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

The case against crisis-mongering

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#51

Post by zzyzxxz »

krapp wrote: post #40
Guthur wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And some also apply to the current incumbent so I'm not really sure what we should draw from that.

Fascism isn't binary, it's a spectrum. Trump was closer to the "Literally Hitler" end of the scale than Biden is to the "Literally Stalin" end, but many symptoms of fascism are endemic to American culture and politics.

It's more fair to compare Presidents with George Washington than with their predecessors. I can't imagine George Washington standing in front of a church holding a bible upside-down, or advocating that people ought to put cleaning fluids into their lungs.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#52

Post by zzyzxxz »

The abusive tactic known as DARVO begins with downplaying, denying or deflecting. I sure read a lot of those things in this article. I hope the author learns more rhetorical techniques, the one they used here made them come across as abusive.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#53

Post by raspasov »

dheera wrote: post #47
h2odragon wrote: post #21

Humans are built to survive adversity. We got so good at it, we took over the planet. Now there's lots of humans who haven't ever faced serious challenges (by previous standards of everyday survival), and they need to feel the drama and triumph humans are programmed for even without the actual life threatening events that used to prompt those feelings. So for many, there's always going to be an imminent apocalypse th…

> Humans are built to survive adversity. No, we aren't. Adversity from other humans, but not adversity from nature. Natural disasters routinely kill huge numbers of people, because we don't know how to deal with them.

Apart from obvious disasters, nature has also killed pretty much every human that has been born, so far.

It seems pretty good at what it does! :)

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#54

Post by OrvalWintermute »

spamizbad wrote: post #37
Guthur wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And some also apply to the current incumbent so I'm not really sure what we should draw from that.

The US is a democracy but it’s always been flirty with fascist elements. So it’s no surprise you can look at the American government, under any president, and see some fascistic elements at work.

We also support socialistic elements too.

In the Marxist sense, we are a synthesis . Our competition is most likely the Chinese Communists which have broadly adopted capitalism, but retain the oligarchic power structures at the top, and state control of enterprises. They represent a different synthesis

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#55

Post by _ykl9 »

Both sides have a tendency to cry wolf. Bush was awful, but he wasn't Hitler. Romney was treated particularly unfairly during his presidential run.

Regardless of one's feelings on Trump, it's clear that he wasn't treated entirely fairly by the media from the start. Sure, for a while they would tiptoe around calling him out for outright lies, but I also saw how his words and actions would at times be twisted and presented with with bad faith or the worst possible meaning taken as a presumption.

He may have been extraordinarily corrupt, and a constant embarrassment to the country on Twitter, but in terms of policy he was a relatively vanilla conservative. I've even given him credit for being the first president to enter office supporting same-sex marriage, and more broadly I don't dislike the libertarian-ish element of his base that also supports that in addition to legal weed.

None of the above negates the fact that Trump and his allies spent at least the second half of 2020 attempting to subvert our electoral process, came very close to succeeding, and then attacked the United States with intent to violently usurp control of the government. It doesn't negate that Trump-inspired white nationalist militias are currently the greatest domestic terror threat in America, while Trump continues to stoke their anger with lies. Whether his coup was "fascist" or parallels the actions of 34-year-old Adolf Hitler is irrelevant. I'll criticize the left for crying wolf as loudly as anyone; it doesn't logically follow that wolves don't exist.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#56

Post by tqi »

zzyzxxz wrote: post #52

The abusive tactic known as DARVO begins with downplaying, denying or deflecting. I sure read a lot of those things in this article. I hope the author learns more rhetorical techniques, the one they used here made them come across as abusive.

Please list some examples.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#57

Post by isoskeles »

tvirosi wrote: post #33
h2odragon wrote: post #21

Humans are built to survive adversity. We got so good at it, we took over the planet. Now there's lots of humans who haven't ever faced serious challenges (by previous standards of everyday survival), and they need to feel the drama and triumph humans are programmed for even without the actual life threatening events that used to prompt those feelings. So for many, there's always going to be an imminent apocalypse th…

I don't believe in this perspective. I think most people are sick of it (and would live healthier lives if they were allowed to focus more attention on their immediate surroundings) but that it keeps being refueled by profit desperate news corporations.

If most people were truly sick of it, there would be no market for news corporations to exploit.

People are also “allowed” to focus their attention on whatever they want. It seems like you’re saying we are powerless to ignore the news, although I am curious if you mean something else.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#58

Post by _ykl9 »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #45
gdubs wrote: post #28

The author’s point seems to be that everyone exaggerates in a direction that best serves their desired political outcome. What he misses is the obvious — he exaggerates as well, in the direction of “moderation.” His desired outcome is that we all take a moderate approach, and the rhetorical device used to get there is that ‘crises are all exaggerated.’

I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of his preferences. This is a guy who just wrote a book called "One Billion Americans" which argues that we should quadruple the US population through both pro-natalist policies and more immigration. I wouldn't really consider that a "moderate" position. His other shtick though is "popularism" which is just that politicians should focusing on doing things that are broadly…

It's an interesting idea. So much of the US is just uninhabited land. I could see such policies not leading to overcrowding, but rather to increased development and economic growth across the country, particularly if combined with something like the Homestead Act.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#59

Post by Covzire »

bko wrote: post #48
tvirosi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in this perspective. I think most people are sick of it (and would live healthier lives if they were allowed to focus more attention on their immediate surroundings) but that it keeps being refueled by profit desperate news corporations.

That's partly true, but it's also true young people look out for adventure and meaning. They've been fed the story that they can delay starting a family until well into your 30s. Dating apps don't help. They're overeducated and underemployed. So you have young people in their 20s with no sense of purpose. Why not LARP on twitter and pretend you're saving the world by trying to ruin the lives of people you don't agree…

People like this are easy to manipulate in the extreme, I fear we're in the midst of a pandemic of sociopaths practicing their art, more than anything. There's no end in sight either.

Re: The case against crisis-mongering

#60

Post by zamfi »

bko wrote: post #48
tvirosi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in this perspective. I think most people are sick of it (and would live healthier lives if they were allowed to focus more attention on their immediate surroundings) but that it keeps being refueled by profit desperate news corporations.

That's partly true, but it's also true young people look out for adventure and meaning. They've been fed the story that they can delay starting a family until well into your 30s. Dating apps don't help. They're overeducated and underemployed. So you have young people in their 20s with no sense of purpose. Why not LARP on twitter and pretend you're saving the world by trying to ruin the lives of people you don't agree…

> So you have young people in their 20s with no sense of purpose. Why not LARP on twitter and pretend you're saving the world by trying to ruin the lives of people you don't agree with?

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting this, but I think it’s more about attention and feelings of social acceptance, than it is about purpose.

Post reply on HN