Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#221

Post by apocolyps6 » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

elefanten wrote: post #135

sandyarmstrong wrote: post #124

> I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian How often do you see Christmas used as a plot device? Or a church used as a setting? Or a priest character? I would be shocked if context didn't imply that > 95% of American film characters are Christian.

Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America. And I can’t remember the last time I saw church in a movie that wasn’t a comedy using the setting for a set-up

Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends?

Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#222

Post by cbsmith » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #37

I think this is missing the darker point, which is that the main stream media along with the political parties that support them, are the the echo chamber. It’s not that we are caught in an echo chamber, rather it’s the information from mass media corporations that has created the echo chamber. If anything, to break out so to speak, is perhaps as easy as simply turning off all news, and paying more attention directly…

> I think this is missing the darker point, which is that the main stream media along with the political parties that support them, are the the echo chamber.

They are part of the echo chamber. They aren't the echo chamber. Social media does a fantastic job of demonstrating that people naturally construct their own echo chambers. We tend to judge the main stream media & polities without appreciating a context where they don't exist. It's increasingly clear that for all their ills, they do deliver, albeit in a flawed and limited degree, on their espoused objectives.

They're terrible, except as compared to all the alternatives.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#223

Post by unknown_error » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #186

unknown_error wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Jazeera, Guardian, BBC, etc. are all left of center by US standards, especially the Guardian (which is way left). Some center-right outlets that are still worth reading* (and I say this as a raging leftist): The Hill, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, The Economist *(as in they provide both informational "what's happening" and insightful analysis without venturing into flat out fake news... as…

If you don't like Google News, then you can go with the next best -- Apple News. But then you can see the consequence. Apple News has less crazy but sometimes misses entire stories. Google catches what Apple misses. For the purposes of understanding the news landscape, it is more important to know that a conversation exists and to estimate its trajectory, than it is to get correct takes.

I would if Apple ever publishes it on Android. They don't really believe in cross-platform =/

I only ever really make time for the news on the crapper. It's a nice way to compartmentalize. Plus it cleanses the soul... shit goes in, shit goes out. Current events are too depressing otherwise.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#224

Post by slibhb » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

UncleOxidant wrote: post #164

ggggtez wrote: post #87

The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Sometimes there are questions of objective facts that reading lies from alternative sources do not actually help you in understanding the truth of the world. The person who desperately tries to cite "50/50" liberal and conservative sources in the article is the worst kind of fence sitter. Sometimes, one side or the other is just wrong, or t…

> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?

> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?

Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#225

Post by bovermyer » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

Something else to keep in mind is that liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy. We have at least four major cultures in the USA - some scholars put it as high as eleven - and they each have differing core values.

This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise.

I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#226

Post by acuozzo » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #28

> “We can’t pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says.” And then you read how some Supreme Court justices make a decision and you’re wondering if they are even reading the same document

I can hardly imagine how our technical jargon will change in the next 250 years. If you'll permit me…

What it means to execute code on the "bare metal" has changed over time. If you track its usage on HN, it is now common for programmers to use this to describe running a program outside of a Docker container or hypervisor/VM, but still atop an OS.

(I personally think this change in meaning is silly, but my feelings on this matter don't matter.)

Interpreting security policy making use of this "bare metal" term is now tricky. Choice #1 is to interpret the policy in the context in which it was written. Choice #2 is to attempt to interpret the policy in the context of how the term is now used.

(The best choice is, of course, to rewrite the security policy in question to address the change in definition, but for the sake of argument let's consider this to be too impractical to even consider.)

Let's assume that the 1996 policy in question is: "No company-written code that interacts with the Internet shall run on bare metal."

If we strictly interpret the policy in the context in which it was written, then we're in a pickle. Agner's hand-rolled x86_64 HTTP server is permitted. It runs atop GNU/Linux, so it's not freestanding and therefore isn't a "bare metal" program.

On the other hand, if we determine that the modern use of "bare metal" is compatible with what the authors of the policy intended, then the security team is clear to insist that Agner run his HTTP server within Docker, for instance.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#227

Post by atty » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #111

vsskanth wrote: post #8

I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…

I highly recommend the Economist . Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this. It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after the…

I like their articles, but I can’t recommend the Economist after attempting to cancel my subscription the last time I had one. It took me over an hour of digging through the website, and then phone calls where they tried to up-sell me, side-sell me, every-way-sell me on discounts and different packages no matter how many times I said I just wanted to cancel my account. It’s possibly the worst experience I’ve ever had cancelling something.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#228

Post by UncleOxidant » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #224

UncleOxidant wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?

> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them? Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.

There is no end to conspiracy theories. Why should I be obligated to delve into other people's psychosis? I'm not a psychiatrist. There are many more constructive things to spend time on.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#229

Post by Loughla » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

MarkMarine wrote: post #136

vsskanth wrote: post #8

I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…

I struggle to understand why you need to read “sides” for news articles. Are you just referring to opinion pieces?

Are you serious? Most mainstream sources have hard left or right slant. How do you not see that?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#230

Post by throwaway894345 » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #176

cm2012 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up going to a school maybe 20% practicing Christian. Everyone celebrated christmas, got and gave gifts, had family dinners around then, etc.

Yeah, dude, that’s what it means to have a defacto state religion: it becomes the default thing. A classic characteristic of state religions is that even those who do not believe will institutionally practise. So, for instance, even Buddhists in Jordan must not eat in public during Ramadan. Considering everything I was told about America, I was surprised to see that it is a Christian nation (I expected it to not be b…

> the state has official holidays for Christian events.

If that alarms you, definitely do not go to Europe!

That America has some unimportant vestiges of Christianity doesn't make it "a Christian nation" for any useful purposes. Yes, Trump did a bit of pandering to Christians which fooled precisely no one, but in any matter of substance America is resolvedly secular.

If you want an accurate and useful model, think of secularism as the religion of the elite minority and the law of the land while Christianity is simply the most popular plebeian religion. Yes, in rare occasions members of the elite need support from the lower classes and will pay some vapid lip service to Christianity (consider Trump's comical appeal to Christians: "the Bible is the best book ever, probably even better than the Art of The Deal"), but beyond that secularism is absolutely the law of the land legally and culturally.