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

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#711

Post by themacguffinman »

ethbr0 wrote: post #666
themacguffinman wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think so. Current news gives you a sense of what mainstream culture considers important this year, then you compare it with what you observed in previous years. It's common for there to be a common cultural trend or debate that is hammered non-stop in mainstream media, you won't have to breathlessly follow news (ie. you just don't have to quit the news entirely, casual check-ins are fine) because it'll be breat…

That example is something of a red herring. If you're a CEO, or someone in a high visibility corporate role, don't talk about political hot-button issues in a public forum. You have the right to do so, but you also have the possibility of being nailed to the cross (apt metaphor, in this case) for doing so. So taking the risk is stupid from a personal perspective.

CEOs do so all the time for mainstream acceptable issues like LGBT rights. While it's certainly a valid strategy to shut up about anything political, it can be beneficial or even expected for political commentary depending on the industry and company.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#713

Post by secabeen »

jknoepfler wrote: post #524
temp8964 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read your own words carefully, you will agree with me: There is not a definitive / clear line between classical liberal and libertarian. The core values are the same. The historical context of French anarchism has nothing to do with the common use of the term libertarian in the modern (American) context. Your own words "They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been…

To be clear, I was not the person you were responding to, simply someone describing a relatively old set of philosophies. We're talking about the classification of a 170-year-old journal that operates out of the UK. I don't think the suggestion that libertarianism (particularly American libertarianism) is largely irrelevant when discussing The Economist is surprising, or shocking, or even terribly controversial. The…

Thank you, jknoepfler, this is essentially what I was thinking. The Economist is quite supportive of institutions and their value, in a way that American Libertarians are not. While both groups have important and useful things to say, and they sometimes share or advocate for the same positions, it is important to understand their differences too.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#714

Post by flats »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #226
flats wrote: post #83

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments ). It consists of fairly in…

Gosh, News Hour with Jim Lehrer was a STAPLE in my house growing up. Both parents would be back from work, cup of chai in hand, and you would hear the intro go and even I used to tune in as a teenager to get the news.

Yep, same here (except replace “cup of chai” with “glass of wine”).

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#715

Post by macksd »

onethought wrote: post #709
hutzlibu wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so how do the national socialist fit into your metric? They are left, because they want to redistribute wealth, from the few rich (jewish) bankers, to the poor (aryan) german masses?

No, they wanted to move wealth, and consolidate it. So you could be fooled into initially thinking it was a leftist agenda when it was “take wealth away from rich bankers”. But it quite quickly deteriorated to something else. It’s important distinction that at the extremes both left and right don’t look that different. It is essentially use extreme violence to achieve wealth distribution/consolidation. Typically once…

So 17 levels below a comment I made about the news just making everyone angry and addicted to it, people are still commenting about whether Nazis are economically left or right. I guess that tracks.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#716

Post by parkingrift »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #668
parkingrift wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different question. What does it matter if I am uninformed on those two topics? What does it matter if I am uninformed on most topics? There are (almost) never any single issue items on the federal ballot. On local or state ballots there are single issue items maybe once every two to four years. I can inform myself on those topics or I can cast an uninformed vote. Again, I would consider an uninformed vote t…

An uninformed vote is a misinformed vote. > What does it matter if I am uninformed on those two topics? You have to consider how you spend your time. Not reading on the happenings in your city, state, and country is a choice that you make every time you do something different. Is what you sacrifice by being up to date on the latest happenings more important? Then do that. You would be in the majority. > What does it…

>An uninformed vote is a misinformed vote.

Profoundly disagree. An uninformed voter may vote poorly. A misinformed voter will unequivocally vote poorly. I'll take my chances with the uninformed to not create a dystopian mess.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#717

Post by galaxyLogic »

gretch wrote: post #384
galaxyLogic wrote: post #372

Hey what's happening in Ukraine? If you don't follow news you probably won't know. No news is good news right?

Well it depends on where you live. If you live in California, okay what are you doing about it? "Knowing" about Ukraine does absolutely nothing - you know 'everything' and I know nothing we still have the exact same amount of impact on the situation -> Zero. Meanwhile you can spend the same time talking to your neighbors about what's happening in the community and actually have real impact. "Oh Tom is sick? Let me br…

It has real impact with elections if you know your candidate is rooting for Russia, or not, and if you know what Russia is doing. News is important so you know who to vote for. And don't tell me all news is fake news. That's what the propagators of fake news would like us to believe.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#718

Post by harry8 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #694
harry8 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectively the acceleration due to gravity on earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. The above statement is both true and clear within certain bounds on precision to anyone not playing sillies and who isn't very stupid. That example is a really easy one. It obviously gets harder the more complex the subject matter becomes. This post-modern, "there's no such thing as objective reality" and one must take "a position"…

My point is not “there’s no such thing as objective reality”, it’s that for issues with more room for dispute than your example being objective in the sense you clearly mean sometimes requires rejecting ideas inconsistent with one’s understanding of reality. As an example which recently came up in a local (to me, in Seattle) news context: it will soon be legal to ride bikes without a helmet. Unintuitively, this has s…

"Objectively I'm right and all the positions I hold and advocate for are beyond reproach. Objectively anyone making less effort than me to make the world a better place in the manner of my preference is a biased, bad faith actor." --Things not said out loud.

Striving for objectivity is allowing for ones own bias and acknowledging the validity of facts and arguments that do not support one's own view on the matter. In reporting it is attempting to make one's own view on the matter irrelevant to the content written. Objectivity is removing one's extreme loathing concerning a current or former president to acknowledge facts that show that person in a favourable light and the exact converse. It is not a half way point between two competing arguments among many, many more on the matter. It does not mean if R & D official or semi-official positions agree it must be correct.

It is utterly bizarre how often people don't understand this as a valid point of view or simply want to derail the point for something else they want to argue for.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#720

Post by mastazi »

andrepd wrote: post #546
mastazi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them…

>They don't hide it. I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into somethi…

> right-wing

Ask a few self-professed conservatives if they agree with the Economist and see what they say.

Post reply on HN