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

Resignation Letter

bariweiss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#541

Post by Rick1 »

bpyne wrote: post #374
shuntress wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.

I suspect we have some "deep staters" in attendance. Everything you know, you don't. Everything you believe is false. A liberal conspiracy exists and it's hiding in plain sight. If you ignore these "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comments, some good discussion is being had.

...and it's the others who believe in conspiracy theories? The "deep staters" you call them?

Re: Resignation Letter

#543

Post by Firebrand »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #439
mikece wrote: post #39

"And so self-censorship has become the norm." This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: that the free expression and exchange of ideas is thwarted in advance because one doesn't want to deal with drama, fight, or insults that come with saying something not in lock-step with the prevailing group-think. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciple…

You can see this directly on Reddit, or even here, thanks to the downvote button. It doesn't matter how right you may be, how many sources you may have, if it angers a sufficient people to lead to your post being downvoted, no one will be able to read it. And though the points are made up, it's always annoying to look at a post you spent half an hour typing and researching just to have it get down to -6 with no furth…

You just gotta know your audience. Everyone has the fantasy of turning hearts and minds to your point of view with your words but eventually you come to the realization it’s just not worth the effort.

Re: Resignation Letter

#544

Post by Rick1 »

cygx wrote: post #269
mikece wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview). As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting wh…

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe She called Tulsi Gabbard an 'Assad toady' with monstrous ideas. The funny part was them looking up the definition of toady (Joe wasn't aware of the meaning of the word), but the more damning part was Bari's defense of that characte…

I think this is great. If people are going to discuss anything they'll make mistakes. Otherwise we'll only get scripted speeches.

Re: Resignation Letter

#545

Post by seppin »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #150
seppin wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wanted the military unleashed on his fellow citizens, a move that would have escalated violence and perhaps led to a spiraling loss of control by both sides. "Racist" was the least of the concerns.

Apparently it wasn't the least of everyone's concerns, since it was the only thing the original commenter mentioned.

He was calling for military violence against largest peaceful protesters, the one red line that once you cross, there's no going back (Syria, Egypt, etc.)

By printing it, NYT gave it a platform and a tacit approval. Not to mention that it came out later it wasn't even reviewed before published.

Major fuck up by them.

Re: Resignation Letter

#546

Post by archagon »

mns wrote: post #523
archagon wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s little different from a boycott, which has always been a tool available to the powerless.

There was the case of the guy working for the company involved in the Obama campaign who published a paper based on a study of an african-american professor saying that historically speaking violent riots will lead to more right leaning people voting. He got called out a racist, made to apologise, got fired and ostracised in his research community. Would you say he got boycotted?

Maybe not, but I still see it in the same general category as a boycott, because: if nothing illegal is actually going on, then what can anyone do to stop it, except impose authoritarian restrictions on free speech? If the company/institution wants to ignore people, fine, but they’ll have to deal with the consequences. (If those consequences are personal, e.g. death threats, then those should be nipped in the bud. But my feeling is that they’re usually financial or reputational.)

Re: Resignation Letter

#547

Post by Rick1 »

jrumbut wrote: post #153
mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

Let's say they're gathering facts. I don't know the numbers but let's assume this is correct.

Are they perhaps also exaggerating and wording stories to get something that sells? And perhaps adding an ideological filter? Maybe choosing what to report and what not. E.g., all negative stories about some people will be reported and all positive stories about others will be reported.

Just because they're gathering facts does not mean they accurately describe reality.

Re: Resignation Letter

#548

Post by Rick1 »

cs702 wrote: post #40

I hesitated before upvoting the OP, and even considered flagging it, given its controversial author (with whom I disagree) and its potential to fuel ideologically driven, opinionated arguments (in which no one wins and everyone loses). However, I decided to upvote the OP because I feel it is, in the end, about a topic that is of utmost interest of -- and widely considered important by -- most people on HN: free speec…

Can't have "controversial authors" here... that I suppose is her point about the media.

Re: Resignation Letter

#549

Post by badrequest »

Rick1 wrote: post #539
shuntress wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.

This is a well phrased variant of: "since they're critical, they must be wrong".

You can be critical without being dehumanizing.

Re: Resignation Letter

#550

Post by erikerikson »

jrumbut wrote: post #153
mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

You get a different bias from The Economist but I'm fairly happy reading it. Not sure on the numbers of personnel or their distribution.
Post reply on HN