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

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: The Bullshit

#201

Post by Chris2048 »

verygoodname wrote: post #174
Chris2048 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you accusing tomp of being part of that crowd? Seems an uncharitable interpretation of their words.

Not at all. Just criticizing his blanket statement, apparently used to justify "doubting the results of US elections": "doubting" just for the sake of doubting, particularly when it feeds into narratives being driven by trolls, disinformation and hidden agendas, doesn't do Democracy or Truth any service. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the people in question (that are doubting the results of the US elections) a…

> particularly when it feeds into narratives

This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology.

In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust.

Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true.

Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. The standard is (should be) that these things prove themselves, rather than put the burden of proof on outside observers.

It's also worth noting the post that it was replying to said:

> My university educated in laws in the UK are doubting the outcome of elections in the US

which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why.

Re: The Bullshit

#202

Post by Chris2048 »

MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #198
Chris2048 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not going to read anything written by Greenwald, he's completely gone off the deep end. He quit his job at the intercept because they wouldn't let him publish conspiracy garbage about the Biden rape accusation unless he could provide some sort of proof - he concluded that being asked to show proof of what he was accusing someone of counted as "being censored". Anyway, I'll say that just because the guy died of a…

Again, this is an ad-hom. I didn't claim something was true because Greenwald believes it - I linked to an article addressing the topic, so you can address the content of that article, rather than its author.

> He quit his job at the intercept because they wouldn't let him publish conspiracy garbage ... unless he could provide some sort of proof

doesn't seem to match up with

> just because the guy died of a stroke afterward doesn't mean it wasn't caused indirectly by being blasted in the face by bear mace

where's the proof? various outlets already back-peddled on the claim he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, they have yet to prove anything with regards to bear mace (other than two men carried it).

"Prosecutor: Bear spray not used in Capitol attack on officers, defendants seek bond" -- https://wtop.com/dc/2021/04/men-charged-in-jan-6-bear-spray-...

> Even if his death was completely unrelated, it doesn't make Jan 6 any less of an insurrection.

You stated an officers death as evidence of the level of violence. I don't believe this was true, and I think it does make it less of an insurrection.

Re: The Bullshit

#203

Post by vitiral »

1634347773432 wrote: post #96
vitiral wrote: post #91

The worst thing is when things start getting sensored and you get the creeping feeling that the sensored content is the only true content. Then you just go back in your hole, try not to read the news, and cry a lot.

So I'd guess that your sensored content is probably a take like "masks are bad" or "covid is a hoax". And the reason I'd guess that, is because the word you're looking for is "censored". Is that right?

Censored is the word. I think opinions or information should never be censored since for many people, myself included, it creates a psychological response to trust the censored content more.

I'm not saying the censored content is actually more trustworthy. Science is (should be?) A process of accepting all theories backed by evidence, experimentation and the failure of competing theories. If you censor scientific papers and evidence because they are politically inconvenient it effectively dismantles one of the few effective tools we have for a shared understanding.

Re: The Bullshit

#204

Post by verygoodname »

Chris2048 wrote: post #201
verygoodname wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Just criticizing his blanket statement, apparently used to justify "doubting the results of US elections": "doubting" just for the sake of doubting, particularly when it feeds into narratives being driven by trolls, disinformation and hidden agendas, doesn't do Democracy or Truth any service. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the people in question (that are doubting the results of the US elections) a…

> particularly when it feeds into narratives This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology. In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust . Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it'…

[flagged]

Re: The Bullshit

#205

Post by yogue »

roenxi wrote: post #162
coldtea wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> news is a classic example of when a free market may be bad, but all the alternatives people tried were much worse! Were they? News co-ops has historically been quite good.

News co-ops are part of the free market. If you want to site successful non-free-market news organisation there are things like the BBC. Which is respectable, and really quite a wonderful organisation if the propaganda is favourable to your cause.

Eloquently put! Personal experience- wrote to bbc and asked them to address/edit/revisit their past articles making someone a victim and a 'hero' for a cause several years earlier in light of a court ruling absolving the accused and establishing holes in the 'victimhood'. They refused it flat out! Took a few seconds for BBC's reputation to go 180 degrees in my mind.

Re: The Bullshit

#206

Post by coldtea »

majewsky wrote: post #194
coldtea wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Who in Europe listens to NPR?

They were presumably not referring to NPR specifically, but to public-service broadcasters in general, like ARD and ZDF in Germany, BBC in Britain, ORF in Austria, RAI in Italy, and so on.

Most of them (including BBC) are the same crap the article laments, RAI four times so.

Re: The Bullshit

#207

Post by majewsky »

coldtea wrote: post #206
majewsky wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were presumably not referring to NPR specifically, but to public-service broadcasters in general, like ARD and ZDF in Germany, BBC in Britain, ORF in Austria, RAI in Italy, and so on.

Most of them (including BBC) are the same crap the article laments, RAI four times so.

I wasn't arguing editorial merit. This was about them having a large market share, which they do.

Re: The Bullshit

#208

Post by renox »

jollybean wrote: post #175
renox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far worse, I'm not sure.. I remember when France went to war against Khadafi our newspapers/TVs were all supporting this, given the amount of direct suffering it caused I'd say that being worse than this is .. hard!

Gaddafi stated publicly that he was going to Benghazi to kill civilians, something which he had done in the past. He had a few battalions heading through the desert to do that. He was already causing great harm, or rather, the war was causing great harm. Choosing to tilt the game board to one side over the other is definitely something to ponder, and there's definitely a lot of information to dig up and report on, bu…

You're misrepresenting/misreading what I said, yes he was a scum doing great harm but it seems that the situation became a lot worse after France&England intervention as was to be expected, so what was the point of the intervention? Noone in the mainstream news AFAIK did its job and asked what will be going to happen next?

Re: The Bullshit

#209

Post by marcus_holmes »

majewsky wrote: post #196
marcus_holmes wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why only the far right? Isn't this what everyone does now? Is there actually a "pure" movement or source that doesn't engage in this kind of Bullshit?

The comment you're replying to responds to that in the second half, starting at "It's no different to how official propaganda works."

So that would include the far right and the government, then. Hardly "everyone" ;)

I do find it interesting that left-leaning people (like myself) find it difficult to acknowledge that left-leaning media also engages in The Bullshit. Because we tend to agree with the propaganda statements, it's incredibly difficult to spot as Bullshit.

Re: The Bullshit

#210

Post by Chris2048 »

verygoodname wrote: post #204
Chris2048 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> particularly when it feeds into narratives This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology. In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust . Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it'…

[flagged]

> Should we teach "flat earth theory"

No, because scepticism doesn't imply we should.

> Ah, yes. Inverting the onus of proof is fun.

You think the burden of proof isn't (or shouldn't be) on the government?

Between your wilful "reading between the lines" based on your own biases, and smug insults ("But, hey... you do you"); I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere - I don't see the "accept that you may be wrong and are willing to be corrected" you talked about.

Post reply on HN