941–950 of 964 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's right, thanks for correcting. The mobile app I used did not allow me to edit message and when I got back home HN no longer allows to edit the message.
It wasn't really meant as a correction, more as a clarification: you said 6th or 7th, I confirmed it was the 6th.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's silence everyone who doesn't share our view and shame everyone who follows him, I'm sure that's a great strategy. For creating extremists, that is. Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to.
Do you understand that there’s an immense difference beteeen silencing those you disagree with and not personally inviting them to spread their bullshit to an audience of tens or hundreds of millions of your own followers? > Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to. Climate change denialism, antivaxers, and flat earthers have all thrived in an enviro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's silence everyone who doesn't share our view and shame everyone who follows him, I'm sure that's a great strategy. For creating extremists, that is. Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to.
Do you understand that there’s an immense difference beteeen silencing those you disagree with and not personally inviting them to spread their bullshit to an audience of tens or hundreds of millions of your own followers? > Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to. Climate change denialism, antivaxers, and flat earthers have all thrived in an enviro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's silence everyone who doesn't share our view and shame everyone who follows him, I'm sure that's a great strategy. For creating extremists, that is. Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to.
Do you understand that there’s an immense difference beteeen silencing those you disagree with and not personally inviting them to spread their bullshit to an audience of tens or hundreds of millions of your own followers? > Keep an open dialogue and dismantle them. If you can't do that, maybe they have something worth listening to. Climate change denialism, antivaxers, and flat earthers have all thrived in an enviro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started writing out all the tit-for-tat responses, then I remembered that this topic is about media narrative bubbles. I already know all of your claims because I watch broadcast news programs here and there. I see the news reports on Good Morning America when we have it on. I know what the left-wing narratives are. That's my point. It's the default. You have to work harder to get something that isn't in that bubbl…
You're seeing the point. This isn't a bubble. This is objective reality .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're seeing the point. This isn't a bubble. This is objective reality .
The virus lab origin theory is an example of a bubble. It was racist and ridiculous when Trump talked about it, but now it’s basically accepted as the truth now that Biden is president. It’s the clearest example of media bias I’ve seen so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a mis-framing of the results. Conservatives didn't have "no problem" answering as liberals. Conservatives were better able to estimate what liberals would answer for individual concerns, but were wrong about group concerns. Moderates were better able to estimate how both groups would answer for group concerns. Both liberals and conservatives overestimated how much conservatives cared for group concerns. Liberals…
That's not at all what I got out of reading "The Righteous Mind", so not sure how to respond to this constructively. Did you read the book? Granted it's been ~ 1 year since I read it, but I walked away with a completely different impression. The interesting thing that was covered was that liberals and conservatives have different ways to approach moral reasoning. Republicans tend (this is not universal) to view thing…
Someone posted this which breaks down the results of the study. I wasn't speaking to "The Righteous Mind" specifically, but the study it's based on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't recommend using the Economist as your only source for international news. It's very deeply ideological in a way that is almost invisible if you can't easily compare it to a known truth. It's certainly not only interested in solutions that can be implemented. It's interested in solutions that enforce the free market, and it paints non-market solutions as infeasible, even though they often work and are implemen…
I don't understand why people keep arguing against journals or newspapers because they are allegedly ideological or biased. Everybody is ideological and biased. Are they afraid they might lose all their critical thinking skills once they read such a journal and somehow be influenced or brainwashed without realizing it? The people who recommend against those medias already believe of themselves that they are better in…
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
> I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. Those are the sources you tried to balance with? Every one of those is a fringe hard-leaning source, except maybe Wapo which can't be trusted because it's owned by Bezos. You need to seek more moderate sources to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This should be trivially easy for proponents of that theory to prove it if that is in his emails. Just link to an un-edited, full context email thread relevant to that topic. So does this exist? If so, just share that link. If not, stop pretending that "media bias" is an excuse to continue sharing the claim surrounded by unfounded conspiracy thinking.
> Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw this earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it. It's a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren't able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off. On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoi…
Like "But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change"
He basically, said "Eh, maybe, but we really need to look harder".