day-to-day, statistical safety; the most common citations are crime rates and life expectancies. It's a good rejoinder to certain things (like the cable news fixation on kidnappings and murders), but it's a deeply incomplete story. A lot of the most potent fears are black swan issue…

People pitching "we're safer now than ever" do so to allay cable news and talk radio induced fears of crime rates and immigration.

There's an entirely different discussion to be had about existential threats to humanity, but

1. the majority of the populace is pre-occupied with fighting the cable news fear battle

2. the existential threats from antibiotic resistance, bioweapons and climate change require people to understand large numbers and dispersed threats. Humans tend to be bad at this on average.

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#115

Post by Bartweiss »

astrocat wrote: post #2

Is incessant fear-mongering manipulation the inevitable dystopian end of a society that is always connected to channels of mass communication? This is the result of the race to the bottom for eyeballs and attention - the appeal to fear. Does this ever resolve? We spend so much time lamenting the demise of journalism, the sensationalization of media, the fear-mongering, etc... But it's not like distinct "bad choices"…

I'm more than half convinced that the problem is with how these things are monetized. Basically, I think the per-view/per-click model of profit is disastrous.

I value a well-researched, well-analyzed, 3000 word Guardian piece far more than a 200 word CNN piece. But if I click through one of the former and three of the latter, I'm conveying (roughly) three times the value to CNN. And if I click a link, the 'transaction' is made (for CPC, at least); it doesn't matter if I hate the piece and click away.

This has left us in a place where you can either be niche (producing high user value) or manipulative (producing high user volume). Both interfere with detailed, consensus-reality news. Thoughtful, public-interest journalism in the vein of Murrow is the lowest-profit option for embedded advertising.

We've incentivized for a news model which is not just hostile to society, but hostile to users. I don't want my how-to guides to come as slideshows with slow page refreshes between panels, but that's what I get. And I don't want my news to come as hyperbolic fear-mongering with clickbait headlines, but that's also what I get.

So I think we're a little doomed, because humans inherently respond to drama and uncertainty, so we get a race to the bottom. But not truly doomed - I value lots of other things as well, and it's the monetization model that emphasizes our baser instincts. We don't need to nobly abandon market forces, just find a way to monetize that's based on something deeper than "pages loaded".

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#116

Post by losteverything »

malz wrote: post #110
roymurdock wrote: post #65

As a 23 year old I can only imagine what it was like to live through the cold war with the colossal fear of nuclear annihilation soaking into every activity/decision. I feel like it must have been so overwhelming yet intangible - in some ways a nuclear holocaust is much less painful than losing a loved one in a car accident or seeing your country splinter into violent factions. A nuclear holocaust is a quick, binary…

Over 100 million of us watched The Day After when it aired, a TV movie about nuclear war. So not only was it top of mind, the range of media alternatives was so much smaller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After

But.... Imo. Top Of Mind did not last at all. Sure for 2 weeks we talked about it. But "it" was the movie. Not the fact destruction is coming.

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#117

Post by Spellman »

oarsinsync wrote: post #33
Gruselbauer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is. My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create. From stuff I don't agree with on almost anything - Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pret…

> But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. Mirror, is that you? > My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo c…

Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them.

I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc.

Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#118

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

oarsinsync wrote: post #87
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What practical use do you get out of reading "news" such as: >Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines... If you are feeling such crippling despair from consuming this information, why are you consuming it (Assuming you're not a sadist.)? Especially when you said yoursel…

If you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, you can't discuss it with those that agree with it. You're reduced to "no, you're wrong", which is the same viewpoint they have. Sticking to places that are skewed towards a similar bias as yourself doesn't help you understand those that have differing views to you. It can be especially important to be able to do this when those people are in your family, in order to ke…

I'm inclined to agree with sib comment by ashark. While I agree with everything you say here, none of that points to an actual underlying need to engage with opposition politics (except in the case you point to, when it creates familial conflict, which by the way must be the absolute worst, and my sympathies to all those struggling with pro-Trump relatives). Unless you yourself are a politician or political operative, you're not likely to get much satisfaction arguing politics with strangers.

Re: Why We're Living in the Age of Fear

#120

Post by benevol »

Gruselbauer wrote: post #25
cel1ne wrote: post #9

We live in the age of fear because the hose of information that floods us is constantly opened further: Letters → Telegram → Telephone → Radio → TV → Internet → Mobile Internet. Human beings need time to manage their emotions. Time spent waiting. Time being bored. Time when NO new information, not even positive, is arriving. We are constantly distracted and thus increasingly unable to sort out our feelings. That is t…

There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is. My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create. From stuff I don't agree with on almost anything - Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pret…

> I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks.

It has become obvious to me that the reason for humankind's problems is the fact that we refuse our spiritual nature (i.e. as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation"). I believe our future suffering which seems more and more obvious will force us to reconnect with our spiritual nature. And when that finally happens, on a societal level, then our way of "thinking" and acting will profoundly change and we will manage to turn around. But not before, I'm afraid.

Edit: Psychedelic substances allow for short-lived breakthroughs on that level, which is probably one of the reasons they were banned by governments from even being researched. And it's also why they are so important.

Post reply on HN