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

Statement on New York Times Article

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 437 posts

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#251

Post by xyzelement »

xyzelement wrote: post #55
donthitme wrote: post #17

Reading the NYT piece was mortifying.[1] They were my primary source of all things news and then published this strange hit that's just... off base. They were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. How can a reliable news source write an article like that? Why throw your reputation down the toilet for what seems like a grudge? [1] https://www.nytimes.c…

// hey were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. You probably have heard of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" but in case not, it really explains a lot: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect... you read with exasperation or amusement…

// Meaning of speeches and essays characterized as reverse of what anyone who's hear/read them would actually conclude.

I actually want to explain what I meant here and what opened my eyes to this big-time.

Background: I am a dual (EU/US) citizen and care about both a lot. In 2016 I voted for Clinton and had the typical attitude towards Trump that you'd expect from a liberal New Yorker.

In early 2017, Trump was in the news for having said offensive/alienating things to our European allies. I was outraged and worried because this fit the narrative of him selling us out to Russia.

Until I chanced to watch the actual speech - what I heard was affirming and comforting for someone who cares about NATO and totally opposite of how it was presented.

The subsequent 4 years, this pattern repeated over and over - I'd watch the administration consistently make geopolitical moves against Russia and its allies (Iran being the crystalizing example) while the news kept telling me he was Putin's bitch.

I came out of this experience with a complete lack of belief in how things are presented in the media, which is a radical departure from my stance as a literate liberal New Yorker just 4 years prior.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#252

Post by yardie »

woofie11 wrote: post #246
cedilla wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT abusing these kinds of allegations in a hit piece doesn't say anything about whether such claims can are "contentious and weaponized". Hit pieces latch on current topics. In the 1950s, the NYT would have had invented ties to communists. Or, if possible, hit pieces often imply corruption or paedophilia. That doesn't necessarily mean that corruption or paedophilia are topics that are "contentious" or related to…

I feel like the NYT used to be more credible and run fewer hit pieces. I'm not trying to argue zero, by any means, but I feel like in a very short time -- basically the past 4-8 years -- they've gone from one of the most credible source of media to where I trust them as much as I do Fox News (and I read both, as well as a number of international news sources, to have a complete picture). This sort of stuff seems to b…

The NYT lost credibility for me when they endorsed the Iraq War in 2003. I have been very vocal about their credibility ever since, even though I agree with some of their journalism.

Your heroes will disappoint you. Even the NYT have traded their credibility for clicks, I mean “engagement.”

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#253

Post by pclmulqdq »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #212
makomk wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leading people to believe things that are wildly untrue using statements that are technically not lies does as much damage to society as doing it any other way, in my opinion. Sure, in theory smart people might be able to spot that what the article is trying to convince them of isn't backed up by the facts it uses - but in practice they almost never seem to, not even other journalists. (Here in the UK, the BBC seems…

I've noticed this thought pattern with many people who argue against freedom of speech and for tighter control of media or "canceling" them recently: 1. The arguer claims that negative consequences follow from the exercising of free speech, in this case NYT right to freely chose the topics they write about. 2. The alleged consequence is that people are made to believe wrong or false things (where "wrong" and "false"…

Here's an alternative form of the "NYT/CNN should be canceled" argument: they should be held to the same standard as a private citizen when they behave poorly.

If you write a blog post that doxxes a prominent figure and link to it from Facebook and Twitter, you are going to get banned from those platforms. The NYT can apparently do this with impunity, and calls for canceling other people and organizations who do this.

In US law, there is a different standard for libel against "public figures" than against other people. The NYT gets to take advantage of this much looser libel law whenever they write a hit piece because they can argue that anyone who does something "newsworthy" is de-facto a public figure.

As far as I have seen, the "cancel NYT" crowd is arguing that the NYT should be held to the standards that it pushes into others and obviously doesn't follow.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#254

Post by Clewza313 »

javajosh wrote: post #241
higerordermap wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Indian, I'd say this kind of "SJW" rhetoric serves no purpose other than causing a reactionary change -- of more normal people favoring extreme right wing instead, and leaving a bad impression about the total social justice thing.

The other alternative is to be independent. No tribe. Or you can be in a tribe, but as a critic and reformer. (Well, some tribes allow you to criticize them. Not the modern GOP.)

Not an option anymore: you're either with us or against us.

This article is actually an excellent example of this in action: by any objective standard SSC was a pretty liberal blog, but the NYT cherrypicked 4 quotes from 1700+ articles where he dared to deviate from dogma and used them to paint him a Nazi.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#255

Post by vinay427 »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #230
vinay427 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does" To be fair, it's not a very high bar. I don't mean this as a slight, but "white American" doesn't seem to represent any shared culture or history. It's based on an American (originally European) concept of visibly distinguishable race rather than any attempt at an ethnocultural grouping based on something like a linguistic or culinary basi…

A stereotype is a negative amplification of facets of a group's culture. You can find stereotypes of white Americans everywhere, from /r/whitepeopletwitter to the movie Undercover Brother(great movie btw). The existence of stereotypes shows that a common culture exists.

I tried browsing /r/whitepeopletwitter for the first time, and as far as I can tell it mainly consists of meme-like language that mocks views typically ascribed to Republicans or, in the case of race issues, white Americans that espouse white supremacy. This seems more like an expression of the political reality of some white Americans than any cultural aspect that applies to "white Americans" in general.

> The existence of stereotypes shows that a common culture exists.

I would also disagree with this premise. There were stereotypes about black Americans as soon as the first slave ships landed, despite these populations being from vastly different parts of the continent, different ethnic groups, different linguistic groups, etc. They were forced into a distinct reality and stereotypes served to reinforce the segregation that eventually may have led to cultural differences, not the other way around.

There are also stereotypes about various immigrant and second-generation American groups today (e.g. "Asian-Americans are smart") despite most of these primarily being a result of selection bias due to immigration policies that were ostensibly racist until recently, not a result of a general cultural attribute (e.g. "superior Asian intelligence").

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#256

Post by jtbayly »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #232
wskinner wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to any examples that you found particularly annoying?

[flagged]

> he appears to genuinely believe that recycling is a scam

It is.

Also, how many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

That’s not funny!

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#257

Post by zarkov99 »

javajosh wrote: post #241
higerordermap wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Indian, I'd say this kind of "SJW" rhetoric serves no purpose other than causing a reactionary change -- of more normal people favoring extreme right wing instead, and leaving a bad impression about the total social justice thing.

The other alternative is to be independent. No tribe. Or you can be in a tribe, but as a critic and reformer. (Well, some tribes allow you to criticize them. Not the modern GOP.)

How about joining the American tribe? Wouldn't that be something?

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#258

Post by mnky9800n »

belorn wrote: post #215
mnky9800n wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also outed a Chinese Twitter maker a few years ago. Or maybe that was vice and the reporter now works at nyt. I don't remember except that nyt these days is lame.

That was vice, and it involved outed details about the makers family members, her relationship status, and her sexual orientation.

Yes but at some point the nytimes was also involved I thought.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#259

Post by hahahahe »

Here’s my take on NYT: they’re desperately trying to stay relevant in modern era where news happens real-time on social media. They’re an institution and have an incredible reach in steering narratives still but that’s fading fast.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#260

Post by Zeratoss »

roenxi wrote: post #222
unityByFreedom wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was it a hit piece? Certainly it is great he can respond.

[Charles Murray] in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture. But he shares my skepticism that the 55 year old Kentucky trucker can be taught to code, and I don’t think he’s too sanguine about the trucker’s kids either. His solution is a basic income guarantee, and I guess that’s mine too. .. in SSC becomes ... In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link bet…

Sounds fair to me. He agrees with a bunch of points and calls Murray's ideas sophisticated. Isn't that aligning oneself?
Post reply on HN