"News is Bad For you" by Guardian News. What's their angle here?
That's the first thing I thought. Oh the irony.
News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
241–245 of 245 posts
Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I truly don't find your metaphor (if it can be called that at all) apt, thus my question.
'speaking in metaphor' is a bit self-referential and is another way of saying 'talking around the issue without having to exactly specify everything in a bullet-pointed list that is clear to even the most basic speaker of the language, all the while allowing for all the usual disclaimers to be applied, the most salient being that the item in question is a general trend that has been noted by the utterer, and not a ca…
You should really revise what you wrote earlier in light of what you've just written and, in the process, get off the high horse. It would have been a lot shorter and less annoying for everybody involved. (Hint: "best counter to the faff in this article is simply: Talk to someone who watches the news. Then talk to someone who doesn't." implies that one is "better" than the other and which one, but not at all why)
Now that you've explained why, I can tell you my experience is not like yours at all, I find that many people who actively follow the news tend to parrot them out without true understanding.
Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
'speaking in metaphor' is a bit self-referential and is another way of saying 'talking around the issue without having to exactly specify everything in a bullet-pointed list that is clear to even the most basic speaker of the language, all the while allowing for all the usual disclaimers to be applied, the most salient being that the item in question is a general trend that has been noted by the utterer, and not a ca…
You should really revise what you wrote earlier in light of what you've just written and, in the process, get off the high horse. It would have been a lot shorter and less annoying for everybody involved. (Hint: "best counter to the faff in this article is simply: Talk to someone who watches the news. Then talk to someone who doesn't." implies that one is "better" than the other and which one, but not at all why ) No…
Now that you've explained why, I can tell you my experience is not like yours at all
This is what pissed me off from your first utterance. You already knew what I meant. And you already knew what you wanted to say. But rather than just step forward with what you had to say, you did this stupid fucking charade where I have to explain myself in detail before you'll deign to provide your side of the argument. And that would have played out in a way that both of us already knew. You could have just as easily said what you thought I meant and why you think it's wrong, instead of turning it into this stupid pantomime. And then if you had misunderstood me, I would have the opportunity to clarify. Instead you started an entirely predictable path of drek, and I thought 'fuck that, I'll go a different way'.
My 'high horse' was born of being tired of your "I say you're wrong with no support on my side; explain yourself further!" style of argument. It's lazy and unfair and requires minimal commitment from you while not making any statement of substance that can be addressed. That's why I went over the top in my previous comment, nothing to do with the particular topic at hand.
Also, if you want to lecture people about getting off high horses and not implying that one is better than the other, it would behoove you not to use condescending mechanisms like "(Hint:".
Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should really revise what you wrote earlier in light of what you've just written and, in the process, get off the high horse. It would have been a lot shorter and less annoying for everybody involved. (Hint: "best counter to the faff in this article is simply: Talk to someone who watches the news. Then talk to someone who doesn't." implies that one is "better" than the other and which one, but not at all why ) No…
Now that you've explained why, I can tell you my experience is not like yours at all This is what pissed me off from your first utterance. You already knew what I meant. And you already knew what you wanted to say. But rather than just step forward with what you had to say, you did this stupid fucking charade where I have to explain myself in detail before you'll deign to provide your side of the argument. And that w…
You are plainly and simply wrong.
I was not sure what you meant and that's why I asked, especially given that you gave no extra context or argumentation for your position.
If that bores or tires you, stop answering instead of derailing the conversation with anger stemming from paranoid delusions about second and third intentions.
Re: News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found that if anything is truly important, I'll hear about through non-news channels (friends, family, cow-orkers, personal blogs, etc.). It works remarkably well.
That's just free riding, though. If everyone gives up news, this approach will no longer work.
But news itself propagates naturally through social networks. MSM was an efficiency gain, not a novelty. Journalism would suffer, though.