41–50 of 160 posts
I have been a very strong adherent of this philosophy for over 30 years. There’s an adage, “there’s nothing as worthless as yesterday’s news”. Which led me to wonder, “was it even worth knowing yesterday?” I realized the solution was a low pass filter. I first switched to a seven-page newspaper (CSM) delivered through the mail. I realised the editors had to figure out whether it would still be interesting by the time…
I'll come out of my shell a few times a week and won't understand what's going on. News sites just tell me the last 18 hours' worth of updates... So... I either disengage entirely and can't carry on a conversation or I stay engaged and worry about events I cannot affect. I'd like a "I haven't checked the news in [7] days and some guy at work mentioned [Ukraine talking to the UN], what's that all about?" website. I gu…
Can just read the Economist weekly. Their articles are very brief but well written summaries.
All that negative stuff you have to go thru when reading news makes it being bad deal
In my experience it is more commonly used to describe news which the speaker does not like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way can you not function in society? Is that just in the sense that the news creates common cultural touchpoints for people to chat about around the water cooler? If so, as you say you don't really need to be that engaged to know the gist of what's going on. An occasional glance at a reputable, less-doomscrolly news source like the Econ, BBC, NYT or something like that should suffice.
I'm not sure we disagree? If you read The Economist weekly, you should be fine (although you can still be caught out not knowing about, say, today's Oscar's scandal. But completely disconnecting from 'The News'? That won't work at all these days, I'm afraid. I quite vividly experienced this a while ago when I returned from living in the US to my native Netherlands: I was completely unaware of some extremely-popular l…
I'm afraid I don't follow your point. Saying that something "won't work at all these days" means that there are meaningful, and I stress: meaningful, aspects of our life that totally break down in the absence of said thing. An occasional few seconds of awkwardness (which is a totally fine emotion to feel) regarding some celeb drama is, in all honesty, insignificant. You didn't talk about being fired or being shunned, being discriminated or being laughed at; you presented a very very bland example equivalent to admitting to your colleagues that you didn't notice a new coffee machine was installed. Maybe you suffer from a mental condition that amplifies these emotions so much that you can't stand that occasional awkwardness, but I don't see how that justifies defending being addicted to the news cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can just read the Economist weekly. Their articles are very brief but well written summaries.
Also heavily editorialized with a sharp left / European bias
The rest of the world would mostly call it "left-leaning", or maybe "radical centrist".
During few weeks without the information overload I discovered that:
• Having the overview and discussing the current affairs personally as an unbiased listener is more liberating than analysing the text alone behind the screens.
• The categorization of received news reveals those which simply interpret the source and those which really generate the original information.
• Working on a computer presents a risk of being distracted by reading various articles and clicking on random links. Their reduction increases my productivity and I am able to be more focused on my tasks, without temptation of countless distractions.
• Ignorance is bliss. It eliminates the prejudices, teaches us not to be opinionated nor to ask the right question.
• Any form of “decentralization” of receiving information eliminates the manipulation of thinking.
We are being indoctrinated by a fear agenda to excessively consume media, television and radio. Let’s not forget that a frightened mind can be easily manipulated, which is used by both political power and corporates. Few of the wealthiest IT companies with a monopoly set the global opinions. They decide which information we receive; thus, they have boundless power. Because we don’t care. We consider the freedom of speech as a right without any duties and responsibilities and meanwhile it slips through our fingers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And honestly feel better overall and less stressed. Sure you can claim being apathetic/ignorant towards global current events makes me a bad person, but I do not care. I would not say so. But, I would expect you to NOT be outspoken and confident when someone else starts to speak about stuff related to current issues. And I would expect you to check yourself especially when it seems like the other person is saying s…
That's the second part of de-stressing. First, stop watching news. Second, stop having an opinion on everything because at the end of the day nobody's opinion matters.
Later on, I realized that was what made us risk slipping back... and likely was contributed factor to why Russia actually slipped back to authoritarian, oppressive and aggressive. The countries that moved more toward democratic did so thinks to people who were not apathetic.