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

The Bullshit

walterkirn.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 214 posts

Re: The Bullshit

#181

Post by raxxorrax »

tomnipotent wrote: post #6

> but it isn’t the news and it hasn’t been for ages. I have a better idea. The news has always been shit. There's this weird fetish with "freedom of the press" that distorts the fact that news is still a business, run by free market forces, with the same distributions of incompetence and corruption as any free market. It used to be the "nightly news", but we now have a 24/7 always-on consumption culture and news orgs…

But that isn't true with the examples the author proposes. It has degraded a lot, although we forgot about changes in media. Nobody knew in yesterdays world which articles were read and which were not. Newspapers were bought as a whole. Today analytics show us that the most bullshit articles generate the most clicks, either out of rage or affirmation. Content is seriously drifting that way because for any business that is a sensible choice. But for quality this is misinterpreting data. A case were less data leads to better results. Rare, but a misinterpretation can be more damaging than remaining inconclusive.

Online news is compared to its paper versions, many outlets still have significant differences here. Of course there was a lot of bullshit too, but today almost everything is bullshit. We even built bullshit-thrones for those that produce the most.

Re: The Bullshit

#182

Post by raxxorrax »

coryrc wrote: post #149
coryrc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR has an implicit assumption in ~every story that a problem is best addressed by government intervention and spending. They're credulous of any claim an "authority" makes. Two quick examples from npr.org right now: 1. Somehow we can model how the economy can adapt to zero carbon in 40 years yet couldn't predict changes to solar PV becoming more affordable in the last ten: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027370891/c…

And another acting as if an exorcism was a real thing: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/07/30/4249800... It's more benign than qanon. I haven't checked their coverage of mask wearing. I'll change my mind if they were pushing masks when Fauci was lying and saying they were unnecessary.

QAnon is benign, we wouldn't even know of its existence if it wasn't constantly brought up by press outlets to supply their readers with a desperate need for a boogeyman.

Re: The Bullshit

#183

Post by tboyd47 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #168
tboyd47 wrote: post #5

This was a rare gem of well-measured prose here. I laughed out loud a couple of times and had to go back and read it over again. Thanks.

"Well-measured"? It's a rant. I don't entirely disagree with it, but "well-measured" isn't a term that I'd have chosen.

By "well-measured," I meant it's not long and rambly like most written material produced and consumed on HN. It covers a lot of different (though related) subjects in a short package and it was fun to read.

Re: The Bullshit

#184

Post by Akronymus »

jollybean wrote: post #173
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's how the far right operates. 1. Use narrative engineering to persuade angry, frightened, gullible people to tune in and self-select. 2. Use narrative reinforcement to make them angrier and more frightened. 3. Wind them up and point them at a target. 4. Profit politically, and possibly also financially. It doesn't matter what the narrative is. As long as it has an outgroup that can be accused of doing terrib…

"But that's how the far right operates." The 'Far Left' operates in much the same way. The examples I gave were just of one person's stream.

Far right and far left are virtually indistingushable in the tactics they use IMO.

Just one side gets a pass by many people, the other not so much.

Re: The Bullshit

#185

Post by MagicWishMonkey »

Chris2048 wrote: post #176
MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the cops died of injuries sustained on site, lets stop pretending this wasn't a violent confrontation. There were plenty of serious injuries. Does this look like a peaceful protest, to you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XajBh9oTdqI&feat...

let's not move the goalposts, we aren't arguing whether this was a "peaceful protest", we are arguing whether it was an insurrection aka a violent attempted takeover. If all it takes to overthrow the capital is the same level of violence as a civil riot, I'd say there's something wrong. > One of the cops died of injuries sustained on site No sources for this, so I'll assume you're referring to Officer Brian D. Sickni…

Linking to Greenwald really isn't helping your case...

Re: The Bullshit

#186

Post by mistermann »

sellyme wrote: post #74
mistermann wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see it all the time in communities I run, people start trying to spin off alternative sites and talk about how impinges on free speech, and then when you check what they were banned for there's a tirade of racial slurs directed at other members of the community. Are you suggesting that this person shares these behaviors?

It depends on what you mean by "these behaviours". I'm suggesting that the author is claiming some great injustice but conveniently trying to avoid letting anyone judge for themselves, and in my experience the people doing that usually aren't the world's most upstanding citizens. I'm certainly not suggesting that the author is prone to outbursts of racial slurs - that was just an example of something I encounter regu…

> but conveniently trying to avoid letting anyone judge for themselves

Do you believe that your mind may be doing some interpretation (with or without "your" knowledge) in the formation of this conclusion?

Re: The Bullshit

#188

Post by mistermann »

sellyme wrote: post #127
mistermann wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "was totally real" in there. That people so often stretch the truth in these matters (while complaining about people who are clearly writing provocatively, and thus have no shortage of genuine weak points) is interesting.

Here's the quote with a tiny bit more context: > Go read more bullshit. Immerse yourself in news of Russian plots [...] Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The original comment did muddy the waters a bit by taking the inverse of that statement, but the author isn't being ambiguous on their beliefs in that regard.

> Here's the quote with a tiny bit more context:

How about a lot more context:

> One option, more popular each day, is to retreat to the anti-bullshit universe of alternative media sources. These are the podcasts, videos, Twitter threads, newsletters, and Facebook pages that regularly vanish from circulation for violating “community standards” and other ineffable codes of conduct, oft-times after failing “fact-checks” by the friendly people at Good Thoughtkeeping. Some of these rebel outfits are engrossing, some dull and churchy, many quite bizarre, and some, despite small staffs and tiny budgets, remarkably good and getting better. Some are Substack pages owned by writers who severed ties with established publications, drawing charges of being Russian agents, crypto-anarchists, or free-speech “absolutists.” I won’t bother to give a list. Readers who hunt and choose among such sources have their own lists, which they fiercely curate, loudly pushing their favorites on the world while accusing those they disagree with of being “controlled opposition” and running cons. It resembles the old punk-rock scene, but after it was discovered, not early on. Some of the upstart outlets earn serious money, garnering higher ratings and more page-views than the regime-approved brands Apple features on the News screen of my iPhone. (A screen I’ve disabled and don’t miss.) This wilderness of “contrarianism” – a designation easily earned these days; you merely have to mention Orwell or reside in Florida -- requires a measure of vigilance and effort from those who seek the truth there. As opposed to those who go there to relax, because they prefer alt-bullshit to mainstream bullshit. They can just kick their shoes off and wade in.

Does your mind detect any ~disrespect for alt-bullshit in here? For example, what meaning do you think is intended by "They can just kick their shoes off and wade in"?

> Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

That's the thing though: things are not always as they seem (I assume you've seen magic shows & optical illusions, or read to some degree on neuroscience, the numerous forms of psychological bias, etc)?

> The original comment did muddy the waters a bit by taking the inverse of that statement, but the author isn't being ambiguous on their beliefs in that regard.

Here are you referring to shared reality, or your/the author's/my individual highly customized model of reality? It's an important distinction, but one that is rarely made.

Re: The Bullshit

#189

Post by mistermann »

MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #170
Chris2048 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and how are conspiracy stories about Russia any more/less reasonable than conspiracy stories about deep (US) gov?

Is it really a conspiracy if US intelligence agencies say Russia has been stirring up shit? The way right wingers bend over backwards to pretend that Russia doesn't have a long history of this sort of thing never ceases to amaze me.

More abstractly, most everyone bends over backwards to promote their subconsciously estimated personal ~~illusion~~ model of reality as being representative of shared reality.

As the saying goes: "Humans gonna human".

Re: The Bullshit

#190

Post by Chris2048 »

MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #185
Chris2048 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's not move the goalposts, we aren't arguing whether this was a "peaceful protest", we are arguing whether it was an insurrection aka a violent attempted takeover. If all it takes to overthrow the capital is the same level of violence as a civil riot, I'd say there's something wrong. > One of the cops died of injuries sustained on site No sources for this, so I'll assume you're referring to Officer Brian D. Sickni…

Linking to Greenwald really isn't helping your case...

I disagree. Do you identify any mis-information article? Otherwise I don't share your distain.

EDIT: this is an ad-hom. Please respond to the point - I also linked to WP as evidence that your claim is shaky. Refusing to do so because I linked to a journalist you dislike is pure tribalism.

Post reply on HN