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

A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 209 posts

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#91

Post by adamrezich »

rizoma_dev wrote: post #27

[flagged]

what issues have you found with the text of the article that makes it unsuitable to be posted here? I've never heard of this publication, but found the article to be an excellent read. I only had vaguely heard about the "mass graves" situation months and months ago and was completely unaware that no bodies have actually been found. this article does a great job of presenting this information, contrasting it with the blatantly false NYT reporting on the subject, and tying the whole thing together with warnings about media-fueled moral panic mass hysteria, which is a pretty important topic to learn more about these days.

I found the article well-reasoned and level-headed, completely free of political extremism of any sort.

what is the reason for why I'm supposed to hate this publication, so I know better next time to go into reading an article from it with the Consensus-Approved Morally-Correct Set of Preconceived Biases?

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#92

Post by stefan_ »

pyuser583 wrote: post #33
hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as po…

Quoted post unavailable.

Well certainly not you, you can't even remember the age. But all too happy to repeat the ole "don't politicize it" talking point. It's a political point because it is the 100% predictable outcome of these abortion policies.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#95

Post by mikotodomo »

pyuser583 wrote: post #33
hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as po…

Quoted post unavailable.

WTF..... if a politician uses that to get votes he should literally go to jail.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#96

Post by jollybean »

I do not like to be 'one of those people' that laments the MSM, but this story in particular is a glowing example of the lies (and I mean 'lies', because the distortion is purposeful) to support narratives.

There was an extensive piece by the National Post documents some of the examples, it's bad. [1]

Ironically, even many of the aboriginal leaders themselves were purposefully misrepresented. In some cases, these were just regular graves that lost their headstones and relevant documentation, there was not discovery etc..

Consider this: when the population at large derives a completely false intuition for a set of events - the media is lying.

Some media 'misrepresents' the 2020 election by just repeating Trump's lies without questioning them, and though this might be hard for some to swallow, much of the real data behind police aggression etc. is hidden and misrepresented in light of emotional charges and BLM protests.

It's a really sad state of affairs but the MSM ('all sides') narratives are so strong, that almost every issue is quite strongly misrepresented due to 'sidedness' and/or attempt to create false impressions.

Double paradox is that most of the MSM is actually 'fairl factual' and if you go off the beaten path into YouTube and alt sources, there are some good voices, but most of it is 10x worse. Most 'independent thinkers' are not getting at the truth, just being led even further astray. It's sad.

It's really hard to consume information these days.

Edit: for a good exercise, pay attention to news about Ukraine right now. While I absolutely support their effort basically in every way and am repulsed by Putin's 'useful idiots' all over the web - we are engaging in a bit of misrepresentation ourselves (pro-Ukrainian propaganda), which is what happens during wartime. Ukraine is a bit of a mess of a country, a lot of corruption - but that will be suppressed at least for now, where we 'need' the public to be engaged in a way that's a bit more easy to swallow. This soft-propaganda is of a different nature than the ideological narratives in much of the press. 2 years after Ukraine/Russian war is over (hopefully soon, and Russia is kicked out of Ukraine) you'll see a lot more press about the conflicts of interest etc. within the Ukrainian government etc..

[1] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-how-...

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#98

Post by jtbayly »

jjoonathan wrote: post #43
dinkblam wrote: post #7

same as with covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than many other preventable causes of death that are completely ignored instead of hyped as the end-of-the-world. we are truly in an age of perpetual unfounded social panic. thanks twitter. as with most other problems, more educated people, especially regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help prevent these foolishnesses.

> dangerous but not anymore so We can all tell you weren't actually listening to the experts you so detest because that wasn't their stated rationale. The rationale was "flatten the curve" -- some hospitals were two doubling periods away from having parking lots full of people slowly dying for want of ventilators. That's what the lockdowns were about. Making sure we never overwhelmed the medical infrastructure. Subse…

Then why were doctors offices and hospitals closed if the goal was to keep them open and operating?

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

pyuser583 wrote: post #33
hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as po…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Reminds me of the story of the 11 year old who was raped and had to cross state lines for an abortion.

Unless it happened again already, it was a 9-10 year old, depending on whether you are referring to when she was raped or when she had left the state to get an abortion.

> Too many people treated it like a political point tally.

Side1: If your political position is enacted, Bad Thing will happen, hurting people.

Side2: You are inventing unlikely scenarios for political points, you aren't really concerned about the people that you pretend Bad Thing will happen to.

...Side2 policy adopted...

...Bad Thing immediately happens as predicted...

Side1: Look, Bad Thing just happened.

Side2: You don't care about the person Bad Thing happened to, you are just scoring political points.

Re: A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves

#100

Post by kradeelav »

idiotsecant wrote: post #71
pyuser583 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

So when a child is raped (which definitely happened, by definition) we should avoid talking about it because it might hurt the case of the person accused of the crime? The justice system assumes innocence until proven guilty. The court of public opinion need hold no such lofty ideal. Nor should it.

There's a difference between talking thoughtfully about a child's lived experience/trauma and "using" it shamelessly as political points to own [the other side].
Post reply on HN