401–410 of 741 posts
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
"Read three books on a topic and you know more about it than 99% of the world."
That's why it's called "news", it's living, recent information that is in the making, being talked about and discussed. Everything else is great but it's something different and likely is encapsulated by an echo chamber.
Nothing against reading up books about politics for instance but it's at best complementary to news. At worst - not being a political scientist - you might select the "wrong" book and find yourself wasting time how people describe obscure views.
But yes, in general I agree of course. Watching/reading too much news can be draining. But really, our current democracy is built on the fact that people consume news from at least one mainstream news outlet. How else do you know who to vote for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is not a definitive / clear line between classical liberal and libertarian. The comment seems to be unnecessarily divisive and seeking for flame war.
I'm puzzled by that reaction. In my head at least, the distinction is pretty deep, and describing The Economist as "libertarian" in any sense would be clearly misplaced, other than to say it sometimes supports positions libertarians also agree with. Historically, when The Economist was founded, libertarianism would have been associated with French anarchism. The core, consistent theme of libertarianism is that indivi…
Your own words "They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been" make it seems like there is a clear cut difference between classical liberal and (modern) libertarian. Which is simply not true and unnecessarily divisive and seeking for flame war.
It is the mainstream view that classical liberal and libertarian are mostly equivalent in the modern context. The clear cut differentiation between classical liberal and libertarian is your own personal opinion. It is ok to have your own personal opinion, but it is exaggeration to state it as if it is the objective fact.
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
If being exposed to ads or super stimulating content is unavoidable, then how do you build a defense mechanism against it? Avoidance is good to the extent that you can engage in avoidance but not everything is avoidable. How do you actually build resistance to the stimuli?
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
In 2016 Google News was great because with a 5 minutes glance you coudl hved all the necessary news. However this strategy doesn't work anymore thanks to Google News trying to be smart by adapting news to your browsing history. I haven't been able to find a good alternative to the old Google News. I tried subscribing to one or many newspapers, but they all have too many useless articles inbetween valuable news such t…
Typically it’s like $1-3 and takes a few minutes to read. Much better experience overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find reading more history (preferably: dead person-ago history) to be a healthy tonic. When my more liberal friends were ringing in the end of days at Trump's election, my take was "Do you know how many terrible Presidents the United States has had? And how openly corrupt politics was for the first century of our country? And yet, we're still here." This too shall pass, indeed.
I agree but the danger of this is being too dismissive of actual threats. I don't know how to draw that line.
It seems like people often see (2), when in reality few groups are farsighted and patient enough to successfully carry that off. In reality what they're seeing is the normal sausage-making of a democracy groping towards a compromise over a point of disagreement, which has always happened.
As for (1), it's the scarier but less common class. Aka the January attacks on the Capitol, if they'd been better orchestrated and had a post-attack plan.
To me, weighing the severity of both is a question of "If this is successful, what will change?" As I told my conservative friends when they harp on an issue du jour: if one school district in New York state is mandating critical race theory education, what will that actually change about our country?
In a democracy, people are doing ignorant / crazy / inept things somewhere constantly. But there's an important distinction to be made between "somewhere" and "sufficiently large or important places."
This sounds true, but is it really? Just looking at today's headlines, I now know that the IRS will be using Login.gov instead of ID.me [1], which will be rather useful so that I know not to sign up for ID.me and to instead sign up for Login.gov.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/22/1082283039/the-irs-is-allowin...
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
Written news (real time): https://www.reuters.com/ I mostly read the headline stories, and it's mostly just facts. Just like the founding fathers intended.
Written news (daily): https://join1440.com/ An old-fashioned email subscription! Just facts, it seems. This may be the endgame for some people.
Video news: https://www.newsy.com/ I watched them a bit back when they were new and I was pretty impressed. Just a bunch of short news segments on demand. When the whole "stop the steal" thing was going on I sensed a bit of a leftward bias (like me!), but it was never very thick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
No, you just have differing politics and beliefs. In my twelve years of browsing HN I've read many comments of that sort. Personally, I tend not to leave a comment unless I feel there is a substantive element to my reply.
Honestly, I have never felt better being disconnected from it all. It really frees up the brain to ponder on things I can actually control in my life.