Live data from Hacker News

A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

quillette.com

61–70 of 209 posts

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#61
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to believe that more education would help, but today it seems that the most educated are most likely to spread these dangerous kinds of misinformation, whereas uneducated people are most likely to question it. The educated seem to be more dangerous if for no other reason than they control the media.

Something I have noticed too, and it seems to be a common trend many are noticing. What do you think causes it? Anyone know any studied terms to explain this? My thinking was that "smart" people are busier and outsource their thinking in other aspects to media they can trust. If that media lies to them, they are smart, so they don't want to admit they were wrong. They are too smart to be fooled! But I don't know if t…

Honestly, I have no idea. Being somewhat educated and by all other metrics part of the 'elite' I am flummoxed by people demographically like myself [1].

[1] By other metrics I mean, I live in a West Coast coastal city, in a rich neighborhood, work in tech, educated, etc. By all measurements I should be like others, but I'm not.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#63
post #45
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really horrifying is how many people seem unaware that the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. You know, do that good-guy-with-a-gun thing, while acting on initially (but not eventually) incorrect information. It's quite likely that if he were the one gunned down, and not the other way around, the people who did so would have walked, too.

I've seen the video, there was an angry mob of like 20 guys chasing him down and assaulting him

That’s what you’re supposed to do when a gunman is trying to kill you

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#64
post #62
post #5

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

Based on what facts? The tribes negotiated the treaties and negotiated fairly large changes from the governments initial proposals (mainly to do with more monetary funding). Yet, they said little about schooling.

Perhaps they didn't know what was going on (and I agree that abuses took place), but the desire for their children to be more European was absolutely there. It is very clearly documented. This is in stark contrast to the claim that such things were forced upon the tribes. It seemed that a shared goal of the Canadian government and tribes was the integration of the natives with the Canadian nation. I don't see how this is deniable. The claim that the government committed 'cultural genocide' honestly falls flat for me.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#65

[flagged]

Funnily enough, the "media bias fact checker" lists the NY Times as "High Credibility"[0] despite its sensationalized/false reporting about a "Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada."[1]

[0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-mas...

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#66
post #44
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now a step further. Does loving your enemy mean not punishing them? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and accept the punishment. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a person for their crimes or a Chris…

1. How is that quote at all relevant to what's being discussed? 2. What does any of that have to do with Nazis? Your comment seems to be a complete non-sequitur.

The C.S. Lewis quote above (the one I replied to) is from Mere Christianity. As to whether the original quote is relevant to this Quillette story, your guess is as good as mine.

Later

I'm being coy, because I don't believe most people who deploy this quote have read Mere Christianity, which is ungracious of me (and technically a violation of our guidelines). So: to put it more directly:

Lewis isn't asking people to be skeptical of wrongdoing. The quote is from an essay on forgiveness. That chapter explicitly references the harm Germans inflicted on Poles and Jewish people. Lewis isn't skeptical of that harm (to say the least), and he's not exhorting people towards skepticism of wrongdoing in general.

What he's saying is that you should be careful not to attribute to random people, by dint of their belonging to some specific group, the worst possible harms you can come up with. And he's saying that you shouldn't because it's an impediment to the Christian virtue of forgiveness; to love your neighbor as yourself, you need to love your imputed enemies as yourself, and to do that you have to find a way to forgive them their transgressions against you, and, more immediately, the transgressions of their groups.

I quoted the paragraph immediately following the quote offered (in implicit support of skepticism, as that quote is almost always used). I could just as easily have quoted the paragraph that immediately precedes it:

Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#67
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really horrifying is how many people seem unaware that the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. You know, do that good-guy-with-a-gun thing, while acting on initially (but not eventually) incorrect information. It's quite likely that if he were the one gunned down, and not the other way around, the people who did so would have walked, too.

> the people he shot were under the impression that they were trying to stop an active shooter. I'm still unaware of that. Do you have a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Second...

At this point in time, shots had been fired, Rittenhouse shot and killed a man, and was identified by the crowd as an active shooter. Huber was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, when he was shot and killed. This happened in front of Grosskreutz, who at this point had every reason to believe that Rittenhouse was an active shooter (And was then shot and injured by Rittenhouse).

Since in an active shooter situation, both the 'good guy with a gun' and 'the good guy without a gun' can't sit around and wait for eight months for a jury trial to find the active shooter to actually be innocent, both Huber and Grosskreutz reacted rather reasonably.

It seems to me that legally, nobody, except maybe Rosenbaum (Who was dead by the time of the events of the second confrontation) was in the wrong in that whole situation. It's all 'good guys with a gun' shooting at eachother because sweet fuckin' Jesus, nobody ever has all the facts about who was justified about killing whom when there's a public gunfight happening.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#68
post #8

It’s crazy how when a lie takes hold, it just stays forever. Another is relayed to January 6th protests. A friend today, a conservative DeSantis supporter, told me that he knew that on January 6th, the protestors killed several police officers. This is, as we know now, absolutely false. It was based on a rumor, and once the reporting caught up, it turned out to be false. Similarly I’m sure there will be Canadians who…

Be careful with your wording here - the suicide of Officer Smith, at least, has been pretty unambiguously tied directly back to trauma suffered on Jan 6th. So while a police officer wasn't directly killed through physical violence on Jan 6th the actions of protestors can be fairly said to have instigated the death of a police officer. I think the big misstatement of the media here was the unrelated natural causes dea…

This seems like total post-hoc reasoning like the debunked "violent video games cause real-life violence."

Ultimately Officer Smith chose to take his own life; no one made that choice for him. He may have been appalled or traumatized or whatever, but ultimately he's the one who did it. Doesn't make it any less tragic, but it's extremely tenuous absent additional evidence to lay blame at anyone but he himself.

If there was some evidence that he was subject to unique abuse and was personally targeted on that day, then maybe there might be some merit. But of the officers who were there, he experienced roughly what the other officers did, and he was the only one to commit suicide.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#69
post #55
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unearth can be used in a literal sense, which in this case is false. It can also be used in a figurative sense, which in this case is almost certainly true.

Don't get too dizzy from all that spinning around. So do you really believe everyone in Canada read that and thought "Oh, they're using the word in a figurative sense! Never mind." If something is, by definition, in the earth and a story says it was "unearthed" it's sorta reasonable to believe it was dug up.

I actually think "unearthed" as in "discovered" is the more reasonable read - along with someone thinking they're clever in making a pun. When history is "unearthed" with radar, we generally assume some folks took a big expensive machine aimed it at the ground and walked away with a strong indication that something exists down there - when it comes to delicate items (like, for instance a decaying longboat that exists in the earth merely as concentrations of plant fiber in a suspicious shape) and especially when it comes to human remains (that people are often very reluctant to move due for cultural reasons) that's especially the case.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only someone who was born with ovaries and a uterus can have a baby, menstruate, or chest feed (aka "breast feed"). This is D work (67%). EDIT: For clarity, the last of the three claims is incorrect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779241/ https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/5/e2047/6123860 https://internationalbreastfeedingjournal.biomedcentral.com/...

But the first two are correct? Is that what you're saying?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN