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

Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 964 posts

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#371

Post by clairity »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #349
clairity wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah yes, the token characters, there to either not alienate a foreign market or to meet some superficial diversity quota. the point is that in a world without significant bias, we'd expect to see many more people of color and of other religions (to name just two aspects) being represented because of sheer numbers and because talents are distributed widely. but that doesn't happen in this world.

The only world without a bias might be one where everyone is a clone and has the same bank balance. In the real world, there will always be bias. Height, voice, gender, political affiliations. Forget about bias in US media, there are multiple Hollywood within India itself. And there is nothing wrong with that. They cater to different audiences. And it does not “make sense” for to expect a group of Tamil film makers t…

didn't say no bias, but rather without significant bias. instead, we have the narrative peddled about how inclusive and diverse hollywood is, when the stats speak for themselves.

this narrative is one facet of one echo chamber, tying back to the original article.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#372

Post by insickness »

ahelwer wrote: post #217
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #33

> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. (Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.) I th…

The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So su…

> It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity

Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#373

Post by adzm »

Moodles wrote: post #363
pmoriarty wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .

Find one positive article from MSNBC or CNN about Trump during his presidency?

There are many. httpss://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#374

Post by JAlexoid »

atty wrote: post #227
crazygringo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You do realize that people that manage the subscriptions aren't the same that write the content, right?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#375

Post by twalla »

takeda wrote: post #339
munificent wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I like latkes and challah, but that doesn't make me Jewish. All groups influence culture and culture influences all individuals. But simply having adopted a piece of culture that came from some group does not make one a member of that…

To add to it, even the Christmas tree doesn't originate from Christianity. It was just adapted from a pagan tradition. The Santa Claus image was created by commercialism. The original saint Claus is celebrating on December 6 (or 7, don't remeber exactly) and that was a priest that anonymously was donating toys to children in orphanages and later was discovered. Easter Bunny is another commercialisation of a Christian…

IIRC the pagan origins of Christian holidays and symbols have their roots in making conversion more palatable for conquered Roman subjects. Christmas and Easter replace the solstice celebrations, the Christmas tree came from placing evergreen sprigs in the home during winter and the rabbit is a fertility thing.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#376

Post by firebaze »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #347
firebaze wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I despise slavery I'd definitely be interested in understanding the way slavery was rationalized (if it was? if not, how did they cope with the suffering etc.?). We have to understand the principles allowing such an emotional and rational detachment from our set of ethics to prevent something like this happening again. This is quite similar to Germany's handling of the 2nd World War. You cannot just preten…

I think we agree. Understanding why something was rationalized is important (slavery, the holocaust, etc). But being able to make an impassioned argument for those things isn't necessary for that kind of understanding.

Yes, I agree. I missed this part, thanks for pointing this out!

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#377

Post by UncleOxidant »

_-david-_ wrote: post #257
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?

How are you supposed to argue against something if you don't even understand why someone supports what they support? All you will end up doing is strawmaning their views which won't convince anybody to change their views.

Do I need to understand why someone supports flat earth theory to be able to argue that it's scientifically invalid? Why is it up to me to figure out how they got deluded?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#378

Post by no-dr-onboard »

pmoriarty wrote: post #361
throwawayboise wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the same is true about CNN's opinion pieces, or MSNBC's, etc, they are just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .

While this seems like a great claim, it could be more compelling if I could read the supporting argument behind it.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#379

Post by 8note »

bpodgursky wrote: post #103
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim ; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious…

Interestingly Mormons are 2% of the US population (twice the Muslim %), and I can't think of a single openly Mormon character in any TV show I've ever seen.

Mitt Romney shows up in all kinds of tv shows on fox news

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#380

Post by briandear »

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?

> Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery?

But that’s a straw man. Did the virus come from a lab or not isn’t a “slavery” argument. Should taxes be lower or higher also isn’t a slavery argument. Are there election irregularities also isn’t a slavery argument.

These are all issues that, stating opposing facts or even conclusions that differ from the Facebook-Twitter “Approved Truth,” will get you banned.

Even questioning Covid vaccine safety, or even linking to mainstream news about safety concerns will get you a “missing context” label or outright banned. We aren’t allow to even hint that the vaccine could be dangerous (when compared to other vaccines.)

So yes, there are often two or more sides that have a legitimate value in being heard.

When was the last time we had mainline publications or socials or even scientific journals shutting down debate on scientific research? It’s insane. There have even been instances of papers that didn’t support the Fauci views being obfuscated or removed from search results. Or other instances of statistical election anomalies being ignored by people that would normally be very interested in such things. And none of those things are the equivalent of “the other side of the slavery argument.”

Look at how the left has treated Glen Greenwald, a journalist that has earned some credibility with his Snowden reporting. Yet, when he points out some of the nonsense parading as “fact,” he gets accused of being some kind of right wing shill. If Glen is being accused of being “right wing,” then something has gone really wrong. Even Bill Maher is speaking out about the lunacy.

Is the vaccine safe? Did Covid come from a Chinese lab funded by Fauci? Were there unexplained statistical anomalies in the election?

Those are all topics that deserve hearing “both sides.” It would seem like shutting down debate is indicative of an agenda as opposed to a commitment to truth. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Post reply on HN