Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed • Hacker News Board

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#821

Post by lupusreal » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

tuukkah wrote: post #731

NeutralCrane wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is not the example I would have chosen. They are among the most politically biased publications you could have chosen. Simply being backed a by a non-profit doesn’t mean they can’t be pushing an agenda.

They are truthful not neutral. You don't have to like or read them. That's journalism and free speech.

Truthful doesn't mean unbiased. Different people who agree on the facts but have different values may come to different conclusions about what is or isn't newsworthy and worth mentioning.

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#822

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:10 PM UTC

myko wrote: post #778

wonderwonder wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if you can point to a similar post being made by them when Biden was elected.

This is an weird take considering: - trump's previous failure as president - his history of rape, fraud, and other crimes - knowing what we now know about his first weeks of his lawless second term, and things are only getting worse

A newspaper is supposed to be neutral, if you think Trumps prior behavior absolves them of neutrality then they are not a newspaper they are an opinion paper. Which is fine, as long as everyone acknowledges the slant. Not really sure why you are upset that I want my news to be neutral

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#823

Post by fwip » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #641

Dalewyn wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like everyone forgot Reddit's roots as far as its politics are concerned. Namely, the place was Libertarian Central on the internet until 2015 when it got astroturfed basically overnight to swing the other way. I was there to witness it and the whiplash was something fierce. Reddit has been basically unusable for anything concerning politics since, and nowadays with politics leaking out into every damn sub p…

It’s not a Reddit thing. I also remember the days when everyone online was a libertarian. But Conservatives then turned to nationalist ideologies that don’t emphasize the free market, that are anti-immigration, and that take a dim view of personal sexual freedom. There are fewer people expressing libertarian points of view all over the shop. There’s a good article about it here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/202…

I used to be a libertarian too, when I was 17 years old and I thought I was the smartest person in the room.

Then I realized that my kindergarten teacher was onto something when she told us we should be nice and share our toys, and I grew up.

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#824

Post by NickC25 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #818

NickC25 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg ... Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along pa…

> Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans." Alternatively: " Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowin…

Non-citizens don't vote, and can't vote.

Can you prove that the entire list of cleared votes, was indeed 100% of people who were ineligible to vote?

Judge shopping is the GOP's favorite passtime. I hate both parties but it's been the GOP's tactic for ages. Go read up on Donald Trump judge shopping until he got a stooge to clear him for possession of intelligence documents he was unable to keep. Bear in mind, that some of those documents were our intelligence files on Israel's nuclear weapons program. Why do you think the Saudis sponsored a fucking golf tour on Trump's courses once they had access to those documents?

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#825

Post by fwip » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #572

xvector wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It feels like everyone forgot Reddit's roots as far as its politics are concerned. Namely, the place was Libertarian Central on the internet until 2015 when it got astroturfed basically overnight to swing the other way. I was there to witness it and the whiplash was something fierce. Reddit has been basically unusable for anything concerning politics since, and nowadays with politics leaking out into every damn sub p…

Astroturfed by whom?

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#826

Post by Henchman21 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

btreecat wrote: post #732

koolba wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime. What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.

Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. E.g. Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "na…

These voter purges changed the outcome of the election.

It’s utterly disingenuous to say Trump won. They straight up cheated.

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#827

Post by wonderwonder » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:14 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #710

tuukkah wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be printed in the US. The Guardian is backed by a non-profit and there's a US (digital) edition plus a printed weekly international edition.

The guardian openly states on their website that they are anti-trump. So going to posit they may be less that neutral. From the banner on their home page: "From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy" also "After Trump remarked that “in this term, everybody…

Last I am going to post on this, but its fascinating the pushback even on this site against what I wrote. Everything I wrote is literally from the Guardian's site. People are insistent though, not that they did not post it but that I am still somehow wrong and that my posting it is evidence of some sort of bias. We have become so echo chambered that we demand that others ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Some even arguing that it's right for news to be biased as long as its against Trump.

I want all news sources to be honest, that lack of neutrality is exactly what led us to the current situation where there isn't a single trust worthy news source. You cant go anywhere just to get the facts. You want another Trump, a biased media is exactly how you get it.

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#828

Post by koolba » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

troyvit wrote: post #807

koolba wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap. Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law. I challenge you to find…

> I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption. The presidential immunity case is another good one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along p…

> I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?

> Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.

Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.

The primary benefactor of the outcome of the case is clearly Trump as he's the one with open Federal lawsuits, but the POTUS at the time was a Democrat and the 2024 election had not happened yet either. So whatever immunity power the court granted, it was granting on an ongoing basis to Biden.

> There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].

There's an incredibly blurry line between bias an opinion. Having an opinion is not grounds for recusal. If he was at the capital or somehow involved with a lower court interaction, that'd be a conflict.

> It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.

I really don't think they're corrupt at all. There's just this sad framing of "us v.s. them" that makes people think that the only way someone could disagree is they are corrupt. I don't see it like that though. I just see a core difference of opinion (and I happen to side with one side much more than the other).

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#829

Post by Henchman21 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #782

btreecat wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. E.g. Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "na…

> Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public. > e.g., Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was lik…

Illegality is a meaningless term when the separation of powers is compromised specifically to make what would normally be illegal legal.

Or put another way: there’s a subreddit called something like /r/EmpireDidNothingWrong that puts forth the idea that nothing the Empire did in the Star Wars universe was illegal. In fact it was quite legal, as Palpatine famously says “I’ll make it legal”.

A fictional example sure, but if you can’t make the leap here, well, then you’re the one being disingenuous.

Re: Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

#830

Post by Henchman21 » Thu, Feb 06, 2025, 5:23 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #818

NickC25 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that he won the case means that it was not an illegal purge. It was expressly legal. The SCOTUS agreed as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/g-s1-30644/supreme-court-virg ... Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along pa…

> Your whole argument basically falls apart with this logic: "Republicans wanted to cheat to put a Republican in power, until they were stopped by a court of law, and when defeated, appealed to powerful Republicans, who voted along party lines to give more power to Republicans." Alternatively: " Republicans wanted to clean up the voter rolls by removing self-declared non-citizens. Democrats wanted to cheat by allowin…

Bad faith argument.

Republicans didn’t want to clean up the voter rolls, as you allege. They wanted to tip the election to Trump by any means necessary. This is so obvious that you’re likely to tell me not to believe my own eyes.