Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers(wired.com)
wired.com
Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers
https://www.wired.com/story/how-americans-breaking-political-echo-chambers/
963 comments
I would be in favor of reclaiming some words like "News" with regulatory controls. Just like the FDA doesn't allow someone to label their product as "Organic" without meeting certain standards, I would argue that we should enforce some basic standards in order to label yourself as "News" or "Media Organization." It would be a slippery slope to navigate with the first amendment and the internet but there is a large group of citizens that will believe anything if it was on TV and came from the "News."
This seems like the best approach. No doubt people will continue to kick and scream about their first amendment rights being infringed upon but as long as they're not actually banned from talking it seems perfectly constitutional.
There's a thing that happened with the Canada subreddit. It used to be kind of an interesting sub where youd get neat Canada-wide local stories (mostly Ontario) that were genrally pleasant. It was a nice place to visit after being inundated with American politics. Then, sometime in the early 10s and it gradually became very partisan and political. Which, to clarify, means it got substantially worse.
It, like the comment sections on Canadian news websites, leaned heavily to the right. So a group got together and made alt Canada subreddit that leaned heavily left called OnGuardForThee.
Originally, I thought it would be helpful to compare the two subs to get something closer to the middle but instead all that happened was I got twice as much screaming hot garbage.
I unsubbed from both and now individually sub to all the Canadian town I can find. It's better now. There's so much less anger.
It, like the comment sections on Canadian news websites, leaned heavily to the right. So a group got together and made alt Canada subreddit that leaned heavily left called OnGuardForThee.
Originally, I thought it would be helpful to compare the two subs to get something closer to the middle but instead all that happened was I got twice as much screaming hot garbage.
I unsubbed from both and now individually sub to all the Canadian town I can find. It's better now. There's so much less anger.
A lot of "local" subreddits started declining around 2015. It's like all the local news website commenters discovered their local subreddits and started posting there.
A lot of investor-relations style astroturfing began in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
We did some threat tracking for certain organizations as a result of the growing extreme rhetoric in some of these communities and with social media aggregation tools it became very clear that there are a lot of paid political shill accounts.
Facebook's toxic communities are far more grass-roots in comparison. They're also, at least in the cases of the files I was on, a lot more violent, and a lot more volatile. Surveiled Facebook groups looked a lot more like Parler than brigaded reddit subs.
We did some threat tracking for certain organizations as a result of the growing extreme rhetoric in some of these communities and with social media aggregation tools it became very clear that there are a lot of paid political shill accounts.
Facebook's toxic communities are far more grass-roots in comparison. They're also, at least in the cases of the files I was on, a lot more violent, and a lot more volatile. Surveiled Facebook groups looked a lot more like Parler than brigaded reddit subs.
I'd like to hear more about this if you could share the details.
I almost think it was these local news sites trying themselves to post on these subreddits. Looking at the histories of the people who actually post articles on a local subreddit, all they do pretty much is post articles. Who even does that? Either someone with some sort of complex to share every article they read on reddit, or an intern who is paid to post the article on social media and reddit is on that list. Even the LA Fire Department is active on reddit now. It's mainstream, and commercialized.
This sounds like a Reddit-wide problem. I stopped going to Reddit years ago because of this.
That slippery slope is a byproduct of their subreddit social mechanic combined with a polarized political climate.
If the sub leans 60/40 one way, the minority group will see all their posts being downvoted, and gradually leave. As more leave, the downvote pressure on the remaining few gets more intense, and they leave too, until you're left with a veritable echo chamber.
If the sub leans 60/40 one way, the minority group will see all their posts being downvoted, and gradually leave. As more leave, the downvote pressure on the remaining few gets more intense, and they leave too, until you're left with a veritable echo chamber.
It's interesting to see how you've characterized what happened in r/canada. I think it is itself an example of polarization.
r/canada used to be great, as you said, but it didn't become polarized in a right vs. left manner. The moderators were self-admitted alt/far-right people who were pushing a particular agenda.
When the country as a whole votes left at a consistent 65-70%, then r/canada simply no longer represents the Canadian viewpoint. r/canada used to give center-right viewpoints attention at about the same rate as the support they got in elections. The push from right-wing mods to move to an even or greater split doesn't reflect the political reality of Canada.
r/OnGuardForThee is now a far more accurate representation of the political landscape of Canada where 70% of people vote center-left to left.
r/canada used to be great, as you said, but it didn't become polarized in a right vs. left manner. The moderators were self-admitted alt/far-right people who were pushing a particular agenda.
When the country as a whole votes left at a consistent 65-70%, then r/canada simply no longer represents the Canadian viewpoint. r/canada used to give center-right viewpoints attention at about the same rate as the support they got in elections. The push from right-wing mods to move to an even or greater split doesn't reflect the political reality of Canada.
r/OnGuardForThee is now a far more accurate representation of the political landscape of Canada where 70% of people vote center-left to left.
> Then, sometime in the early 10s and it gradually became very partisan and political. Which, to clarify, means it got substantially worse.
I just checked the top posts for last week and it looks pretty... non-partisan? Certainly better than something /r/all.
https://old.reddit.com/r/canada/top/?t=week
I just checked the top posts for last week and it looks pretty... non-partisan? Certainly better than something /r/all.
https://old.reddit.com/r/canada/top/?t=week
A handful of jerks that don't have their comments removed immediately means a subreddit is infested with alt-right racists.
It would be interesting to see how the country would vote without having to vote strategically.
[deleted]
I am starting to think that it isn't really the "news" but the commentary. Most sites will cover many of the same events. There will be different focuses but a large percentage of the information is the same.
But I recently visited my senior citizen parents and got some exposure to Fox News. During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks. One example was trying to stir up a controversy over not covid testing people crossing the board illegally. Another was a rich part of Atlanta trying to break away from Atlanta and they were blaming it all on defund the police and black lives matter.
But I recently visited my senior citizen parents and got some exposure to Fox News. During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks. One example was trying to stir up a controversy over not covid testing people crossing the board illegally. Another was a rich part of Atlanta trying to break away from Atlanta and they were blaming it all on defund the police and black lives matter.
> During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks.
Yep. We’re all addicted to “rage-ahol” [1], but it gets eyeballs which means they can charge more for ads.
What’s worse IMHO is that we consume so much “news” that we can do nothing about [2], and I believe that contributes to people feeling quite helpless, and learning that all they can do is nothing.
[1] Homer Simpson https://youtu.be/JKRn2nEw7rY
[2] Fires, car chases, etc. And even if there is, indirectly, something we could do, the reporting never mentions it.
Yep. We’re all addicted to “rage-ahol” [1], but it gets eyeballs which means they can charge more for ads.
What’s worse IMHO is that we consume so much “news” that we can do nothing about [2], and I believe that contributes to people feeling quite helpless, and learning that all they can do is nothing.
[1] Homer Simpson https://youtu.be/JKRn2nEw7rY
[2] Fires, car chases, etc. And even if there is, indirectly, something we could do, the reporting never mentions it.
I live in one of the (upper?) middle class parts of Atlanta and I really hope they don't do that. Crime rates are up in a bad way, and the city can be pretty mismanaged, but taking your ball and going home isn't a real option. It's just going to hurt the city that will still be right next door, and that has your sports (some of it, Braves are gone), museums and culture, restaurants, a lot of work spaces and shopping, etc. You can't just wall it off and you do take part in it, so stay, keep paying your share, and fight to make it better. It'll be worse than when people outside the perimeter vote down taxes to cover transportation infrastructure and refuse mass transit, but are the ones commuting into and through town increasing the burden on the transit system. We're all in this together, so let's try to work together to improve it.
In general, I agree with you, but in the case of Atlanta and Fulton county that narrative is in conflict with repeated poor management. Lots of cities have incorporated over the past 20 years and ended up with better services and lower taxes. Part of that is due to siphoning off funds that would help worse off, but most is just due to more efficient management.
I used to not support the idea of reforming Milton county, but it makes more sense as Fulton funds are focused on Atlanta and away from the tax base. Especially with stupid stuff like no Atlanta police chief for a year, etc. And no Marta in north Fulton. And minimal court services, etc.
I live also live in one of the (upper?) northern burbs of Atlanta. I had to handle some property tax stuff and it was kafkaesque in how out of touch and poorly managed it is. Driving an hour to downtown atlanta to meet with an assessor who has never been to my town. Then meeting with a board of “peers” that also don’t even know the town where I live, listen to my arguments, ask no questions and then rubber stamp the county.
I’m not sure how to fix this and it’s so appealing to just give up and work on local stuff.
I used to not support the idea of reforming Milton county, but it makes more sense as Fulton funds are focused on Atlanta and away from the tax base. Especially with stupid stuff like no Atlanta police chief for a year, etc. And no Marta in north Fulton. And minimal court services, etc.
I live also live in one of the (upper?) northern burbs of Atlanta. I had to handle some property tax stuff and it was kafkaesque in how out of touch and poorly managed it is. Driving an hour to downtown atlanta to meet with an assessor who has never been to my town. Then meeting with a board of “peers” that also don’t even know the town where I live, listen to my arguments, ask no questions and then rubber stamp the county.
I’m not sure how to fix this and it’s so appealing to just give up and work on local stuff.
Didn't Marta extensions get voted down by those same suburban counties?
This is all in the same county, Fulton, and the northern part has voted to extend multiple times. The current Marta line stops about 8 miles from the top of the county.
Even other counties, Gwinnett and Cobb have recently voted to extend but that’s sort of a separate point.
My complaint was that Fulton county sales taxes support Marta, but Marta service does not extend all the way through the county.
Even other counties, Gwinnett and Cobb have recently voted to extend but that’s sort of a separate point.
My complaint was that Fulton county sales taxes support Marta, but Marta service does not extend all the way through the county.
From searching it looks like the community in question is Buckhead. All I know about Atlanta is the airport though
Something else to keep in mind is that liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy. We have at least four major cultures in the USA - some scholars put it as high as eleven - and they each have differing core values.
This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise.
I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.
This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise.
I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.
Related, I really really enjoyed George Packer's "The Four Americas" article from a few days ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-...
> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue."
I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
(Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.)
I think the words "well-reasoned opinion" describe it well: try to see what part of your opinion is fact, which experts you trusted for that, and what part is morality and ethics.
I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
(Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.)
I think the words "well-reasoned opinion" describe it well: try to see what part of your opinion is fact, which experts you trusted for that, and what part is morality and ethics.
The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So sure, subject the lofty peanut gallery to this standard. If you're actually personally affected by a political issue it's usually pretty easy to figure out where you stand on it.
I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree.
First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side.
As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken.
Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.
First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side.
As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken.
Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.
Deeply understanding viewpoints that pose a direct threat to you takes a lot of effort. It takes time and mental resources. I don't think it is fair to expect that of everyone; activists, sure, but most people just want to live and feel safe. That is hard as is, especially for trans people.
Yeah, I would estimate <1% of people try to deeply understand the nuances of any issue.
It would be great if we had a reliable way to identify that 1% and sort articles/comment/reach by this metric, but it's a hard problem.
For as many people that deeply understand a topic, there are many more that are parroting or making up rationalization for the beliefs they think they are expected to have. These sorts of arguments aren't really arguments, they are just a self-soothing method of tribal identification.
I think there is a pitfall with trying to "understand the other side" because there are an infinite number of possible opinions and not all have merit. It is useful to a point, but when taken to the extreme you just waste a bunch of time reading garbage.
It would be great if we had a reliable way to identify that 1% and sort articles/comment/reach by this metric, but it's a hard problem.
For as many people that deeply understand a topic, there are many more that are parroting or making up rationalization for the beliefs they think they are expected to have. These sorts of arguments aren't really arguments, they are just a self-soothing method of tribal identification.
I think there is a pitfall with trying to "understand the other side" because there are an infinite number of possible opinions and not all have merit. It is useful to a point, but when taken to the extreme you just waste a bunch of time reading garbage.
But this would only disagree with my comment if you further say that trans people should nevertheless be allowed to call something or someone trans-exclusionary without having understood their position. Is that your point?
If it is then I would still disagree: if it is too emotionally taxing to try to understand an opponent's position then I think that one can just refrain from calling them out in public.
In fact, how do you know a viewpoint really poses a threat in the first place? For example, which of your rights does it propose to infringe? If you can answer that then you probably already understand the viewpoint enough to counter it...
If it is then I would still disagree: if it is too emotionally taxing to try to understand an opponent's position then I think that one can just refrain from calling them out in public.
In fact, how do you know a viewpoint really poses a threat in the first place? For example, which of your rights does it propose to infringe? If you can answer that then you probably already understand the viewpoint enough to counter it...
> It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity
Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.
Is it though? If you want to convince someone of something, you have to understand the opposing viewpoints well. Many rational viewpoints labeled TERF don't "infringe on the validity of [trans people's] identity." For example, trans women competing against women in sports. You wouldn't convince anyone by straw manning one side by saying that people who oppose trans women competing against women are all simply transphobic; you would say that they believe that trans women have a physical advantage over non-trans women in sports.
>> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue."
> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
There's a difference between "understand" and "make a passionate argument for" a given position. It's become standard for just about any ideological position to claim that anyone who disagrees "doesn't really understand" and to primarily use extreme emotions paired with unverifiable claims. At what point does one "understand" in these conditions?
The idea that most issues today have two reasonable sides arguing is itself an ideology. Often there's not even one reasonable position.
> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
There's a difference between "understand" and "make a passionate argument for" a given position. It's become standard for just about any ideological position to claim that anyone who disagrees "doesn't really understand" and to primarily use extreme emotions paired with unverifiable claims. At what point does one "understand" in these conditions?
The idea that most issues today have two reasonable sides arguing is itself an ideology. Often there's not even one reasonable position.
> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues.
It's a nice quote, but I don't find it accurate for all topics. Should I be trying to figure out how to make passionate arguments for the Q Conspiracy nuttiness? There are lots of antivaxx conspiracy theories that are pretty close to mainstream in parts of the US - should I be trying to figure out how to make a passionate argument for those?
For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
It's a nice quote, but I don't find it accurate for all topics. Should I be trying to figure out how to make passionate arguments for the Q Conspiracy nuttiness? There are lots of antivaxx conspiracy theories that are pretty close to mainstream in parts of the US - should I be trying to figure out how to make a passionate argument for those?
For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
It's not accurate for all topics. Can you make a passionate argument for a flat Earth? One that isn't rooted in ignorance or denial of something basic?
So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side.
Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?"
Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves.
Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.
So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side.
Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?"
Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves.
Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.
I don't know that you should absolutely not have an opinion without understanding the other side, but if you don't spend at least a little bit of time understanding what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories you will struggle to understand over half the population of the US.
Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading.
Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.
Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading.
Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.
The vast majority of people do not have the time to even research for an informed opinion. Not to mention for any hotbed issue, being able to differentiate between the actual factual reports and opinionated bullshit is next to impossible on the modern internet unless you are a domain expert who can sniff this stuff out.
But lots of times people will make an argument for the other side, then poke holes in it, aka a straw man. So it's pretty annoying to hear "people on the other side argue X but that's wrong because Y" as a demonstration of one's enlightenment.
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 mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.
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 mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.
I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious and important points of context, but the article doesn't even broach them.
(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])
Worse, this seems to be increasingly prevalent in the academy as well. Indeed, the study cited in the article (from University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative) also doesn't mention these points of context and the paper is pretty overtly propagandist.
[0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/movie-characters-muslim-riz-a...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
[2]: http://decentfilms.com/articles/hollywood-religion-problem
(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])
Worse, this seems to be increasingly prevalent in the academy as well. Indeed, the study cited in the article (from University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative) also doesn't mention these points of context and the paper is pretty overtly propagandist.
[0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/movie-characters-muslim-riz-a...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
[2]: http://decentfilms.com/articles/hollywood-religion-problem
"(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])"
Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
> Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
I'm not sure what your point is? That Muslims and Christians should be grateful that the news media talks about them a bit more than the entertainment media? To be clear, I'm not arguing that any particular group should have more representation; I'm criticizing the media for its increasingly propagandist angles.
> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
In general, yes, but that doesn't justify misleading or agenda-driven news media. And in any case, every time people try to "fix" the entertainment media, we end up with awful content (e.g., the GhostBusters reboot) and frankly I don't want to sacrifice that much quality for sake of representation. My wife and I were just talking about how many really good pre-2015 films wouldn't be made today because they don't thrust the characters' race, gender, etc into the foreground.
I'm not sure what your point is? That Muslims and Christians should be grateful that the news media talks about them a bit more than the entertainment media? To be clear, I'm not arguing that any particular group should have more representation; I'm criticizing the media for its increasingly propagandist angles.
> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
In general, yes, but that doesn't justify misleading or agenda-driven news media. And in any case, every time people try to "fix" the entertainment media, we end up with awful content (e.g., the GhostBusters reboot) and frankly I don't want to sacrifice that much quality for sake of representation. My wife and I were just talking about how many really good pre-2015 films wouldn't be made today because they don't thrust the characters' race, gender, etc into the foreground.
"I'm not sure what your point is?"
My point is that religious people, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have a serious impact on our lives, and it would benefit everyone if we engaged with them as real people rather than fantasy stereotypes.
Fictional media can help with this by giving us insight in to what people are really like. My contention is that this is more desirable than merely leaving them as faceless talking points in the news.
My point is that religious people, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have a serious impact on our lives, and it would benefit everyone if we engaged with them as real people rather than fantasy stereotypes.
Fictional media can help with this by giving us insight in to what people are really like. My contention is that this is more desirable than merely leaving them as faceless talking points in the news.
IMO it takes serious anthropological commitment to have a non-idiot understanding of a people. I feel this shouldn't be an individual job. Either your entire community has deep, embedded relations with another community or it doesn't.
Otherwise it's like asking for better sources to read about Chinese culture, or like visiting China once a year for vacation. You can't read your way into being culturally competent. You might even move your entire family to China, but it may only be your children who truly begin the road to integration. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community will have a story of the trajectory of cultural competency. It is an optimism which must be fulfilled by your next generation.
You can, however, follow generic protocols of kindness whilst in ignorance.
Otherwise it's like asking for better sources to read about Chinese culture, or like visiting China once a year for vacation. You can't read your way into being culturally competent. You might even move your entire family to China, but it may only be your children who truly begin the road to integration. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community will have a story of the trajectory of cultural competency. It is an optimism which must be fulfilled by your next generation.
You can, however, follow generic protocols of kindness whilst in ignorance.
Of course, seeing a movie on the Himalayas is no substitute for visiting the Himalayas, and that's no substitute to living in the Himalayas.
But I'd rather have there be movies on the Himalayas than not, even when we are aware it's not a perfect substitute for the real thing.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
But I'd rather have there be movies on the Himalayas than not, even when we are aware it's not a perfect substitute for the real thing.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The standard here is being barely adequate, not perfect. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community knows how hard it is to be adequate. That's why you pass on this optimism to the next generation while you blindly chase cultural fads, hoping your kids will fit in.
You smile and nod your way through.
Anyways, the call here is for community integration, not for individual action.
You smile and nod your way through.
Anyways, the call here is for community integration, not for individual action.
Are you saying fictional media are incapable of having a barely adequate portrayal of immigrants?
Are you integrated into an immigrant community? Are you part of a church that deals with immigration? Or an ethnic business community that is part of the immigration chain? Or is your community well integrated with those you seek to understand?
Why go it alone?
Is one's clarity on community affairs the difference between choosing WION and India Times? Or The World Journal?
Why go it alone?
Is one's clarity on community affairs the difference between choosing WION and India Times? Or The World Journal?
The problem is that movies influence what we think the truth is. Is Tokyo like the Godzilla movies? I would hope that everything not obviously related to the fictional attack is realistic to how the people actually live, because like it or not movies influence us.
If your only view of Tokyo is what you get through Godzilla movies then you definitely have a problem.
The solution is better movies on Tokyo, not no movies on Tokyo.
You're in luck, though, because there are plenty of great movies on Tokyo -- movies that even people living in Tokyo find give great insights in to their own society.
The solution is better movies on Tokyo, not no movies on Tokyo.
You're in luck, though, because there are plenty of great movies on Tokyo -- movies that even people living in Tokyo find give great insights in to their own society.
Ok, so are we in agreement? Your original response sounded like you were expressing disagreement.
>> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes
Yes and no. First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development. Then there's the problem of big companies like Disney that are deliberately secular in their content.
Yes and no. First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development. Then there's the problem of big companies like Disney that are deliberately secular in their content.
> First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development.
That's the handy thing about essentialism, you don't need an individual character when you have pre-packaged narratives about their race, gender, etc. Rather than a complex character, we get a canned Black character or a canned White character or a canned Female character or a canned Male character. What do you need to know about a person that you can't infer from their immutable characteristics? (:
That's the handy thing about essentialism, you don't need an individual character when you have pre-packaged narratives about their race, gender, etc. Rather than a complex character, we get a canned Black character or a canned White character or a canned Female character or a canned Male character. What do you need to know about a person that you can't infer from their immutable characteristics? (:
I recently read that the main character in "They Live" had an entire backstory that was never told in the movie. Someone (producer, director, ???) Told Roddy Piper to create a backstory for his character and he did, and he played that part even though it was never shared with anyone. I'd thought about that myself for writing - if you define each character ahead of time and keep their character in mind it will aid writing their parts so they are seamless and self-consistent.
> It would be refreshing if
I'm more interested in them making more of an effort at a good story.
I'm more interested in them making more of an effort at a good story.
for me, personally, absolutely not. I want thoughtful portrayal of character in media that I consume, but am in no way desiring yet more religious representation.
I haven’t seen a realistic Hollywood portrayal of an average American family in the last 20 years because the secular corporate culture is so willfully ignorant. This is argued as being a feature of interesting content though since ‘nothing average is interesting’.
It has skewed perception, but whether that matters is up for debate.
It has skewed perception, but whether that matters is up for debate.
What would a realistic portrayal of an average American family look like to you?
This seems like an odd take to me. What is the point of film and fiction if not to see and experience things you otherwise cannot or would not?
The question I have is what is being preserved by not having a diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and belief systems in films?
The question I have is what is being preserved by not having a diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities and belief systems in films?
The parent seems to be suggesting that he doesn't want the emphasis to be on diversity, but rather on quality of characters. This doesn't imply that the characters have to be homogeneous.
Having "diverse" characters does not automatically make a movie more interesting. In fact, if you are relying on demographics (religion, race, sexuality) alone to make a character interesting, there is a very good chance the characters are flat, boring, and lazily written.
Of course having diverse characters does not automatically make a movie more interesting.
But interesting movies can be made about diverse characters as they can about homogeneous characters.
Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.
Showing more diversity, in interesting, authentic, and deep ways is one an important way we have of striving towards a society where we better understand and value one another, and get along.
But interesting movies can be made about diverse characters as they can about homogeneous characters.
Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.
Showing more diversity, in interesting, authentic, and deep ways is one an important way we have of striving towards a society where we better understand and value one another, and get along.
> Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.
I think you're arguing against a straw man. It seems pretty clear that no one is arguing for less diversity, but rather against diversity for its own sake or prioritizing it above all other concerns.
I think you're arguing against a straw man. It seems pretty clear that no one is arguing for less diversity, but rather against diversity for its own sake or prioritizing it above all other concerns.
Interestingly Mormons are 2% of the US population (twice the Muslim %), and I can't think of a single openly Mormon character in any TV show I've ever seen.
They have a whole state to themselves and they're pre-dominantly white. Mormons also produce their own media, they're in the middle of making a multi-part Book of Mormon series. They're an insuluar sect much like Jehovah's Witnesses, so they're not _demanding_ mainstream representation on principle, much like the Amish.
Not to say you're not touching on the question of _why_ we're so enthusiastic in media representation for those of the Islamic faith however, but the Mormons are a pretty open and shut case
Not to say you're not touching on the question of _why_ we're so enthusiastic in media representation for those of the Islamic faith however, but the Mormons are a pretty open and shut case
Aside from HBO’s ‘Big Love’ I can’t think of any non-comedy fictions shows featuring Mormons.
Starship Troopers but they were more of a "Black man dies first in horror movie" type role.
There have been movies, such as The Other Side of Heaven.
But as a former Mormon myself I think entertainment is more interesting if it focuses on what we have in common despite our differences, rather than focusing solely on amplifying differences.
But as a former Mormon myself I think entertainment is more interesting if it focuses on what we have in common despite our differences, rather than focusing solely on amplifying differences.
[deleted]
Mitt Romney shows up in all kinds of tv shows on fox news
Cole on House, Big Love?
Gary on South Park. Of course, that was 18 years ago. There's also a few very minor Mormon characters on The Expanse.
The Mormon characters are minor, for sure, but their mission plays a huge plot role. The Nauvoo!
Yeah, there's also a lot of Mormon-themed artwork and symbolism on the Nauvoo as well.
The Expanse had a generation ship for Mormons and a main character has a conversation with a Mormon on a transport ship.
[deleted]
Good catch. As someone who works with data for a living I know that just about all stats need context to be meaningful. I notice a lot of stats in news given without context as you have noted.
When analyzing data typically the first thing you do is take out the outliers and then focus on the remaining data. News outlets do the opposite, the take the outlier and make it the headline story and ignore the other 99% of the data.
When analyzing data typically the first thing you do is take out the outliers and then focus on the remaining data. News outlets do the opposite, the take the outlier and make it the headline story and ignore the other 99% of the data.
American media is a global industry and is serving a customer base of much more than the US population.
As a non-american, american media does a terrible job of representing anything outside america, so if that's the reason I would really appreciate if they could stop it...
What are you talking about - We have tons of coverage of the following countries in our movies: Genovia, Aldovia AND Belgravia
Wakanda looks so nice people were trying to book vacations to go visit!
And don't forget my favourite: Macedonia.
I thought Black Panther's portrayal of Wakanda was pretty accurate...
They generally do a terrible job representing anything inside America as well.
Isn’t all feature film global at this point? Are there producers in Japan or China who’d say, no I do not want my film exported.
True, but they're making most of their money from western whiter countries. Which is reflected in their actors/stars. However this is already changing and will get better as the global market continues to expand.
As a non-american, it's not getting better, it's just getting weird. Like this parallel fantasy reality that americans have come up with and convinced themselves that it's what the world outside looks like, that actually has nothing to do with anywhere on earth.
It's funny when somewhere in your country is portrayed in an american movie or series.
This is how Americans who aren't from LA or NYC feel as well.
not sure this is correct. We may need to get actual numbers or divide up 'film / media' into different segments..
I recall seeing news about big movies, eg transformers and others where in order to satisfy the global market, ie China, decisions needed to be made.. and given that many of those markets appear to be more racist/anti-muslim, (obv not 100, but majority I believe)
and your comment seems to be suggesting [hope] that things above "will get better as the global market continues to expand." -
I'm not chiming in to say this or that is a good or bad thing, just trying to clarify that some things may make one think catering to broader global markets may not make "western whiter countries" more anti-racist or whatever is being suggested as 'changing and will get better' - if that is the perspective being considered for 'get better'.
There are studies showing "diversity" on movie posters hurt sales abroad - and of course there has been local pushback for whitewashing things for increased sales -
Unless we are talking about gov funded wokeness spreading where making money is not a goal. But I did not get that impression from the thread here.
I recall seeing news about big movies, eg transformers and others where in order to satisfy the global market, ie China, decisions needed to be made.. and given that many of those markets appear to be more racist/anti-muslim, (obv not 100, but majority I believe)
and your comment seems to be suggesting [hope] that things above "will get better as the global market continues to expand." -
I'm not chiming in to say this or that is a good or bad thing, just trying to clarify that some things may make one think catering to broader global markets may not make "western whiter countries" more anti-racist or whatever is being suggested as 'changing and will get better' - if that is the perspective being considered for 'get better'.
There are studies showing "diversity" on movie posters hurt sales abroad - and of course there has been local pushback for whitewashing things for increased sales -
Unless we are talking about gov funded wokeness spreading where making money is not a goal. But I did not get that impression from the thread here.
When they present those percentages does that apply only to Hollywood films, or films world-wide? And do foreign films represent their own populations proportionally, should we and they calculate national proportions or global proportions?
Indeed.
If one goes to the desert, they should not expect to see maple trees.
If one goes to the desert, they should not expect to see maple trees.
christianity, islam, hinduism, along with the eastern constellation of buddhism/confucianism are the 4 world religions. people of color are roughly 4/5 of the world population. even while christianity and white folks are the majority in the US, it makes sense numerically to have these other aspects of humanity well represented, in addition to white and/or christian. what's puzzling is the outsized representation of jews/judaism (also roughly 1%) in american media considering the stark underrepresentation of black, brown, and asian folks, who account for nearly half of the population (and growing).
The last Transformers movie was literally targeted at audiences in China. So maybe it's just market forces...
If you indicated that you want to see more minorities cast - then you have the option of going to see Moonlight, over La-la-land.
If you indicated that you want to see more minorities cast - then you have the option of going to see Moonlight, over La-la-land.
> even while christianity and white folks are the majority in the US, it makes sense numerically to have these other aspects of humanity well represented, in addition to white and/or christian.
I’m not white, Christian, or Jewish, and this sentence does not make sense to me. Making entertaining is a business, and it has nothing to do with what percent of people worldwide have what skin color or tribal affiliations.
If people making entertainment predict that they will earn the most money by targeting white, Christian, or Jewish populations, then they should if making the most money is their goal. Have you noticed how every big movie of the last 10+ years has a Chinese character? And a scene in Hong Kong or Shanghai? Many have Latin American characters as well, and Indian, and so on.
I’m not white, Christian, or Jewish, and this sentence does not make sense to me. Making entertaining is a business, and it has nothing to do with what percent of people worldwide have what skin color or tribal affiliations.
If people making entertainment predict that they will earn the most money by targeting white, Christian, or Jewish populations, then they should if making the most money is their goal. Have you noticed how every big movie of the last 10+ years has a Chinese character? And a scene in Hong Kong or Shanghai? Many have Latin American characters as well, and Indian, and so on.
ah yes, the token characters, there to either not alienate a foreign market or to meet some superficial diversity quota.
the point is that in a world without significant bias, we'd expect to see many more people of color and of other religions (to name just two aspects) being represented because of sheer numbers and because talents are distributed widely.
but that doesn't happen in this world.
the point is that in a world without significant bias, we'd expect to see many more people of color and of other religions (to name just two aspects) being represented because of sheer numbers and because talents are distributed widely.
but that doesn't happen in this world.
The only world without a bias might be one where everyone is a clone and has the same bank balance.
In the real world, there will always be bias. Height, voice, gender, political affiliations. Forget about bias in US media, there are multiple Hollywood within India itself. And there is nothing wrong with that. They cater to different audiences.
And it does not “make sense” for to expect a group of Tamil film makers to add a couple white, black, Chinese, and Latin American characters of their movie is about people who speak Tamil.
In the real world, there will always be bias. Height, voice, gender, political affiliations. Forget about bias in US media, there are multiple Hollywood within India itself. And there is nothing wrong with that. They cater to different audiences.
And it does not “make sense” for to expect a group of Tamil film makers to add a couple white, black, Chinese, and Latin American characters of their movie is about people who speak Tamil.
didn't say no bias, but rather without significant bias. instead, we have the narrative peddled about how inclusive and diverse hollywood is, when the stats speak for themselves.
this narrative is one facet of one echo chamber, tying back to the original article.
this narrative is one facet of one echo chamber, tying back to the original article.
Please don't read HuffPo, they're as reliable as The Daily Stormer.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things
Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc.
But once you realize that, you realize it can apply to, e.g. WaPo, which many Republicans say is very left-biased, while many Democrats say it's neutral.
I think an amusing non-partisan example of how story selection biases viewpoints is the so-called "Summer of the Shark"[0] where for whatever reason shark attacks became a part of the summer's zeitgeist and got extensively covered. Meanwhile, shark attacks weren't at any particularly elevated level, contrary to what many people ended up believing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc.
But once you realize that, you realize it can apply to, e.g. WaPo, which many Republicans say is very left-biased, while many Democrats say it's neutral.
I think an amusing non-partisan example of how story selection biases viewpoints is the so-called "Summer of the Shark"[0] where for whatever reason shark attacks became a part of the summer's zeitgeist and got extensively covered. Meanwhile, shark attacks weren't at any particularly elevated level, contrary to what many people ended up believing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.
I won't say Fox is the only one guilty of it, but they intentionally mix what would best be described as "opinion pieces" with "real news" and don't really make any effort to draw a clear line between the two. The end result is as disastrous as one would expect when taking someone's personal opinion and selling it as a factual source of news.
I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)
Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would.
What he found was that conservatives had no trouble answering the way liberals do. However, liberals could not do likewise. Liberals frequently chose the red herrings on the multiple choice questions, the ones that exaggerated the conservative positions to the point of more or less demonizing conservatives.
That's why we're talking about Fox News, don't you see? CNN and MSNBC are just folks. Fox News is the Anti-Christ.
Even the article itself has this same smell of bias about it.
What he found was that conservatives had no trouble answering the way liberals do. However, liberals could not do likewise. Liberals frequently chose the red herrings on the multiple choice questions, the ones that exaggerated the conservative positions to the point of more or less demonizing conservatives.
That's why we're talking about Fox News, don't you see? CNN and MSNBC are just folks. Fox News is the Anti-Christ.
Even the article itself has this same smell of bias about it.
I'm currently a registered Pacific Green, lean left, and on the political compass I'm basically smack dab on top of Bernie Sanders (whom I voted for and donated to in the 2016 primaries). And have never voted Republican. So his observation is about my own "side" more or less.
But I'm totally unsurprised to see this downvoted here only 18 minutes in.
Here's a short article on the paper: https://ricochet.com/76902/archives/conservatives-understand...
The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Here's his TED talk on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
What's funny is if you bring this up (even with sources) to conservatives. They're unsurprisingly unsurprised. But if you bring it up to liberals they often get furious because it goes against their beliefs that they're the more intelligent, more educated "side". Nevermind that believing in only two possible sides is six times dumber than astrology... something "both sides" are about equally guilty of. If nothing else I strongly encourage everyone to watch his TED talk. It's super informative, well delivered, and has a solid message of unity tbh.
But I'm totally unsurprised to see this downvoted here only 18 minutes in.
Here's a short article on the paper: https://ricochet.com/76902/archives/conservatives-understand...
The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Here's his TED talk on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
What's funny is if you bring this up (even with sources) to conservatives. They're unsurprisingly unsurprised. But if you bring it up to liberals they often get furious because it goes against their beliefs that they're the more intelligent, more educated "side". Nevermind that believing in only two possible sides is six times dumber than astrology... something "both sides" are about equally guilty of. If nothing else I strongly encourage everyone to watch his TED talk. It's super informative, well delivered, and has a solid message of unity tbh.
Thank you.
I have a friend I haven't seen since high school, though I'm connected with him on Facebook. He will outright tell you himself that he's a communist—familiar with the writings of Marx, etc. We could not be more diametrically opposed. However, he's as clear-eyed as you seem to be.
I suspect that most people simply aren't all that intellectually curious. I don't remember if Haidt explicitly mentioned this, but I think somewhere either he or someone commenting on his study asserted that it is much easier to pick up the party line of liberals through osmosis, since those in education, the media, and so forth tend to be liberal. So, even conservatives are more readily exposed to the liberal take on things. Liberals on the other hand are not.
But the point I'm making by mentioning my friend and thanking you is that I suspect that people who are intellectually curious are more or less inoculated against mischaracterizing the side they disagree with, since they don't learn almost exclusively through osmosis.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
I have a friend I haven't seen since high school, though I'm connected with him on Facebook. He will outright tell you himself that he's a communist—familiar with the writings of Marx, etc. We could not be more diametrically opposed. However, he's as clear-eyed as you seem to be.
I suspect that most people simply aren't all that intellectually curious. I don't remember if Haidt explicitly mentioned this, but I think somewhere either he or someone commenting on his study asserted that it is much easier to pick up the party line of liberals through osmosis, since those in education, the media, and so forth tend to be liberal. So, even conservatives are more readily exposed to the liberal take on things. Liberals on the other hand are not.
But the point I'm making by mentioning my friend and thanking you is that I suspect that people who are intellectually curious are more or less inoculated against mischaracterizing the side they disagree with, since they don't learn almost exclusively through osmosis.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
dragonwriter(2)
I think you are referring to this study. Your summary of the results is basically accurate.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
In a way, it's the Family Feud problem. Spiders are not insects. But if you are playing Family Feud and the prompt is "Name the most popular insect", you should say spider because a lot of people will off the cuff say spiders are insects.
So it's possible they are not answering to how conservatives see themselves.
And let's not ignore that the MFQ is kinda shaky at best.
I also find it interesting in that link is the why they were the most off. Liberals seemed to have been wrong because they regressed to the mean when answering for other people. They seemed to think conservatives were more group-focused than they were and less individual-focused. And vice versa for liberals. They thought that the average liberal was less group-focused and more individual-focused than they were.
And it's not like conservatives weren't wrong. They got it right when estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for individuals, but not groups.
Moderates were the most accurate in estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for groups. And both conservatives and liberals over-estimated conservatives concerns for the group.
So I really don't think it's entirely fair to frame the results as "conservatives know how liberals think better than liberals know how conservatives think". Because another reading of it is that liberals give conservatives a greater benefit of the doubt. And also that conservatives don't even know how little they care for the group.
And that's also ignoring that these are self-reported morality questionnaires. It's not really indicative of how these people might act in real situations. Even Hitler thought he was a swell guy just trying to do right. We all kind of think that of ourselves. No one thinks they're the monster.
So it's possible they are not answering to how conservatives see themselves.
And let's not ignore that the MFQ is kinda shaky at best.
I also find it interesting in that link is the why they were the most off. Liberals seemed to have been wrong because they regressed to the mean when answering for other people. They seemed to think conservatives were more group-focused than they were and less individual-focused. And vice versa for liberals. They thought that the average liberal was less group-focused and more individual-focused than they were.
And it's not like conservatives weren't wrong. They got it right when estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for individuals, but not groups.
Moderates were the most accurate in estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for groups. And both conservatives and liberals over-estimated conservatives concerns for the group.
So I really don't think it's entirely fair to frame the results as "conservatives know how liberals think better than liberals know how conservatives think". Because another reading of it is that liberals give conservatives a greater benefit of the doubt. And also that conservatives don't even know how little they care for the group.
And that's also ignoring that these are self-reported morality questionnaires. It's not really indicative of how these people might act in real situations. Even Hitler thought he was a swell guy just trying to do right. We all kind of think that of ourselves. No one thinks they're the monster.
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all actually. I'm sure both side demonize the other to some extent, and it's our natural reaction to look at them both as equally bad like we're disciplining two siblings or something, but it really seems that right now the left is more melodramatic in the demonization than the right. In my personal experience, quite a few people I've met seem to think if you disagree with them, you must be full of hate, racist, sexist, dumb, a gun slinging Christian, etc.
My wife (who is pretty far left), observed that Trump was actually many of the things that G.W. Bush was accused of being.
I think a major tenet of post-trump Republicanism is roughly: "We're going to be accused of being racist and conspiracy theorists by the left no matter what we do, so there is only an upside to openly courting those members of the electorate.
I think a major tenet of post-trump Republicanism is roughly: "We're going to be accused of being racist and conspiracy theorists by the left no matter what we do, so there is only an upside to openly courting those members of the electorate.
It's all part and parcel of the same problem. The default media narrative bubble leans heavily to the left.
People trapped in that bubble are overly confident in what they believe. They aren't often exposed to arguments and data that are contrary to what they're told to believe over and over whenever they turn on the TV. So when these trapped people are confronted with opposing arguments or data, they resort to the easy mechanisms that relieve their cognitive dissonance. "You're a racist" "You're a homophobe" "You're a white supremacist" "You want sick people to die in the streets"
People trapped in that bubble are overly confident in what they believe. They aren't often exposed to arguments and data that are contrary to what they're told to believe over and over whenever they turn on the TV. So when these trapped people are confronted with opposing arguments or data, they resort to the easy mechanisms that relieve their cognitive dissonance. "You're a racist" "You're a homophobe" "You're a white supremacist" "You want sick people to die in the streets"
ookdatnog(1)
Not sure why you are getting downvotes. For anyone curious, Haidt is a liberal professor who is dedicated to figuring out how to get people talking across political ideologies. The book that covers this topic is called The Righteous Mind and is an excellent read or listen.
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 underestimated how much conservatives cared for individual concerns and overestimated how much they cared for group concerns. Liberals also overestimated how much liberals cared for individual concerns and underestimated how much the cared for group concerns.
In light of that, we could even frame it as liberals see themselves closer to conservatives than vice versa. Because that's how they answered for the groups. They think there's less difference than there actually is. So they under and overestimate appropriately.
Framing it as "conservatives know liberals better than vice versa" is wrong and is a tactic to put the onus on liberals to do all the changing. Because conservatives can fill out a morality questionnaire better.
Or let me put it this way, if the question was "How many puppies is it acceptable to kick in a lifetime?"
The fact that puppy kickers were correctly able to guess "zero" for the non-kicking group while the non-kickers said the kickers would say "ten" while the kickers really said "twenty" doesn't mean that the puppy kickers are the better group.
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 underestimated how much conservatives cared for individual concerns and overestimated how much they cared for group concerns. Liberals also overestimated how much liberals cared for individual concerns and underestimated how much the cared for group concerns.
In light of that, we could even frame it as liberals see themselves closer to conservatives than vice versa. Because that's how they answered for the groups. They think there's less difference than there actually is. So they under and overestimate appropriately.
Framing it as "conservatives know liberals better than vice versa" is wrong and is a tactic to put the onus on liberals to do all the changing. Because conservatives can fill out a morality questionnaire better.
Or let me put it this way, if the question was "How many puppies is it acceptable to kick in a lifetime?"
The fact that puppy kickers were correctly able to guess "zero" for the non-kicking group while the non-kickers said the kickers would say "ten" while the kickers really said "twenty" doesn't mean that the puppy kickers are the better group.
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 things through a lense of six things: faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order. Democrats focus on care and fighting oppression. Again, this is a simplification, but the theme is that conservatives have different moral foundations that make it hard for liberals to understand why they make decisions they do. A solid example (I can't remember if this was used in the book, but it helps me) is "why are they voting against their own interests". I hear this in my personal life all the time! I used to say it! Then I realized that voting for someone who is against welfare, when you are low on the socioeconomic spectrum, makes sense if you overweight faith, and believe that abortion is a grave moral sin. What's some poverty now compared to eternal damnation? I don't believe in hell myself, but this insight let me understand that someone who views things different than me isn't dumb, they just have different values that allow them to rationally decide things that my values seem irrational.
The hard part is trying to talk across this gap in moral reasoning, and find the right balance.
Republicans tend (this is not universal) to view things through a lense of six things: faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order. Democrats focus on care and fighting oppression. Again, this is a simplification, but the theme is that conservatives have different moral foundations that make it hard for liberals to understand why they make decisions they do. A solid example (I can't remember if this was used in the book, but it helps me) is "why are they voting against their own interests". I hear this in my personal life all the time! I used to say it! Then I realized that voting for someone who is against welfare, when you are low on the socioeconomic spectrum, makes sense if you overweight faith, and believe that abortion is a grave moral sin. What's some poverty now compared to eternal damnation? I don't believe in hell myself, but this insight let me understand that someone who views things different than me isn't dumb, they just have different values that allow them to rationally decide things that my values seem irrational.
The hard part is trying to talk across this gap in moral reasoning, and find the right balance.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
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.
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.
It's being downvoted exactly for the reason that this topic is important.
Too many people are hopelessly trapped in their narrative bubbles and unable to calmly evaluate arguments against what they've been taught to believe.
Too many people are hopelessly trapped in their narrative bubbles and unable to calmly evaluate arguments against what they've been taught to believe.
Do you have a link? You may be right, but such a study seems very easy to bias, even unintentionally.
Here's a short article on the paper: https://ricochet.com/76902/archives/conservatives-understand...
The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Here's his TED talk on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
The paper itself: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Here's his TED talk on it: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
Another way to look at this is that extremists have a significant platform on the right, and that is likely to skew the perception of the right by the left.
Can you give 3 examples of extremists on the right? Would just like to understand how people are viewing things
Atwater's Southern Strategy: attract racists, without saying... you know the rest. He said that a long time ago, but the strategy is obviously still in play (see e.g. Thomas Hofeller, bithers, blatantly anti-mexican and anti-muslim quotes from the party)
The far right keeps showing up bearing the battle flag and nazi flags -- and Flynn, Stone, and Trump appear to love groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Other Republicans who speak out about that get cancelled.
Jerry Sexton's "who knows, maybe some of us will be slaves one of these days."
And the QAnon candidates.
The far right keeps showing up bearing the battle flag and nazi flags -- and Flynn, Stone, and Trump appear to love groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Other Republicans who speak out about that get cancelled.
Jerry Sexton's "who knows, maybe some of us will be slaves one of these days."
And the QAnon candidates.
I'm reading the article you linked down thread and after an initial skim I am not confident the article actually makes the point you are claiming.
That's a very interesting study, but I think it's quite spurious to connect this result to media quality/partisanship the way you do. Certainly the study doesn't make this connection. After all, surveys tend to find that Fox News viewers are less informed about domestic and international events than consumers of other news media (one study found them less informed than people who did not watch the news at all). So I don't think this effect is caused by media.
Haidt's study uses his five moral foundations model, where one's moral foundations are characterized by five dimensions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The first two are called "individualizing foundations" and the last three are called "binding foundations".
Haidt's findings in other studies (which generalize beyond just the US or the West) are that people across the political spectrum care about the individualizing foundations, but progressives care more about these foundations than conservatives. But progressives care much less about the binding foundations.
With this in mind, I don't think it's too surprising that conservatives have an easier time estimating the viewpoint of progressives, since the moral foundations of progressives are not alien to conservatives, they are just weighted differently. Whereas for progressives, the moral foundations of conservatives can feel utterly alien and inexplicable, especially if they tend to have their social interactions in a progressive bubble.
(Also, be mindful that the population sample of the study is nowhere close to a random sample of the population. The sample is over 60% female, overwhelmingly young (median age is 28), and liberal participants outnumbered moderates and conservatives combined. Since it's an online survey, there's a reasonable chance that you're mostly reaching urban people, which tend to live in progressive bubbles. Conservatives who live in areas that are mostly progressive may understand progressives better than those who live in conservative bubbles. The study acknowledges this in the discussion section. The result might still hold up, but the effect might be exaggerated by the sample.)
Haidt's study uses his five moral foundations model, where one's moral foundations are characterized by five dimensions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The first two are called "individualizing foundations" and the last three are called "binding foundations".
Haidt's findings in other studies (which generalize beyond just the US or the West) are that people across the political spectrum care about the individualizing foundations, but progressives care more about these foundations than conservatives. But progressives care much less about the binding foundations.
With this in mind, I don't think it's too surprising that conservatives have an easier time estimating the viewpoint of progressives, since the moral foundations of progressives are not alien to conservatives, they are just weighted differently. Whereas for progressives, the moral foundations of conservatives can feel utterly alien and inexplicable, especially if they tend to have their social interactions in a progressive bubble.
(Also, be mindful that the population sample of the study is nowhere close to a random sample of the population. The sample is over 60% female, overwhelmingly young (median age is 28), and liberal participants outnumbered moderates and conservatives combined. Since it's an online survey, there's a reasonable chance that you're mostly reaching urban people, which tend to live in progressive bubbles. Conservatives who live in areas that are mostly progressive may understand progressives better than those who live in conservative bubbles. The study acknowledges this in the discussion section. The result might still hold up, but the effect might be exaggerated by the sample.)
Has this study been repeated recently (rather than 2012). Very curious to see if/how the results have changed of late.
I would be curious to see what that looks like today when elected Republicans are increasingly spouting what you'd call a "demonized" conservative viewpoint if it wasn't coming out of their mouths directly.
"Those are just the opinions of a small fringe" was much more believable in a pre-Trump world - but now, even more than post-Tea Party, the fringe is pushing the agenda.
And even pre-Trump, you can read that study as an indictment of the conservative media and it's evolution to sensationalism since the 1980s.
To use an example from the linked article: "For instance,when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights." - the vocal conservatives were not expressing a very nuanced view, it was the violent fringe that was making the most noise and claiming the most airtime even in conservative outlets.
If you want liberals to understand your complex conservative reasoning, you gotta get the very-un-complex trolls off the air!
"Those are just the opinions of a small fringe" was much more believable in a pre-Trump world - but now, even more than post-Tea Party, the fringe is pushing the agenda.
And even pre-Trump, you can read that study as an indictment of the conservative media and it's evolution to sensationalism since the 1980s.
To use an example from the linked article: "For instance,when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights." - the vocal conservatives were not expressing a very nuanced view, it was the violent fringe that was making the most noise and claiming the most airtime even in conservative outlets.
If you want liberals to understand your complex conservative reasoning, you gotta get the very-un-complex trolls off the air!
That seems fair to me.
If this reasoning is correct, then conservatives should be becoming worse at gauging liberals' position on social justice-related topics, considering how their reporting tends to be dominated by extremists as well.
If this reasoning is correct, then conservatives should be becoming worse at gauging liberals' position on social justice-related topics, considering how their reporting tends to be dominated by extremists as well.
What exactly seems fair? The reply you're responding to asserts there was a "violent fringe that was making the most noise and claiming the most airtime." Is that fair? The discussion, at the time, concerning gay marriage in conservative national media was dominated by a "violent fringe"? Were their calls for violence? Were there even suggestions that violence "may be necessary"?
I'm going to reach here a bit, but are we going to rope in the Westboro Baptist Church and pretend these people were the "conservative" response? Even if we do that, do you recall them—as odious as they are—being violent or advocating violence? And if we're not pointing to them, who are we pointing to?
I'm going to reach here a bit, but are we going to rope in the Westboro Baptist Church and pretend these people were the "conservative" response? Even if we do that, do you recall them—as odious as they are—being violent or advocating violence? And if we're not pointing to them, who are we pointing to?
beprogrammed(2)
Fox news personalities frequently allow Trump and his allies airtime where they lie about losing the election to Biden. I don't know how you get any less truthful than that
Isn't the exact same thing true of CNN and MSNBC, but just in the other direction?
CNN has gone so far downhill imo due to this. In the past five years I've seen a shrinking gap between news and opinion, where articles w/o the label are very clearly editorialized. It lowers the quality of the product and at least for me, I no longer read it as much.
That said, journalists are just humans so it's a difficult problem, especially in the heightened political climate we've had.
That said, journalists are just humans so it's a difficult problem, especially in the heightened political climate we've had.
I see more pushback, but also find CBS and ABC to be relatively objective.
This mapping has proven useful
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
This mapping has proven useful
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
That seems like a preposterous claim. Those are classic regime television stations. And I find this diagram biased.
Also, "middle" or centrist is not the same as objective. The path of least extreme disagreement is not the same as the truth (ask a Christian: he'll tell you that Jesus is the truth and that the world hates Jesus). Besides, the middle of what? The neoliberal paradigm? The current spread on offer?
Also, "middle" or centrist is not the same as objective. The path of least extreme disagreement is not the same as the truth (ask a Christian: he'll tell you that Jesus is the truth and that the world hates Jesus). Besides, the middle of what? The neoliberal paradigm? The current spread on offer?
What "the" other direction? There isn't a single dimension here.
Fair point - these dichotomies are often false or manufactured.
However I believe that, to a much greater extent than citizen support for particular political issues, media bias tends to polarize along party-line dimensions because of overlapping power structures.
However I believe that, to a much greater extent than citizen support for particular political issues, media bias tends to polarize along party-line dimensions because of overlapping power structures.
I mean, the same is true about CNN's opinion pieces, or MSNBC's, etc, they are just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News.
The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now!.
The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now!.
Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years, while CNN and MSNBC have moved quite a bit to the left. You see it more on cultural issues than say economic or foreign policy issues. Joy Reid, for example, just says the most outrageous falsehoods and goes completely unrebutted: https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1403950560907300865?s=20
I got the "the civil war wasn't about slavery" line fed to me in school. Reconstruction was a bad thing, too, and it was good when the North stopped meddling. So where's the most outrageous falsehood here? The "nothing to do with" bit? That's not the exact version I got, but the gist was: "the Civil War was about states rights, it's just a coincidence that the right in question was the right to have slaves, but the South wasn't morally in the wrong because states rights are actually that important."
The falsehood is saying that “currently, most K-12 students learn Confederate Race Theory.”
I grew up in solidly Republican Virginia in the 1990s (even my “liberal” Northern VA county voted against Clinton both times) and we certainly didn’t learn the “Daughters of the Confederacy” version. When we visited Monticello, slavery was discussed at length. Teachers have discretion so maybe some kids are still learning this stuff, but it’s a huge lie to say it’s “most” kids today.
Folks like Reid are massively gaslighting people by making it seem like the opposition to CRT is opposition to “teaching kids about slavery.” Conservatives in Virginia weren’t up in arms complaining about that when I was a kid almost 30 years ago, so it’s hard to imagine that’s what they’re doing. The opposition, instead, is to people like Reid who are trying to normalize racism against white people. It’s opposition to people who want to turn slavery into the entire narrative, such as the 1619 Project, which asserted that “nearly everything exceptional about America grew out of slavery”: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/year-zero
> Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music.
I grew up in solidly Republican Virginia in the 1990s (even my “liberal” Northern VA county voted against Clinton both times) and we certainly didn’t learn the “Daughters of the Confederacy” version. When we visited Monticello, slavery was discussed at length. Teachers have discretion so maybe some kids are still learning this stuff, but it’s a huge lie to say it’s “most” kids today.
Folks like Reid are massively gaslighting people by making it seem like the opposition to CRT is opposition to “teaching kids about slavery.” Conservatives in Virginia weren’t up in arms complaining about that when I was a kid almost 30 years ago, so it’s hard to imagine that’s what they’re doing. The opposition, instead, is to people like Reid who are trying to normalize racism against white people. It’s opposition to people who want to turn slavery into the entire narrative, such as the 1619 Project, which asserted that “nearly everything exceptional about America grew out of slavery”: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/year-zero
> Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music.
> Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years
I routinely read Fox News online. I do not think they have moderated over the last 2 years - there was perhaps some moderation 4 years ago, but no longer.
CNN has swung leftward, I don't think MSNBC has substantially changed.
I routinely read Fox News online. I do not think they have moderated over the last 2 years - there was perhaps some moderation 4 years ago, but no longer.
CNN has swung leftward, I don't think MSNBC has substantially changed.
I think they mean the word "Moderated" not in the colloquial sense of removing content, but in the sense that they're opinions are not as strongly right-wing as they once were.
Yes, this is also the sense I meant it.
How is that a falsehood? The daughters of the confederacy pushed the "civil war was about state's rights" narrative that is still taught across the South.
Source that it’s “still taught across the south?” Because that’s certainly not what I learned in Virginia 25 years ago.
And Reid said “most” kids, not just those in the South.
And Reid said “most” kids, not just those in the South.
> Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years
They moved slightly back from Trumpism back toward their earlier pre-Trump far-rightism late in the Trump period (not abandoning the former, just not going in whole hog on it), which might be seen as moderation from a tribal/partisan viewpoint (as pre-Trump far-rightism currently lacking a major party home, to the extent many anti-Trump-but-far-right voices advocated voting for Democrats over Republicans despite ideological issues with Democrats in 2020 as essential to the defeat of Trumpism), but is not moderation ideologically.
While the D-R partisan split is not independent of left-right ideology, its not the same thing.
They moved slightly back from Trumpism back toward their earlier pre-Trump far-rightism late in the Trump period (not abandoning the former, just not going in whole hog on it), which might be seen as moderation from a tribal/partisan viewpoint (as pre-Trump far-rightism currently lacking a major party home, to the extent many anti-Trump-but-far-right voices advocated voting for Democrats over Republicans despite ideological issues with Democrats in 2020 as essential to the defeat of Trumpism), but is not moderation ideologically.
While the D-R partisan split is not independent of left-right ideology, its not the same thing.
While this seems like a great claim, it could be more compelling if I could read the supporting argument behind it.
Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party.
CNN/MSNBC the Democrats.
Democracy Now is essentially the American grassroots left. Not generally fans of either party.
CNN/MSNBC the Democrats.
Democracy Now is essentially the American grassroots left. Not generally fans of either party.
This seems much more accurate to my experience as a leftist. The insistence from centrist liberals that CNN/MSNBC is unbiased seems baffling and delusional.
What would be the opposite of MSNBC? Or the NYTimes for that matter?
Since the NYT is America's Pravda (according to Chomsky), then whatever the analogue of the opposite of Pravda is.
Samizdat - if you want to go down that hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat
Find one positive article from MSNBC or CNN about Trump during his presidency?
There are many. httpss://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html
Did you read that article? I mean, even that article has the multiple bitchy comments thrown in. I would quote, but honestly it would be every other paragraph. But yes, the headline is generally positive I guess. Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably.
Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites.
Ok, I'm going to do it:
> Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up.
> The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago.
> It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen.
> The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey.
> Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition.
> Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts
> but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates.
> Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature.
It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).
Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites.
Ok, I'm going to do it:
> Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up.
> The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago.
> It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen.
> The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey.
> Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition.
> Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts
> but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates.
> Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature.
It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).
"Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably."
Biden's not the opposite of Trump either. Biden pleases some conservatives, which is why he got the nomination over Sanders, so that he'd stand a chance of winning over "undecided" (ie. right wing, but not extreme right wing) voters in battleground states. Many neocons are also fans of Biden, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find support of him on FOX.
Now I'd be surprised to find any positive coverage of Sanders on FOX.. not to mention people who are really on the left like Noam Chomsky.
Biden's not the opposite of Trump either. Biden pleases some conservatives, which is why he got the nomination over Sanders, so that he'd stand a chance of winning over "undecided" (ie. right wing, but not extreme right wing) voters in battleground states. Many neocons are also fans of Biden, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find support of him on FOX.
Now I'd be surprised to find any positive coverage of Sanders on FOX.. not to mention people who are really on the left like Noam Chomsky.
> Biden's not the opposite of Trump either.
Right, which is why this is kind of a pointless thing. What the hell does it mean for one media organization to be the opposite of another anyway?
I agree I did kind of start it with my earlier comment though.
Right, which is why this is kind of a pointless thing. What the hell does it mean for one media organization to be the opposite of another anyway?
I agree I did kind of start it with my earlier comment though.
Just one example that comes to mind, within the first 100 days of Trump's presidency Van Jones praised his congressional speech. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/van-jones-trump-cong...
Given the number of actual Trump staff CNN has hired and put on air, I don't think one can credibly argue that they are on the opposite end of the spectrum. As someone who generally politically identifies as "left", I can assure you we are quite frustrated with them.
MSNBC too! They may not have as many Trump folks on primetime panels, but their focus on dumb "Resistance" stuff is definitely not what the left wants at all (though liberals seem to eat it up).
MSNBC too! They may not have as many Trump folks on primetime panels, but their focus on dumb "Resistance" stuff is definitely not what the left wants at all (though liberals seem to eat it up).
On CNN it’s an “analysis.”
I've heard people characterize cable news as kayfabe—the handbook for professional wrestling. Cable news is entertainment, and the same way the WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE, we have to hope one day CNN and Fox News (along with MSNBC, etc.) will change their monikers.
It seems that the change from WWF to WWE was mainly caused by a trademark dispute with the World Wildlife Fund, but they used the opportunity to emphasize their entertainment focus.
>Mrs. McMahon [(CEO of WWE)] said the company began considering dropping the word "Federation" from its name when World Wildlife Fund (a/k/a World Wide Fund for Nature) prevailed in a recent court action in the United Kingdom. The court ruling prevents the World Wrestling Federation from the use of the logo it adopted in 1998 and the letters WWF in specified circumstances. The "Fund" has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place by virtue of the fact that both organizations use the letters WWF. The Fund has indicated that it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation. "Therefore," said, Mrs.McMahon, "we will utilize this opportunity to position ourselves emphasizing the entertainment aspect of our company, and, at the same time, allay the concerns of the Fund." [0]
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090119180317/http://corporate....
>Mrs. McMahon [(CEO of WWE)] said the company began considering dropping the word "Federation" from its name when World Wildlife Fund (a/k/a World Wide Fund for Nature) prevailed in a recent court action in the United Kingdom. The court ruling prevents the World Wrestling Federation from the use of the logo it adopted in 1998 and the letters WWF in specified circumstances. The "Fund" has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place by virtue of the fact that both organizations use the letters WWF. The Fund has indicated that it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation. "Therefore," said, Mrs.McMahon, "we will utilize this opportunity to position ourselves emphasizing the entertainment aspect of our company, and, at the same time, allay the concerns of the Fund." [0]
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090119180317/http://corporate....
> WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE
There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued.
https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife
There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued.
https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife
I'm aware of that, but I don't think that changes things much. They chose to call it "entertainment," when they could have called it any number of things. But at the time they had been under increasing criticism of the matches being fixed, etc.
Nope, not even close. Even if we are pretend that all wrestling fans were completely unaware that the WWF was scripted, that ended in Montreal in 1997 when Vince McMahon forced the belt off of Brett Hart. He didn't change the name of the company until 2002. Even before that, Vince declared it was all a work because he was tired of being under the thumb of various athletic and boxing commissions. His people did steroids and he wasn't going to stop them.
WWF officially broke kayfabe 1989 way before the name change because they didn't want to spend the money necessary for live sporting events. Before that pro wrestling was regulated just like boxing or MMA, with state commissioners and taxes and medical requirements.
Does anyone watch TV anymore? I read Fox News online, which is fine, but I don’t think I’ve ever tuned into shows. My parents have CNN on a loop, and even my dad (a die-hard Carter fan) calls it “DNC talking points.”
I think a lot of voters are older, and still inclined to get their news from TV.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-ne...
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-ne...
people can hate on tucker all day long, as they attacked rush and oreilly before him, but tucker brings up issues that resonate in red america. he does a pretty fair job, which is evidenced by how trivial the criticism against him is.
if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets to see how they frame the discussion. I'm always amazed at how people on the left don't really see what the right is going on about.
if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets to see how they frame the discussion. I'm always amazed at how people on the left don't really see what the right is going on about.
> if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets
I've been scolded for using Breitbart or Tucker Carlson as a barometer for right-wing positions because they're claimed to be extreme, or 'alt-right', and not reflective of how real conservatives think or feel.
I've been scolded for using Breitbart or Tucker Carlson as a barometer for right-wing positions because they're claimed to be extreme, or 'alt-right', and not reflective of how real conservatives think or feel.
They're, from my perspective, further in to the right than the average repub. Huffpo is sorta where I would put them, if you want a left analogue.
Am I the only one who feels Tucker Carlson is so popular because he (a lot like Donald Trump) was willing to challenge the false idols of the Republican establishment (e.g. we need to be at war in Afghanistan/Iraq, the free market isn't always the best especially if it leads to outsourcing and offshoring, etc.)
Might just be me. I dislike 90% of fox news but I listen to Carlson sometimes and never find him to be horrible or BS-y (admittedly I don't listen in all the time so I may be missing some stuff)
Might just be me. I dislike 90% of fox news but I listen to Carlson sometimes and never find him to be horrible or BS-y (admittedly I don't listen in all the time so I may be missing some stuff)
I've seen a few clips, they have been pretty bad but with kernel of truths that make it hard to make substantive arguments against whatever he is ranting on. I personally think he's a big stain on news media, even while agreeing with a few points here/there there.
For what it's worth, I've only watched in order to try and understand other people's viewpoints.
More specifically, I think he's terrible because he has mastered the ability to tease out the base instincts of people with his messaging, which makes it hard to either agree or disagree with his statements with logic. He can point to some kernels of truth, and you are left with people saying things like "that's just dogwhistling" when attacking his viewpoints. In other words, he riles up, doesn't cause people to think critically, and overall lowers the level of discourse out there.
For what it's worth, I've only watched in order to try and understand other people's viewpoints.
More specifically, I think he's terrible because he has mastered the ability to tease out the base instincts of people with his messaging, which makes it hard to either agree or disagree with his statements with logic. He can point to some kernels of truth, and you are left with people saying things like "that's just dogwhistling" when attacking his viewpoints. In other words, he riles up, doesn't cause people to think critically, and overall lowers the level of discourse out there.
Fear-mongering sells. He's good at it. So is Rachael Maddow and just about everyone they put in front of the camera to "inform" you.
I pretty much only see clips of Tucker Carlson that are posted by liberals or leftists to point at and generate outrage.
To me, he seems like a whiner who disingenuously argues against things in a way to bolster conservative talking points. But, I expect the majority of this is selection bias, and only the 'worst' clips are making it into my filter bubble.
To me, he seems like a whiner who disingenuously argues against things in a way to bolster conservative talking points. But, I expect the majority of this is selection bias, and only the 'worst' clips are making it into my filter bubble.
We don't even have to litigate whether Fox News airtime is distinctively malignant if we just acknowledge that all 24/7 cable news channels are bad. They kind of have to be, just by the nature of how they compete and what they have to work with in both audiences and source material. Just don't get your news from the TV.
A fair point, but I don't think the concession is worth what you get out of it. A citizen whose sole news source is Fox is considerably less informed than a viewer who might watch exclusively CNN (or possibly even nothing at all, see [1])
Fox News really is worse, and while there may be lessons learned there which can be applied to the other outlets, such as insisting on clearer labeling of opinion content vs reporting, I think it's an all-lives-matter-style distraction to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done and they're all equally bad because it's a problem inherent in the medium.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-make...
Fox News really is worse, and while there may be lessons learned there which can be applied to the other outlets, such as insisting on clearer labeling of opinion content vs reporting, I think it's an all-lives-matter-style distraction to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done and they're all equally bad because it's a problem inherent in the medium.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-make...
While I can technically see that some news organizations are worse than others, my issue is that they are all so bad that they are actively doing significant damage to the world and most of the time they are doing it consciously and intentionally, so I don't really get much utility trying to distinguish them from one another.
And yet while they are all genuinely terrible due to trying to remain profitable AND trying to advance their personal political agendas, people are always trying to use the excuse that "its better than X" to justify supporting them.
My solution would be to ignore the news completely, but that solution isn't effective because I know multiple people that insist on ranting about everything they see/hear from the media on a daily basis.
IMO the media is very important for civilization, but somehow we have accepted that deceit, manipulation, and failure are the golden standard.
And yet while they are all genuinely terrible due to trying to remain profitable AND trying to advance their personal political agendas, people are always trying to use the excuse that "its better than X" to justify supporting them.
My solution would be to ignore the news completely, but that solution isn't effective because I know multiple people that insist on ranting about everything they see/hear from the media on a daily basis.
IMO the media is very important for civilization, but somehow we have accepted that deceit, manipulation, and failure are the golden standard.
[deleted]
And they're all funded by ads.
Between the need to access government figures for interview, and their funding sources, how could you ever expect straight forward reporting?
If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
Between the need to access government figures for interview, and their funding sources, how could you ever expect straight forward reporting?
If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
> If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
Even if you are paying, you can still be the product, as long as media can make even more money out of it. I mean, why wouldn’t they? More money is more money.
Even if you are paying, you can still be the product, as long as media can make even more money out of it. I mean, why wouldn’t they? More money is more money.
In Sweden we have public service TV channels, but even in that context I think your advice holds up – not a good source for news. Too stressed, too shallow reporting.
> very little is actually factually incorrect
This is why we need more than just fact checkers.
It’s extremely easy to construct a biased, opinion-manipulating political hit site composed entirely of truthful statements.
Proof by politically-neutral analogy: imagine a newspaper that published an article every time a roulette wheel stopped on 6, but never for any other number.
This is why we need more than just fact checkers.
It’s extremely easy to construct a biased, opinion-manipulating political hit site composed entirely of truthful statements.
Proof by politically-neutral analogy: imagine a newspaper that published an article every time a roulette wheel stopped on 6, but never for any other number.
RT is similar.
Last week in English news it headlined an anti masker/antivax March in London which the BBC didn't mention at all.
Last week in English news it headlined an anti masker/antivax March in London which the BBC didn't mention at all.
Here's another example:
The google vs DuckDuckGo search results for the same exact phrase "list of conservatives banned by twitter" yield utterly different results. None of the admittedly right wing websites are even listed in the google results for that search. The only site in common on the first page is Forbes, but even then the two articles are different even though they came out the same exact day.
If you use google, you'd think that twitter isn't censoring conservatives. If you use duckduckgo, you'll think that they do.
The google vs DuckDuckGo search results for the same exact phrase "list of conservatives banned by twitter" yield utterly different results. None of the admittedly right wing websites are even listed in the google results for that search. The only site in common on the first page is Forbes, but even then the two articles are different even though they came out the same exact day.
If you use google, you'd think that twitter isn't censoring conservatives. If you use duckduckgo, you'll think that they do.
I highly recommend the Economist.
Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this.
It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after they've treated both sides.
It also doesn't fall neatly into any liberal/conservative divide. It tends to be socially progressive yet only interested in solutions that can be practically implemented, pro-free market but deeply concerned about externalities and the environment, pro-democracy but with hard-headed realpolitik.
Plus probably half of what each weekly issue covers is news you won't find in any other American publication, at least -- it's a global publication and one of the best ways to simply learn about the entire world's political and economic news.
Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this.
It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after they've treated both sides.
It also doesn't fall neatly into any liberal/conservative divide. It tends to be socially progressive yet only interested in solutions that can be practically implemented, pro-free market but deeply concerned about externalities and the environment, pro-democracy but with hard-headed realpolitik.
Plus probably half of what each weekly issue covers is news you won't find in any other American publication, at least -- it's a global publication and one of the best ways to simply learn about the entire world's political and economic news.
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 implementable. But this is invisible ideology and very easy to mistake for pragmatism, because a pure pragmatist will certainly appreciate many market solutions.
The final synthesis is not after having treated both sides. It's after having treated two sides, which are editorially chosen.
As far as dialectics it would be much more interesting if they could dialectically analyze their own internal contradictions between democracy and interventionist realpolitik, or between free-market fundamentalism and concern about externalities. But it doesn't really grapple with those, which is a sign that it's only applying dialectical thinking in convenient ways.
In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.
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 implementable. But this is invisible ideology and very easy to mistake for pragmatism, because a pure pragmatist will certainly appreciate many market solutions.
The final synthesis is not after having treated both sides. It's after having treated two sides, which are editorially chosen.
As far as dialectics it would be much more interesting if they could dialectically analyze their own internal contradictions between democracy and interventionist realpolitik, or between free-market fundamentalism and concern about externalities. But it doesn't really grapple with those, which is a sign that it's only applying dialectical thinking in convenient ways.
In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.
The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda.
Very few other news sources actually do that.
They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT.
If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.
They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT.
If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.
As I said, they show both sides, but they choose which two.
They are not as forthcoming with their biases as it seems. They mainly set up their ideological oppositions as conservatives, but they in fact have a lot in common with them. This is especially true for foreign relations.
I'd be happy to see examples of articles that go against the Economists' editorial agenda in profound ways and that pertain to foreign policy.
If you want news coverage that is any good at all and you care about foreign affairs you absolutely have to include at least one and preferably two non-anglophone or non-western sources that preferably oppose each other.
A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began. As far as I can see the Economist published almost nothing opposing it, limiting themselves to surface-level reporting of anti-war arguments in the sole goal of defeating them.
I don't understand why you would limit yourself, if you had to choose 4 sources, to 4 centrist anglophone sources. It seems like a very biased media diet.
They are not as forthcoming with their biases as it seems. They mainly set up their ideological oppositions as conservatives, but they in fact have a lot in common with them. This is especially true for foreign relations.
I'd be happy to see examples of articles that go against the Economists' editorial agenda in profound ways and that pertain to foreign policy.
If you want news coverage that is any good at all and you care about foreign affairs you absolutely have to include at least one and preferably two non-anglophone or non-western sources that preferably oppose each other.
A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began. As far as I can see the Economist published almost nothing opposing it, limiting themselves to surface-level reporting of anti-war arguments in the sole goal of defeating them.
I don't understand why you would limit yourself, if you had to choose 4 sources, to 4 centrist anglophone sources. It seems like a very biased media diet.
If you only read the English language then you're kind of mostly limited to "anglophone", no?
And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
Centrism is a political position just the same as any other, and is just as biased.
Most major news sources in the world report in English too. So you can indeed read news from sources that aren't from culturally similar anglophone countries and instead are from anywhere in the world.
Most major news sources in the world report in English too. So you can indeed read news from sources that aren't from culturally similar anglophone countries and instead are from anywhere in the world.
> And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
No, centrism isn’t the opposite of bias.
Centrism is a position toward which there can bias of any strength. Position of bias on a left/right (or any other ideological) axis and strength of bias or two orthogonal, continuous dimensions.
No, centrism isn’t the opposite of bias.
Centrism is a position toward which there can bias of any strength. Position of bias on a left/right (or any other ideological) axis and strength of bias or two orthogonal, continuous dimensions.
In theory, perhaps.
But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view -- e.g. a left and right one -- while "left" and "right" news sources generally do not.
But at a deeper level, centrism isn't really an ideology at all, in the way the left and right can be. You can be a hard-core leftist or you can be a hard-core conservative, but the idea of a "hard-core centrist" doesn't really exist.
So I'd argue centrism can be the opposite of bias in a very real way. It's about dropping bias towards ideologies, and treating issues in a practical balanced way.
But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view -- e.g. a left and right one -- while "left" and "right" news sources generally do not.
But at a deeper level, centrism isn't really an ideology at all, in the way the left and right can be. You can be a hard-core leftist or you can be a hard-core conservative, but the idea of a "hard-core centrist" doesn't really exist.
So I'd argue centrism can be the opposite of bias in a very real way. It's about dropping bias towards ideologies, and treating issues in a practical balanced way.
> But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view
No, in practice less strongly biased sources are more likely to present multiple points of view. Now, the same amount of variation can seem more diverse when you tend to bucket things into “left/right” binary categories, if the center of variation is near the point where you draw the line between buckets.
But that's an artifact of forcing things into binary buckets making a centrist outlet providing center-left to center-right views look more diverse than a right-wing publication providing center-right to far-right views.
No, in practice less strongly biased sources are more likely to present multiple points of view. Now, the same amount of variation can seem more diverse when you tend to bucket things into “left/right” binary categories, if the center of variation is near the point where you draw the line between buckets.
But that's an artifact of forcing things into binary buckets making a centrist outlet providing center-left to center-right views look more diverse than a right-wing publication providing center-right to far-right views.
> This is especially true for foreign relations.
Their latest issue literally has a massive article against vaccine nationalism. Their opposition to breaking of the Iranian deal.
> A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began
That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. The Economist has changed hands and most of its staff.
> 4 centrist anglophone sources
4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.
Also - why would I read insane crap on either side, my job isn't to read news all day.
Their latest issue literally has a massive article against vaccine nationalism. Their opposition to breaking of the Iranian deal.
> A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began
That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed. The Economist has changed hands and most of its staff.
> 4 centrist anglophone sources
4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.
Also - why would I read insane crap on either side, my job isn't to read news all day.
> That's very arbitrary, considering that 18 years have passed.
Also, not specific enough. Which Iraq war? The one in 2000's? 90s? 80s?
Also, not specific enough. Which Iraq war? The one in 2000's? 90s? 80s?
The one in the 2000s, obviously.
The Economist has not changed its bias in over a hundred and fifty years, staying firmly focused on economic liberalism. Eighteen years is nothing.
>4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Just because they have a bias that is for the status quo doesn't mean they are more or less right. As far as I'm concerned all I'm getting from this is "I agree with this ideological bias and I don't want to read anything else"
Anyways, it's your decision to subscribe to a biased news diet. You're not any better because of which bias you choose than someone who only reads Newsmax or CNN.
If your assessment is that anything that's not from the same ideology as these four sources is "insane crap", which it isn't, good points are being made by people of all political persuasions, then it's clear that you have created your own media echo chamber.
>4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Just because they have a bias that is for the status quo doesn't mean they are more or less right. As far as I'm concerned all I'm getting from this is "I agree with this ideological bias and I don't want to read anything else"
Anyways, it's your decision to subscribe to a biased news diet. You're not any better because of which bias you choose than someone who only reads Newsmax or CNN.
If your assessment is that anything that's not from the same ideology as these four sources is "insane crap", which it isn't, good points are being made by people of all political persuasions, then it's clear that you have created your own media echo chamber.
I read both the NYT and the Economist, they are quite different publications so not really comparable in my view.
That said, the editorial stance of the Economist comes through extremely clearly in their writings and they are unabashedly economically liberal.
Your characterization of NYT as being less ideologically diverse really doesn't match my experience.
Your list is incredibly West focused and honestly not that ideologically diverse, with the Guardian I guess supposed to take the "left" position.
That said, the editorial stance of the Economist comes through extremely clearly in their writings and they are unabashedly economically liberal.
Your characterization of NYT as being less ideologically diverse really doesn't match my experience.
Your list is incredibly West focused and honestly not that ideologically diverse, with the Guardian I guess supposed to take the "left" position.
> NYT as being less ideologically diverse
NYT has lost my subscription, after they just straight up started running exaggerated stories.
> Your list is incredibly West focused
I read in 4 languages, would you like some news sources in Russian, Lithuanian or Italian?
NYT has lost my subscription, after they just straight up started running exaggerated stories.
> Your list is incredibly West focused
I read in 4 languages, would you like some news sources in Russian, Lithuanian or Italian?
+1. I sometimes regret subscribing to Financial Times, but their bias is pretty easy to identify and accept/reject once you understand it. I counterbalance it with Jacobian (far-left/communist - choose your adjective - news).
There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.
There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.
[deleted]
Jacobin, not Jacobian :)
Unless there is some link between calculus and socialism that I have yet to discover
Unless there is some link between calculus and socialism that I have yet to discover
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 informed and able to recognize the bias. If they are that critical, then they should have no troubles consuming biased and ideological media, and they shouldn't assume without further evidence that others don't have the same ability.
Especially in this case it's weird, because the journal is called The Economist. Obviously you'd expect some bias pro economy there.
The people who recommend against those medias already believe of themselves that they are better informed and able to recognize the bias. If they are that critical, then they should have no troubles consuming biased and ideological media, and they shouldn't assume without further evidence that others don't have the same ability.
Especially in this case it's weird, because the journal is called The Economist. Obviously you'd expect some bias pro economy there.
Of course not, I myself read it often.
I'm arguing against the GP that said that it's okay to read only the Economist. It's not okay to read only a single source. You can be as critical as you want but if you no longer have any bearings on a subject you're being led by the nose.
Also, "pro-economy bias" is pretty vague. There are many ways one could be biased in a way so as to focus on a better economy, and they can be radically different.
I'm arguing against the GP that said that it's okay to read only the Economist. It's not okay to read only a single source. You can be as critical as you want but if you no longer have any bearings on a subject you're being led by the nose.
Also, "pro-economy bias" is pretty vague. There are many ways one could be biased in a way so as to focus on a better economy, and they can be radically different.
> In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.
I think this is perhaps misguided. It's not fair to the economist to compare an article on, eg. politics in Brazil, against the nuanced understanding that a Brazilian citizen would have, because most people from North American with no other ties to Brazil would have no frame of reference.
In other words, the choice is not, a simplified version of the issues vs a nuanced understanding, it's a simplified understanding of the issue vs none at all.
I think this is perhaps misguided. It's not fair to the economist to compare an article on, eg. politics in Brazil, against the nuanced understanding that a Brazilian citizen would have, because most people from North American with no other ties to Brazil would have no frame of reference.
In other words, the choice is not, a simplified version of the issues vs a nuanced understanding, it's a simplified understanding of the issue vs none at all.
I lived in Brazil for many years and read the local news closely.
Whenever the Economist published an article on Brazilian politics, it was generally far superior and far more insightful than anything in the local press. Which genuinely surprised me.
Remember -- most local news sources, whether in the US or Brazil, aren't nuanced at all. They're surface-level and sensationalistic.
But while Brazil has a home-grown news equivalent of Time ("Veja"), as well as USA Today (O Globo) it simply doesn't have any home-grown news source at the level of sophistication of the Economist, not even for domestic news.
Whenever the Economist published an article on Brazilian politics, it was generally far superior and far more insightful than anything in the local press. Which genuinely surprised me.
Remember -- most local news sources, whether in the US or Brazil, aren't nuanced at all. They're surface-level and sensationalistic.
But while Brazil has a home-grown news equivalent of Time ("Veja"), as well as USA Today (O Globo) it simply doesn't have any home-grown news source at the level of sophistication of the Economist, not even for domestic news.
For what it's worth, I find the same is true of Canada. We have some decent news organizations but whenever there is an Economist article about Canada, I find the insights a bit deeper and the context more complete.
Interesting, I am often find nonplussed by their cover of Canadian stories, especially by what they choose to cover - "buttergate" and dearth of some obscure condiment Asians use in Vancouver come to mind as recent examples.
I find The Globe & Mail and MacLeans quite solid when it comes to news coverage.
I find The Globe & Mail and MacLeans quite solid when it comes to news coverage.
But this is a bit of a false dichotomy. There is no reason why you would have to limit yourself to North-American sources here. Plenty of news agencies around the world have articles in English without the anglophone bias it may bring.
And even non-local sources may still bring some enlightenment. If you were trying to understand Brazilian politics but couldn't read any Brazilian sources, it would still be much better to read Anglo, European and, say, Middle Eastern reporting and then consider the differences in reporting and how they might be linked to their worldview.
Besides, oftentimes a simplistic and biased understanding whose inaccuracy is not understood is much worse than no understanding at all. At least in the second case you are aware of your ignorance and will probably be more weary of rash action.
And even non-local sources may still bring some enlightenment. If you were trying to understand Brazilian politics but couldn't read any Brazilian sources, it would still be much better to read Anglo, European and, say, Middle Eastern reporting and then consider the differences in reporting and how they might be linked to their worldview.
Besides, oftentimes a simplistic and biased understanding whose inaccuracy is not understood is much worse than no understanding at all. At least in the second case you are aware of your ignorance and will probably be more weary of rash action.
An example of such thinking from last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27392455
It used to be a much better magazine.
It used to be a much better magazine.
I like their articles, but I can’t recommend the Economist after attempting to cancel my subscription the last time I had one. It took me over an hour of digging through the website, and then phone calls where they tried to up-sell me, side-sell me, every-way-sell me on discounts and different packages no matter how many times I said I just wanted to cancel my account. It’s possibly the worst experience I’ve ever had cancelling something.
Just use a privacy.com card and cancel the card when you're done with the subscription. I agree that it's trash to have to do something like that, but it's a pretty easy solution.
You do realize that people that manage the subscriptions aren't the same that write the content, right?
If you can't opt out of one but not the other, is this distinction meaningful?
Yes. Substance is critical here.
Arguing that Economist is bad, because it was complex to cancel your subscription (I see a massive button on my account page) is like arguing that a restaurant is bad, because they don't accept gold coins as payment.
Arguing that Economist is bad, because it was complex to cancel your subscription (I see a massive button on my account page) is like arguing that a restaurant is bad, because they don't accept gold coins as payment.
100% agree, but the problem I have with the economist is that it requires serious mental commitment to engage with their articles. The meat of the story is buried deep. The only times I find myself capable of reading are when I'm traveling or commuting.
The issues come weekly with really interesting topical stories, so I always add them to my reading todo list, but they just pile up so fast.
This past year and 1/2 of WFH life meant, I now have about 50 issues to go through LOL.
The issues come weekly with really interesting topical stories, so I always add them to my reading todo list, but they just pile up so fast.
This past year and 1/2 of WFH life meant, I now have about 50 issues to go through LOL.
"the problem with this news source, is that it requires thinking to parse!"
Sorry for the jab, but I think this is our current political situation in a nutshell - surface level, emotional takes are the primary way people engage in news and thus politics. It's hard to engage deeply, but it's required in order to build your own narrative, rather than just take on someone else's.
Sorry for the jab, but I think this is our current political situation in a nutshell - surface level, emotional takes are the primary way people engage in news and thus politics. It's hard to engage deeply, but it's required in order to build your own narrative, rather than just take on someone else's.
I have been reading the economist for a while now and im curious if you have felt a decline in quality or maybe its just my differing in opinion from recent articles.
Mostly i feel more articles coming up that are worded in a way to convince the reader or a certain point without any data. This is something i never really noticed in the past.
It might just be me though.
Mostly i feel more articles coming up that are worded in a way to convince the reader or a certain point without any data. This is something i never really noticed in the past.
It might just be me though.
That certainly seems true though I wouldn't say it's specific to the economist. I've noticed the change in every publication, even stuff like the Financial Times.
I was listening to all of The Economist's podcasts on Spotify until recently. I found their bias grew and grew over time until it was just too annoying to listen. I think they realized their target market was yuppie (lean strongly left) and made the (correct) business decision to cater to them exclusively.
There are some benefits to the Economist, such as the ones you mentioned but I don't know that I could recommend it, at least without a secondary source for what you're reading there.
I stopped reading it about 10 years ago for a few reasons. During the housing crisis the coverage wasn't as deep as it should have been and I would read articles that were nothing more than "nationalizing banks is bad" without explaining why.
Their coverage of US politics was also laughably bad. During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal. I used to get it from a library a few towns over so I would be 3-4 weeks behind. One time I was reading an article where Charles Grassley was being made out to be principled and respected and I'm laughing because he had recently endorsed the death panel nonsense.
I really, really wish I could recommend the WSJ, however they declined pretty heavily after Murdoch bought them. The number of long form articles declined and I was seeing less journalism and more ideological fluff in the non-editorial sections.
I stopped reading it about 10 years ago for a few reasons. During the housing crisis the coverage wasn't as deep as it should have been and I would read articles that were nothing more than "nationalizing banks is bad" without explaining why.
Their coverage of US politics was also laughably bad. During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal. I used to get it from a library a few towns over so I would be 3-4 weeks behind. One time I was reading an article where Charles Grassley was being made out to be principled and respected and I'm laughing because he had recently endorsed the death panel nonsense.
I really, really wish I could recommend the WSJ, however they declined pretty heavily after Murdoch bought them. The number of long form articles declined and I was seeing less journalism and more ideological fluff in the non-editorial sections.
"Their coverage of US politics was also laughably bad."
It's an English magazine that's not even 'News'.
Also this: "During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal." Is a pretty petty reason to not read something. Also, they could have been right.
There are better reasons not to read the Economist.
It's an English magazine that's not even 'News'.
Also this: "During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal." Is a pretty petty reason to not read something. Also, they could have been right.
There are better reasons not to read the Economist.
Multiple examples of a publication's analysis being found lacking and a reaction of no longer consuming it as a result is not "pretty petty". I'm reading them for their non-US coverage, and if I find their US coverage to be lacking(which it was despite your attempts at gaslighting otherwise) than it is reasonable to question their non-US reporting and not waste time on it.
No, they were proven to have been wrong. I provided a specific example of their analysis being wrong, one which you did not address. The ACA passed along party lines after almost a year of deliberation. The GOP spent the subsequent decade running on "repeal and replace" only to get seriously close once. There are multiple other examples (McConnell declaring the goal of making Obama a one term president, refusing to conduct hearings to confirm Garland to the SC after recommending him, etc.) of where the GOP was acting in bad faith, which is also what you are doing here.
No, they were proven to have been wrong. I provided a specific example of their analysis being wrong, one which you did not address. The ACA passed along party lines after almost a year of deliberation. The GOP spent the subsequent decade running on "repeal and replace" only to get seriously close once. There are multiple other examples (McConnell declaring the goal of making Obama a one term president, refusing to conduct hearings to confirm Garland to the SC after recommending him, etc.) of where the GOP was acting in bad faith, which is also what you are doing here.
The Economist certainly doesn't break down easily on the American political spectrum, but in the more coherent language of higher level policy, the Economist is almost 100% liberal.
I agree its a well put together publication, but a socialist (for instance) would argue it is deeply ideological.
I agree its a well put together publication, but a socialist (for instance) would argue it is deeply ideological.
Well, it is deeply ideological. But if we're being honest, everything is. The Economist is fine to read as long as you really deeply understand it's ideology.
The Economist doesn't hide their ideology and advocacy.
Unlike many "well renowned sources" (ahem... NYT)
Unlike many "well renowned sources" (ahem... NYT)
What would you think the ideology of the Economist is and where in their website do you get that from? Just asking for the sake of argument.
They routinely repeat that their editorial policy is liberal. Straight up in the articles they publish, they note that.
I listen to their articles and they often repeat this.
Literally typing this into Google would have provided you with the link to their website.
https://www.economist.com/news/2020/06/19/frequently-asked-q...
I listen to their articles and they often repeat this.
Literally typing this into Google would have provided you with the link to their website.
https://www.economist.com/news/2020/06/19/frequently-asked-q...
From that webpage, they say that their bias is between classical liberalism and centrism.
Now, what is a classically liberal bias, concretely, as far as international affairs are concerned?
Now, what is a classically liberal bias, concretely, as far as international affairs are concerned?
Free trade and non-interventionism.
Then you're already misjudging the bias, the Economist supported interventionist in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and even soft intervention in Bolivia. It's as interventionist as most.
As far as free trade, that's difficult to apply to most situations.
As far as free trade, that's difficult to apply to most situations.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. And VERY much pro status quo.
The Economist skews conservative in the sense that it is who I wish the conservatives were.
The Economist strikes me as very liberal, and not particularly conservative. And by that I mean the traditional definition of liberal, not Democratic-Party-of-the-US liberal.
Conservatism is a relative term. You can be a conservative right-winger, a conservative socialist, a conservative liberal or any other kind of conservative as long as your social situation fits it. Many articles by the Economist are conservative in that they intend to defend and conserve the status-quo, especially when dealing with foreign policy.
You're using conservativism vey much in American GOP understanding of the term, which has stopped being conservative a while ago.
Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
Economist literally had a massive article what is conservativism. And - SPOILER - UK Torries used to be conservative, while GOP has been reactionary/populist for a while now.
Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
Economist literally had a massive article what is conservativism. And - SPOILER - UK Torries used to be conservative, while GOP has been reactionary/populist for a while now.
> Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on economic liberalism for their position.
(“Classical conservativism” is not relative, and is defined relative to the pre-capitalist status quo, and is specifically tends to be about the defense of the titled, landed aristocracy. But, because that is no longer an established elite, there's not a lot of classical conservatism left to defend.)
As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on economic liberalism for their position.
(“Classical conservativism” is not relative, and is defined relative to the pre-capitalist status quo, and is specifically tends to be about the defense of the titled, landed aristocracy. But, because that is no longer an established elite, there's not a lot of classical conservatism left to defend.)
> As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism.
> “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal
Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal".
But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/
That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism.
> “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal
Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal".
But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/
> But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
...which amounts to “lots of people have used it lots of conflicting ways, some even denying it has meaning.” Which, as someone with a political science degree with cobsiderable exposure to both political philosophy and more common political dialogue, I’m well aware of. If you accept that whole space of use and non-use, the upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal at the same time is more, not less, ridiculous, so perhaps you posted your response one comment two far down the thread?
...which amounts to “lots of people have used it lots of conflicting ways, some even denying it has meaning.” Which, as someone with a political science degree with cobsiderable exposure to both political philosophy and more common political dialogue, I’m well aware of. If you accept that whole space of use and non-use, the upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal at the same time is more, not less, ridiculous, so perhaps you posted your response one comment two far down the thread?
Market forces are radical. They can force incredible change. I don't think that meddling in the market and supporting the status-quo are mutually exclusive.
I also don't think that being economically liberal means letting the market destroy itself or push large societal changes.
I also don't think that being economically liberal means letting the market destroy itself or push large societal changes.
> upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal
Nowhere I claimed that you cannot be economically liberal. You intentionally removed context out of my claim that conservatives will use economic policy to make an ad hominem attack.
Congratulations on coming out a "winner".
Nowhere I claimed that you cannot be economically liberal. You intentionally removed context out of my claim that conservatives will use economic policy to make an ad hominem attack.
Congratulations on coming out a "winner".
I am not. I don't think the GOP definition of conservatism admits conservative socialism.
You definitely can be a conservative liberal. The American society by and large is founded on liberal principles. All you have to do to be a conservative liberal is to stick to 18th-19th century liberalism, in being a so-called "classical liberal".
I agree that the GOP is reactionary more than conservative.
You definitely can be a conservative liberal. The American society by and large is founded on liberal principles. All you have to do to be a conservative liberal is to stick to 18th-19th century liberalism, in being a so-called "classical liberal".
I agree that the GOP is reactionary more than conservative.
Classical liberalism - complete laissez faire market, no government interference and individual wealth creation. Today's libertarians are closest to classical liberals.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
This is a frustrating comment chain for me to read. The person you are responding to clearly is already familiar with the concept of classical liberalism, and you are responding as if they are a dunce.
I agree, it's a traditional conservative business view point: less regulation, free trade, free press, democratic government with a strong fair legal system.
They're not.
To the point that they had a whole issue dedicated to the death of modern conservativism and how their editorial policy is classic liberal.
To the point that they had a whole issue dedicated to the death of modern conservativism and how their editorial policy is classic liberal.
It's a semantic debate, and not a particularly interesting one at that.
"Classical liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily at odds. "Liberal" in the sense that you are using it is a political philosophy, conservative is just a slot to fill in.
"Classical liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily at odds. "Liberal" in the sense that you are using it is a political philosophy, conservative is just a slot to fill in.
So you're using conservative(adjective to mean slow), as not same as Conservative(political philosophy).
Because as political movements they are vey much at odds.
Because as political movements they are vey much at odds.
"They dont talk about or even cover the same things" - this is the number one fake news tactic in play. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's a 2x2 matrix -
If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
They'll only report on the same things when those common things are important enough / loud enough to where they can't ignore it, or when they're able to put their own political interpretation on it when telling the viewer what to think.
If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
They'll only report on the same things when those common things are important enough / loud enough to where they can't ignore it, or when they're able to put their own political interpretation on it when telling the viewer what to think.
Not only that, they go out of their way to police the topics in forums and social media.
Mentioning the wrong topics gets people labelled as pushing "talking points" or "conspiracy theories" with total disregard to the factual reality behind. It doesn't serve the partisan narrative and that's all one needs to know. Insisting will get your suspended, muted, banned or deboosted/shadowbanned.
Mentioning the wrong topics gets people labelled as pushing "talking points" or "conspiracy theories" with total disregard to the factual reality behind. It doesn't serve the partisan narrative and that's all one needs to know. Insisting will get your suspended, muted, banned or deboosted/shadowbanned.
>For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
Except for everything Democrats and Republicans agree upon.
Which is a lot.
There's a massive amount Americans miss because thet witness very lively debate on very circumscribed topics.
Except for everything Democrats and Republicans agree upon.
Which is a lot.
There's a massive amount Americans miss because thet witness very lively debate on very circumscribed topics.
Slightly OT but it's disheartening to see the overton window at work when people call Democrats "left". It's like the frame of reference has shifted so far to one side that "slightly progressive corporate-run party" vs "socially conservative corporate-run party" is framed as "left vs right".
>> you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats
I can name one CNN reporter right off the bat who does and his post is nearly always in the headline section for the topic being covered:
Chris Cillizza
Find me the same thing on Fox and I will accept your arguement.
I can name one CNN reporter right off the bat who does and his post is nearly always in the headline section for the topic being covered:
Chris Cillizza
Find me the same thing on Fox and I will accept your arguement.
I don't mind that kind of bias, if your 2x2 matrix was right -- that each of them reports everything good about their side and everything bad about the other side. If that were true, you could sum them up and have a pretty balanced total news source.
The problem with Fox News and CNN is the biased attitude. They report everything good as amazing and everything bad as horrible. The anchors are "performing" the news, telling you with their tone, body language and vocal intonations how disgusted you should be or how much you should be rejoicing. This phenomenon has infiltrated the NYT and WSJ as well, and I've stopped reading both.
The problem with Fox News and CNN is the biased attitude. They report everything good as amazing and everything bad as horrible. The anchors are "performing" the news, telling you with their tone, body language and vocal intonations how disgusted you should be or how much you should be rejoicing. This phenomenon has infiltrated the NYT and WSJ as well, and I've stopped reading both.
I've noticed this "performance" in the NYT, but the WSJ news articles have mostly stayed pretty dry. Their opinion section however does not follow suit.
Ground News points this out every week in their Blindspot newsletter.
> For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats,
Not true at all. Here's one critical about Democrats as being too beholden to progressives: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/opinions/democratic-party-pro...
Here’s one critical about the current Democratic VP largely for being too concerned with (and ultimately ineffective at) undercutting Republican talking points. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/opinions/democratic-party-pro...
And that's just one day.
Except for stuff responding to new Trump-era revelations, they don't seem to have much current criticism of Republicans not buried within criticism of how Democrats deal with them, representing their actual bias in critical opinion coverage, in that it focuses on people currently in power.
(When Republicans held the White House and the Senate, they had more direct criticism of Republicans.)
Not true at all. Here's one critical about Democrats as being too beholden to progressives: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/opinions/democratic-party-pro...
Here’s one critical about the current Democratic VP largely for being too concerned with (and ultimately ineffective at) undercutting Republican talking points. https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/opinions/democratic-party-pro...
And that's just one day.
Except for stuff responding to new Trump-era revelations, they don't seem to have much current criticism of Republicans not buried within criticism of how Democrats deal with them, representing their actual bias in critical opinion coverage, in that it focuses on people currently in power.
(When Republicans held the White House and the Senate, they had more direct criticism of Republicans.)
CNN is a bad example of a left leaning news outlet. They're quite centrist. The reason mainstream media appears to be left biased is because people use the government's political center as their frame of reference rather than that of the populace. The media caters to political beliefs of actual average American. The federal government caters to the center of voting power, which is heavily skewed towards smaller states which tend to be more conservative. This disparity is what people perceive as "left bias".
> The reason mainstream media appears to be left biased is because people use the government's political center as their frame of reference rather than that of the populace. The media caters to political beliefs of actual average American. The federal government caters to the center of voting power, which is heavily skewed towards smaller states which tend to be more conservative. This disparity is what people perceive as "left bias".
Wow, I never thought of that.
Wow, I never thought of that.
Super interesting take, thanks! I've always been so confused by conservatives labeling all mainstream media as left-biased when I, as a liberal, see them as centrist or conservative.
Studies show that "left bias" in mainstream media is much greater than it is among Americans in general. For example:
"Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above)."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...)
"Some of the professional groups have clear liberal leanings. People who work in the news media are almost exclusively donors to liberal candidates:"
(https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...)
"Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above)."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...)
"Some of the professional groups have clear liberal leanings. People who work in the news media are almost exclusively donors to liberal candidates:"
(https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...)
The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4], so I'm not sure where you're getting 54%.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidentia... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidentia... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
> The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4]
Even if you read “voting for a D or R candidate in a Presidential general election” as “being a D or R”, and “eligible voters” as “the American population”, both which are clearly and wildly wrong, your evidence still doesn’t support your claim, because it has 98.2% of 66.2% = 65% of eligible voters, which is not “well above 90%”.
Even if you read “voting for a D or R candidate in a Presidential general election” as “being a D or R”, and “eligible voters” as “the American population”, both which are clearly and wildly wrong, your evidence still doesn’t support your claim, because it has 98.2% of 66.2% = 65% of eligible voters, which is not “well above 90%”.
I'm not sure why you expect news to target people who aren't even in their coverage's audience.
Those links show that out of all Americans who vote in presidential elections, well above 90% vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. However, that does not mean that well above 90% of Americans are either Democrats or Republicans.
People lie. I'm not sure why you expect the media to sell to people's lies instead of selling to people's actions.
PS Americans also overwhelmingly vote either Democrat or Republican in non-presidential elections, even down to the city council level.
PS Americans also overwhelmingly vote either Democrat or Republican in non-presidential elections, even down to the city council level.
> PS Americans also overwhelmingly vote either Democrat or Republican in non-presidential elections
Americans overwhelmingly abstain rather than voting for any of the offered candidates, Democrat, Republican, or independent or minor party, in non-Presidential elections. 2018 had the highest midterm turnout since the before the Reagan era, and it reached the whole way up to 49%.
Americans overwhelmingly abstain rather than voting for any of the offered candidates, Democrat, Republican, or independent or minor party, in non-Presidential elections. 2018 had the highest midterm turnout since the before the Reagan era, and it reached the whole way up to 49%.
What do you mean by "people's actions"? If you mean voting, well, Democrats and Republicans get about the same number of votes in presidential elections, which does not seem to justify your view that "left" media bias just reflects the political leaning of the average American.
Except Democrats have been consistently beating Republicans in presidential elections. Click the links. Go back further if you want to. The Republican candidate has won the popular vote exactly once (in 2004) since 1990.
The Presidential election popular vote margin has not gone over 10 million votes in over three decades now, in a country that has averaged about 300 million residents over that time span. These are not margins that support the idea that the population as a whole skews left as much as mainstream media skews left.
Stated vs. Revealed preferences.
[deleted]
COM Library has a ranking system for news organizations that seems to line up pretty well with my personal observations [0]. They show CNN as centrist but left-leaning. This agrees with my personal experience, except for news stories in the "woke" category, where CNN seems to skew far left.
[0] https://libguides.com.edu/c.php?g=649909&p=4556556
[0] https://libguides.com.edu/c.php?g=649909&p=4556556
> This agrees with my personal experience, except for news stories in the "woke" category, where CNN seems to skew far left.
You do realize that “woke” as a pejorative originated in left-wing criticism of bourgeois, centrist identity politics?
So, unless you are saying that CNN has joined that leftist critique, I think what you really probably mean is that CNN represents a strongly-held centrist position in that area, not a far-left one.
You do realize that “woke” as a pejorative originated in left-wing criticism of bourgeois, centrist identity politics?
So, unless you are saying that CNN has joined that leftist critique, I think what you really probably mean is that CNN represents a strongly-held centrist position in that area, not a far-left one.
The recuperation of leftist language critiquing capitalist politics as pejorative to anti-capitalist is a sight to behold.
I cannot recommend the show and podcast 'Breaking Points', by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball enough. They are top notch journalists who formerly hosted a daily news show called 'Rising' on The Hill, but left recently in order to be more independent and free of advertiser influence (censorship).
While they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They cut through much of the partisan, mainstream BS - and get to the heart of many issues, all while debating ea. other in a civilized way.
https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-k...
It is INCREDIBLY refreshing, if you've fallen into the rut of mainstream internet or tv news.
While they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They cut through much of the partisan, mainstream BS - and get to the heart of many issues, all while debating ea. other in a civilized way.
https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-k...
It is INCREDIBLY refreshing, if you've fallen into the rut of mainstream internet or tv news.
Try the podcast Moderate Rebels as well. It's hosted by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal from https://thegrayzone.com/
https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels
https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels
agree. recently discovered them, very impressed.
I think their new show has some kinks to work out and a bit more modernization of the graphics to put it back on par with how things they were doing were presented with their spots through "the Hill."
Which I hope stay online to show how they are professional. I also hope their new show gets the graphics and tech to catch up quickly, as they are a refreshing source of truths that need to be told, and I'd like others to be able to watch and feel the same without being distracted and wondering if the new/current as of June 21 make them amateurs with uninformed opinions - instead of the professionals with the history and knowledge that some of us have become aware of.
So glad to see them doing real and truth - we need more.
When I caught part of on TV the other night with Sharyl Attkisson
( eg https://youtu.be/ol-6AwoPLH4?t=947
) I had a similar - jaw drop - OMG someone is telling the truth and they are on the air and not in a mysterious car accident! This is amazing.
EX-CNN aparrently(?) - maybe it's going to be a new movement of like ex-X-cult - no longer beholden to Y -
Perhaps old media is not just losing but started to be lost.
I want a browser extension to highlight individual reporters and info about past biases - as it's too hard to pin a portal as being one way or the other, when there are shills mixed in with regular reporters and editors all mucking up everything it seems.
Which I hope stay online to show how they are professional. I also hope their new show gets the graphics and tech to catch up quickly, as they are a refreshing source of truths that need to be told, and I'd like others to be able to watch and feel the same without being distracted and wondering if the new/current as of June 21 make them amateurs with uninformed opinions - instead of the professionals with the history and knowledge that some of us have become aware of.
So glad to see them doing real and truth - we need more.
When I caught part of on TV the other night with Sharyl Attkisson
( eg https://youtu.be/ol-6AwoPLH4?t=947
) I had a similar - jaw drop - OMG someone is telling the truth and they are on the air and not in a mysterious car accident! This is amazing.
EX-CNN aparrently(?) - maybe it's going to be a new movement of like ex-X-cult - no longer beholden to Y -
Perhaps old media is not just losing but started to be lost.
I want a browser extension to highlight individual reporters and info about past biases - as it's too hard to pin a portal as being one way or the other, when there are shills mixed in with regular reporters and editors all mucking up everything it seems.
Seconded. I have avoided cable news for a long time now.
If you like podcasts, try Left, Right & Center by KCRW. Their sister show All the Presidents' Lawyers is pretty good too, but what I like about LR&C is that it really does show multiple sides without a constant yelling fest. Sure there are the occasional "you don't really believe that do you?" moments, but it's largely civil.
Ive recently started reading the Tangle newsletter. It’s a daily drop that focuses on 1 topic and provides the left, right and their take on an issue.
https://www.readtangle.com/
https://www.readtangle.com/
I unsubscribed from that newsletter a few months ago when I realized it was just perpetuating the problem by reporting on "both sides", even in cases where there wasn't much worth talking about on either "side". It's interesting if you would like to understand what propaganda the elites in each political party would like their base to digest, but it's not very interesting if you just want to see what actually happened on a particular day.
Someone on Hacker News a while back recommended the Wikipedia current events portal[0] and I have to say this feels like a more efficient way to consume the news. It feels less tied to trending topics and manufactured drama, and is more centered on what actually happened in the world that was especially notable on a particular day.
I feel like a lot of "news" that's reported in the American political media is just ideological argument, which after you've read the same argument for the nth time doesn't come across as very interesting any more.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
Someone on Hacker News a while back recommended the Wikipedia current events portal[0] and I have to say this feels like a more efficient way to consume the news. It feels less tied to trending topics and manufactured drama, and is more centered on what actually happened in the world that was especially notable on a particular day.
I feel like a lot of "news" that's reported in the American political media is just ideological argument, which after you've read the same argument for the nth time doesn't come across as very interesting any more.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
I've been a subscriber to Tangle for a while now and I love his takes on the news.
He operates just a little to the right of my own political persuasions, but even when I disagree with him, it's a respectful disagreement. Isaac's positions are nuanced, well-reasonsed and kind.
That newsletter is exactly what we all wish political debate in the US was like.
He operates just a little to the right of my own political persuasions, but even when I disagree with him, it's a respectful disagreement. Isaac's positions are nuanced, well-reasonsed and kind.
That newsletter is exactly what we all wish political debate in the US was like.
Thanks for this suggestion - Hadn't seen this before but previewed and really liked what I saw. Sub'd.
I tried this for a while and then gave up and read no news whatsoever. For important issues, I’ll hear about it from friends and family in person. In the few situations where I wanted to learn more, it was such a slog to search and filter through garbage to find even the most simple facts (eg, what’s contained in recent us covid stimulus package) it’s just reinforced my decision that putting in routine work just to keep up on events isn’t worth it.
Rage makes more ad money than facts.
Rage makes more ad money than facts.
I highly recommend experimenting with turning off the news completely for a time. You quickly find that the vast majority of "Breaking News!" that gets shoveled out simply isn't that important for most people, and is there mainly to feed a news addiction.
Alternatively, use the Internet Archives to read news from this date from 2-5 few years ago. You'll probably find that most aren't worth reading, which gives you a good sense of how important the news you read today will seem in just a few years.
Alternatively, use the Internet Archives to read news from this date from 2-5 few years ago. You'll probably find that most aren't worth reading, which gives you a good sense of how important the news you read today will seem in just a few years.
I read all those but consider them fairly partisan, at this point, e.g. they have to satisfy their clientele. I add Reuters and a few others like that to the mix but even that is difficult. Sometimes you have to search within the website to find coverage for specific stories and it's buried deeper down.
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
IMO Comparing viewpoints isn’t as important as simply popping you out of the bubble. The key is to distrust the media more than you distrust the “other side”.
Exactly. The reality is there almost always exists more than two viewpoints. Maybe it's not done deliberately, but this false dilemma may be a big reason the echo chamber effect is so powerful. I'll also acknowledge it's difficult to find reputable sources which present more than two viewpoints.
This site is great for trying to get different takes https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.
I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.
Allsides is prominently featured in the article.
yes! I meant it more as a +1 to allsides but should have clarified that.
I'm a bit disappointed that outlets like NTY, or Associated Press for cryin out loud, are branded as "Left". Disappointing that actual Left-wing discourse is so outside currently acceptable Overton window.
I tried this, too and realized similar things. I then decided that I do not really care (at least not that much) about understanding which way each source wants to spin things. I instead want information about the world to form my own opinions.
I started reading international news. That is, focus on publications outside country X when reading about X.
Reports from Sweden, Korea, Russia and UK (thanks google translate!) translated into English, awkward wording and all, plus a minimal dose of CNN and Fox works better for me than a mix of American media. Just my 2c.
I might even wrap it up as a convenient page or app.
I started reading international news. That is, focus on publications outside country X when reading about X.
Reports from Sweden, Korea, Russia and UK (thanks google translate!) translated into English, awkward wording and all, plus a minimal dose of CNN and Fox works better for me than a mix of American media. Just my 2c.
I might even wrap it up as a convenient page or app.
What is "the other side" ?
Is it some fake news site, or some radio personality's take? Or is it some twitter spat / spam?
I don't think 'the other side' is all that simple to cover / has an obvious quantity to include with every news article.
Is it some fake news site, or some radio personality's take? Or is it some twitter spat / spam?
I don't think 'the other side' is all that simple to cover / has an obvious quantity to include with every news article.
Right. Because of these news sources are BUSINESSES. Their job is to manage their own "image" to keep people around for the advertisers. Like it or not (me, not) this is a much easier way to grok what's going on with them. Their priority is viewers -- mostly retaining them. So you keep with the general idea that "you should tell the truth" by choosing which truths to tell, and then perhaps "gambling" by once in a while doing something outrageous that will excite the base.
I would suggest reading some sources outside the US. Specifically, I would recommend the Economist. While the Economist has a very distinct view, it does provide a little higher level, distanced view of US and world politics.
It has highlighted to me some biases from some of the sources I follow on a day by day basis (NYT, Washington Post).
Bonus points for the Economist, because you also get coverage and analysis of events across the world many of which get almost 0 coverage in US press.
It has highlighted to me some biases from some of the sources I follow on a day by day basis (NYT, Washington Post).
Bonus points for the Economist, because you also get coverage and analysis of events across the world many of which get almost 0 coverage in US press.
just watch C-SPAN and cut out the crap; then compare coverage of the same speech or event or whatever. All of the media will pick out single words from an hours-long talk and invent their own context, ignoring the rest of the hour
We (The Factual: https://www.thefactual.com) have been trying to solve this issue.
Our tech ingests articles from different publishers, groups them into topics based on the story they are covering, then analyze and score them based on how informative they are and present curated articles as best perspectives from left/right/center.
All of this automated and running continuously on our website : https://www.thefactual.com/news and also in our app : iOS (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-factual/id1537259360) and Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=group.thefactu...)
Do check us out.
Our tech ingests articles from different publishers, groups them into topics based on the story they are covering, then analyze and score them based on how informative they are and present curated articles as best perspectives from left/right/center.
All of this automated and running continuously on our website : https://www.thefactual.com/news and also in our app : iOS (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-factual/id1537259360) and Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=group.thefactu...)
Do check us out.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things,
This is a big issue. But at the same time - it's not clear to me what the solution when every side is pushing hype rather than news. How do you publish an "opposing take" on something the other side is publishing that isn't real in the first place? It's not ideal to even acknowledge lies.
This is a big issue. But at the same time - it's not clear to me what the solution when every side is pushing hype rather than news. How do you publish an "opposing take" on something the other side is publishing that isn't real in the first place? It's not ideal to even acknowledge lies.
The other big problem is that there are important issues that neither side covers, except that is, until it is too late.
Not everything is worthy of reporting. I definitely don't align with every NYT article that I read but that's the beauty of it imo.
After quitting reddit I'm often oblivious to clickbait flamebait minutiae that my colleagues all get worked up over.
Also- are there any reputable conservative print news sources?
After quitting reddit I'm often oblivious to clickbait flamebait minutiae that my colleagues all get worked up over.
Also- are there any reputable conservative print news sources?
You can't always even get supportive viewpoints of some policies. If some policy is too unpopular with the base, they seem to just get very quiet about it, or discuss it in very general terms.
Maybe they don't cover the same things because the "things" are like their flags they are using to signal each other. It's like two different gangs using different symbolism to communicate with their own members. They don't need to talk to the other side, they need to instead rally their own side.
Maybe study each side like you're studying a gang. Get to know the symbolism and language.
Maybe study each side like you're studying a gang. Get to know the symbolism and language.
Bloomberg and Politico are great. Also recommend TheHill and RealClearPolitics.
There’s a growing number of writers on sub stack covering the same issue from different sides. Often this is formulated as a response of rebuttal to the left-leaning media’s coverage of the issue, but that’s fine because you still get both sides of the story if you read things in conjunction.
There’s a growing number of writers on sub stack covering the same issue from different sides. Often this is formulated as a response of rebuttal to the left-leaning media’s coverage of the issue, but that’s fine because you still get both sides of the story if you read things in conjunction.
>All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment.
The thing I look for in good political writing isn't objectivity, which is mostly fictional, but an honest centering of perspective. This has two parts to me - a clear declaration about what the author thinks is the right answer and a commitment to making sure any opposing viewpoints are given as the holders of them would give them before being attacked. Like...I do think the US Republican party is not serious about many of their stated concerns, but I think it's easiest to see that when you contrast their stated views with their mostly political action.
This can get a little distasteful with racist or other hateful views, but there's no need to go into detail with the views of the groups you are writing against. You just need to describe them in a way they can recognize before you tear them apart.
So I guess I do not think good writing requires even treatment - it just requires demonstrating that you have understood what your opponents have said before you move to disagree with it. So, so, so much writing in US politics takes place between commentators who, for all appearances, have no real understanding of what their opponents want or why they might want it.
The thing I look for in good political writing isn't objectivity, which is mostly fictional, but an honest centering of perspective. This has two parts to me - a clear declaration about what the author thinks is the right answer and a commitment to making sure any opposing viewpoints are given as the holders of them would give them before being attacked. Like...I do think the US Republican party is not serious about many of their stated concerns, but I think it's easiest to see that when you contrast their stated views with their mostly political action.
This can get a little distasteful with racist or other hateful views, but there's no need to go into detail with the views of the groups you are writing against. You just need to describe them in a way they can recognize before you tear them apart.
So I guess I do not think good writing requires even treatment - it just requires demonstrating that you have understood what your opponents have said before you move to disagree with it. So, so, so much writing in US politics takes place between commentators who, for all appearances, have no real understanding of what their opponents want or why they might want it.
I struggle to understand why you need to read “sides” for news articles. Are you just referring to opinion pieces?
Because reporters and papers have biases.
Here’s a simple one: Last year, when anti-asian crimes were on the rise, the NYTimes dutifully reported the crimes.
But repeatedly omitted details like ethnicity or name, until a white attacker made the news.
For those earlier details, the rag the NY Post (conservative and borderline tabloid) was the paper to go to.
Eventually—as in many months after—the NY Times stated covering the full details because the problem was too obvious. Even then the Ny Times uses every opportunity to downplay the issue.
I’m sure conservative journalists are just as biased in their own way.
Here’s a simple one: Last year, when anti-asian crimes were on the rise, the NYTimes dutifully reported the crimes.
But repeatedly omitted details like ethnicity or name, until a white attacker made the news.
For those earlier details, the rag the NY Post (conservative and borderline tabloid) was the paper to go to.
Eventually—as in many months after—the NY Times stated covering the full details because the problem was too obvious. Even then the Ny Times uses every opportunity to downplay the issue.
I’m sure conservative journalists are just as biased in their own way.
Are you serious? Most mainstream sources have hard left or right slant. How do you not see that?
Oh I see it, I just don’t want it and I think reading both sides gives you worse galaxy brain than reading none.
I've done something similar. If you look at what, say, the National Review thinks is important on a given day, and compare that to what the NYTimes is reporting on, it's pretty clear that we're not merely disagreeing about a particular set of facts, we're living on different planets.
> 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.
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.
The New York Times and Washington Post are newspapers of record. That's hardly "fringe".
Ground News handles aggregating and showing each source that is discussing the same topic event. It has become the first site I go to for news and from there I can easily access virtually everything else while knowing what the perspective that I'm stepping into is in advance.
From my observation they (at least Fox News) do report on all the same things, they just made the articles not fitting their agenda buried deep in their websites, and on their TV channel they don't report it, or just quickly mention it on their non opinion segments.
I recommend the newsletter The Flipside [1] by Annafi Wahed. She and the team are doing an amazing job bringing the two sides together.
Shout out to Annafi– how are you all doing there?!
[1] https://www.theflipside.io/
Shout out to Annafi– how are you all doing there?!
[1] https://www.theflipside.io/
"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."
I've noticed this as well. Going from WaPo to Breitbart (or vice versa) is like going to an alternate world. When they are talking about the same thing often they are doing so in a belittling manner (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/13/safety-pin-ant...). I feel like the tone taken by MSM outlets like WaPo and the NYT has become harsher and more condescending, but it could just be me paying closer attention to it.
Bias by exclusion doesn't get talked about as much as it should. One way you can tell when a media establishment doesn't like something is that they do what they can to ignore it. During the Dem primaries it had become a meme in some left wing communities the length the MSM was going to ignore Bernie and his popularity. Another popular example is how Noam Chomsky is largely shunned by the MSM.
I've noticed this as well. Going from WaPo to Breitbart (or vice versa) is like going to an alternate world. When they are talking about the same thing often they are doing so in a belittling manner (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/13/safety-pin-ant...). I feel like the tone taken by MSM outlets like WaPo and the NYT has become harsher and more condescending, but it could just be me paying closer attention to it.
Bias by exclusion doesn't get talked about as much as it should. One way you can tell when a media establishment doesn't like something is that they do what they can to ignore it. During the Dem primaries it had become a meme in some left wing communities the length the MSM was going to ignore Bernie and his popularity. Another popular example is how Noam Chomsky is largely shunned by the MSM.
Modern journalism is about covering the most important stories...
With a pillow...
Until they go away.
With a pillow...
Until they go away.
www.allsides.com
They compare similar headlines and also show you what you might have missed because one side doesn't even surface the headline
Edit: this article is about allsides, if you read it
They compare similar headlines and also show you what you might have missed because one side doesn't even surface the headline
Edit: this article is about allsides, if you read it
On Facebook it’s even worse. I’d you follow every political party plus some popular figures on every side during an election, you get nothing but extremism from every side. Literal right wing nazis as well as “burn it all down” leftists, at least a few years ago before I deleted my account.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives.
The coverage/focus is the perspective.
The coverage/focus is the perspective.
> The border crisis is a good example of this.
In my experience, the biggest contributor to the echo chambers is a lack of memory.
I do not think people's memories are bad, but rather they willfully ignore the other party's position, never learned it in the first place, or are justifying it because their party is in power. This is what centrists frequently get mocked at "both sides" about. They aren't saying "oh both sides are trying to stage an insurrection" they are saying "both sides are not going to let immigrants across the border" (but it'll be generalized to everything being both sided).
I think the way to cure this is also the way to make parties better. Criticism. We should always critique our parties to make them better. Unless you believe they are perfect already and getting direct commands from god, it is deserving of criticism. But we've encouraged a culture where criticism isn't (effectively) allowed. It is allowed by certain people who speak in a certain way, but not for the average person. (e.g. if you are speaking to someone you don't know that well and politics are brought up and you criticize something x party recently did it will be presumed you are of the opposing side). I believe part of this is because we are comparing politicians and parties rather than judging them independently (this is also why I'm a big supporter of Cardinal voting as opposed to the common Ordinal propositions).
This is essentially the root of whataboutism. The classic example is one I had my parents many times over the last decade. I suggest Trump should be investigated for his connections to Epstein given his frequent contact. And my dad would be like "but what about Clinton!" and my response has always been "yeah, him too." Because it isn't about parties, it is about the crime that was potentially committed. If something is bad, then it is bad if the other party does it or if your party does it. Tribes don't matter. The whataboutism is just a distraction technique.
TLDR: Don't forget the past. Criticize everyone. Stop saying "what about...".
In my experience, the biggest contributor to the echo chambers is a lack of memory.
I do not think people's memories are bad, but rather they willfully ignore the other party's position, never learned it in the first place, or are justifying it because their party is in power. This is what centrists frequently get mocked at "both sides" about. They aren't saying "oh both sides are trying to stage an insurrection" they are saying "both sides are not going to let immigrants across the border" (but it'll be generalized to everything being both sided).
I think the way to cure this is also the way to make parties better. Criticism. We should always critique our parties to make them better. Unless you believe they are perfect already and getting direct commands from god, it is deserving of criticism. But we've encouraged a culture where criticism isn't (effectively) allowed. It is allowed by certain people who speak in a certain way, but not for the average person. (e.g. if you are speaking to someone you don't know that well and politics are brought up and you criticize something x party recently did it will be presumed you are of the opposing side). I believe part of this is because we are comparing politicians and parties rather than judging them independently (this is also why I'm a big supporter of Cardinal voting as opposed to the common Ordinal propositions).
This is essentially the root of whataboutism. The classic example is one I had my parents many times over the last decade. I suggest Trump should be investigated for his connections to Epstein given his frequent contact. And my dad would be like "but what about Clinton!" and my response has always been "yeah, him too." Because it isn't about parties, it is about the crime that was potentially committed. If something is bad, then it is bad if the other party does it or if your party does it. Tribes don't matter. The whataboutism is just a distraction technique.
TLDR: Don't forget the past. Criticize everyone. Stop saying "what about...".
I started to pay really close attention to political news back in 2015/2016. There was this crazy phenomenon during the Trump administration where both sides felt like the other side was living in an alternate reality.
The truth is that news sources for each side presented completely different stories. While one side got a certain story, the other side was completely silent. So you had two groups of people who had two different sets of unrelated stories, and very rarely did they overlap. The media did an amazing job of putting each group into their own silo, making it impossible to discuss anything between groups or for any positive Trump news to ever be known to a large percentage of the population.
The truth is that news sources for each side presented completely different stories. While one side got a certain story, the other side was completely silent. So you had two groups of people who had two different sets of unrelated stories, and very rarely did they overlap. The media did an amazing job of putting each group into their own silo, making it impossible to discuss anything between groups or for any positive Trump news to ever be known to a large percentage of the population.
I think the internet's control over what you give your attention to is a major factor that has not received enough attention, so to speak.
[deleted]
All the sources you listed are at least somewhat pro-authoritarian. Recommend reason.com to round it out.
[deleted]
I've found that looking at higher level, more commentary based news sources helps.
Some examples: Persuasion, The Dispatch, The Bulwark, and an assortment of substacks.
I get my news from Reuters with a sprinkling of fox/nytimes/reddit thrown in
Some examples: Persuasion, The Dispatch, The Bulwark, and an assortment of substacks.
I get my news from Reuters with a sprinkling of fox/nytimes/reddit thrown in
It's difficult because you're so drastically limiting your sources (to ones that are all low-quality IMO). Every time you read an article and care about the topic, just.... Google it. There are a thousand and one independent sources, Twitter threads, etc etc etc. I don't consider myself to truly understand any binary debate unless I've heard an intelligent argument on both sides; it's just not my experience that any interesting discussion has a side that's literally meaningless (though I'm perhaps begging the question by not finding eg Pizzagate "interesting").
When I was living in Canada, I managed to get myself to caucuses of Christy Clarke though I wasn't even a citizen. Still have few photos of me in a $20 Chinese suit feeling very odd in the setting of the Vancouver club.
It's amazing how much scoop you can get on both the establishment, and the opposition from first hands.
Just ask, politicians are talkative types. You are blessed with living in a country where you don't end on the bottom of a lake for asking politician a wrong question.
It's amazing how much scoop you can get on both the establishment, and the opposition from first hands.
Just ask, politicians are talkative types. You are blessed with living in a country where you don't end on the bottom of a lake for asking politician a wrong question.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives.
https://ground.news has an interface that highlights which news outlets with what general bias are covering which stories, which is sometimes fun to take a look at
https://ground.news has an interface that highlights which news outlets with what general bias are covering which stories, which is sometimes fun to take a look at
IMO: any organization employing "journalists" is engaging in mass manipulation for hire at this point (both left and right.)
Fivethirtyeight is not even remotely bipartisan. It’s hard to forget Nate’s role in spreading propaganda polls last election cycle and his reaction afterwards when it was clear they were all fake.
[deleted]
"They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives"
Check out Counterspin, from the media watchdog FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).[1]
They monitor mainstream media and critique it from a left-wing perspective.
[1] - https://fair.org/counterspin/
Check out Counterspin, from the media watchdog FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).[1]
They monitor mainstream media and critique it from a left-wing perspective.
[1] - https://fair.org/counterspin/
Seconding counterspin!
I don't always agree with them ideologically, but I find it valuable to hear a perspective on US politics & media from outside the usual Right/Center-Right binary.
I don't always agree with them ideologically, but I find it valuable to hear a perspective on US politics & media from outside the usual Right/Center-Right binary.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives
I remember seeing Twitter chatter from the right re: the Fauci email dump, and so I went on various liberal outlets to try to get the left-wing perspective, and it was complete crickets.
Especially when it's something I can't just read and form an opinion on myself (Fauci's email dump was absolutely massive), I depend on journalists to accurately summarize and contextualize primary sources. And it's really hard to get a straight take when one side won't even bother to write a "this is a nothingburger, here's why" article.
I remember seeing Twitter chatter from the right re: the Fauci email dump, and so I went on various liberal outlets to try to get the left-wing perspective, and it was complete crickets.
Especially when it's something I can't just read and form an opinion on myself (Fauci's email dump was absolutely massive), I depend on journalists to accurately summarize and contextualize primary sources. And it's really hard to get a straight take when one side won't even bother to write a "this is a nothingburger, here's why" article.
From someone else's link, this Tangle site seems pretty solid. Specifically on Fauci's emails:
https://www.readtangle.com/p/dr-anthony-fauci-emails-coronav...
https://www.readtangle.com/p/dr-anthony-fauci-emails-coronav...
Just read that and...there's nothing. Fauci's one of the most prominent people on the planet, dealing with one of the worst pandemics in recent human history, so I'd honestly expect his emails to contain way more interesting stuff than what the Tangle pulled out. If that's all there is, no wonder it's crickets from everybody except the right, who have an obvious interest in discrediting Fauci and a notable disinclination to give a shit about facts.
Thanks! I was looking for a summary as well from someone who understands that their take is just THEIR take. I find it funny that it seems like the most objective people are those that confront their subjectivity. And Isaac Saul seems to do it well here.
Was it massive? My impression was that it was exactly what you'd expect - basically a nothingburger, a few interesting tidbits, most of the sensational stuff was taken out of context and/or already known and/or flatly misrepresented.
What are some things that we should have taken away from the Fauci emails that the broader left/centrist medias missed?
What are some things that we should have taken away from the Fauci emails that the broader left/centrist medias missed?
I'm not even sure if its true since most media will barely engage with the issue. But Fauci appeared concerned that Covid-19 could potentially be the result of a gain-of-function research that artificially evolved another COVID strain to increase its effectiveness at spreading.
If true, COVID-19 is the biggest scientific fuck up of all time. Fauci had allegedly pushed to resume funding that sort of research.
Instead, the powers that be sort of dismissed it as a conspiracy theory for over a year until it was suddenly okay to talk about a few months ago.
Again, I can't even tell if any of that is true because most media outlets ignored it.
If true, COVID-19 is the biggest scientific fuck up of all time. Fauci had allegedly pushed to resume funding that sort of research.
Instead, the powers that be sort of dismissed it as a conspiracy theory for over a year until it was suddenly okay to talk about a few months ago.
Again, I can't even tell if any of that is true because most media outlets ignored it.
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.
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 reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1 ) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.
>We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. 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
Page 3187: https://www.scribd.com/document/510220252/Fauci-Emails#from_...
HN formatting is primitive, but the relevant sentence is "Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory."
>We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. 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
Page 3187: https://www.scribd.com/document/510220252/Fauci-Emails#from_...
HN formatting is primitive, but the relevant sentence is "Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory."
Notice how when you present the facts, people get really quiet. No, "Wow, I checked out the source and you appear to be right. I'm going to have to re-think these issues."
So much for intellectual integrity.
So much for intellectual integrity.
The other relevant sentences are the rest of them.
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".
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".
> full context email thread
Nobody who is dumb enough to let such a thing come into existence in the first place winds up with a career arc that takes them through a position of substantial authority at the federal level.
Politicians may be evil but they're not dumb.
Nobody who is dumb enough to let such a thing come into existence in the first place winds up with a career arc that takes them through a position of substantial authority at the federal level.
Politicians may be evil but they're not dumb.
These people here in this topic are the vectors for misinformation.
Having worked at a media outlet, it's not particularly credible that they "ignored" it. Maybe some of them did.
But if the Washington Post and Buzzfeed (who are also, uh, media sources themselves) FOIA'ed 3200 pages of Fauci emails, there's a zero percent chance - zero - that someone from a bunch of orgs didn't at least take a look.
The reason it looks like they "ignored" it is because they didn't see a story to report. Which is how the process should work.
So if there were a Fauci email saying, "Yeah, we probably created covid, whoops" there's a zero percent chance you wouldn't see at least someone linking to the email in question. Do you see those links? There you go.
But if the Washington Post and Buzzfeed (who are also, uh, media sources themselves) FOIA'ed 3200 pages of Fauci emails, there's a zero percent chance - zero - that someone from a bunch of orgs didn't at least take a look.
The reason it looks like they "ignored" it is because they didn't see a story to report. Which is how the process should work.
So if there were a Fauci email saying, "Yeah, we probably created covid, whoops" there's a zero percent chance you wouldn't see at least someone linking to the email in question. Do you see those links? There you go.
"And it's really hard to get a straight take when one side won't even bother to write a "this is a nothingburger, here's why" article. "
Gets tiring responding to the rights lies.
Gets tiring responding to the rights lies.
Google News gives you precisely this portfolio of vendors. Why would anyone subscribe to a single news vendor? I'd also advise adding WION, Al Jazeera, Axios, and The Guardian + BBC.
Al Jazeera, Guardian, BBC, etc. are all left of center by US standards, especially the Guardian (which is way left).
Some center-right outlets that are still worth reading* (and I say this as a raging leftist):
The Hill, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, The Economist
*(as in they provide both informational "what's happening" and insightful analysis without venturing into flat out fake news... as long as you avoid their editorials and comments)
I suppose those are "classically conservative" news outlets, as in "small government but with a general respect for evidence-based governance, science, and the truth". I don't know of any reputable populist-right/alt-right outlets. I don't know if there even IS a reputable populist-right/alt-right movement to begin with, but that's another discussion.
Side note: Google News (as of a year or two ago, when they revamped their algorithms) unfortunately now also gives you a bunch of worthless blogs and fake news (the literal kind) outlets. I have hundreds of sources in my "never show this source" blacklist and even then it's barely usable. That said, it's still a useful way to see different takes on the same topic. Their grouping algorithm is a lot better than their vetting algorithm. Some of those sources should just not show up for anyone.
Some center-right outlets that are still worth reading* (and I say this as a raging leftist):
The Hill, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, The Economist
*(as in they provide both informational "what's happening" and insightful analysis without venturing into flat out fake news... as long as you avoid their editorials and comments)
I suppose those are "classically conservative" news outlets, as in "small government but with a general respect for evidence-based governance, science, and the truth". I don't know of any reputable populist-right/alt-right outlets. I don't know if there even IS a reputable populist-right/alt-right movement to begin with, but that's another discussion.
Side note: Google News (as of a year or two ago, when they revamped their algorithms) unfortunately now also gives you a bunch of worthless blogs and fake news (the literal kind) outlets. I have hundreds of sources in my "never show this source" blacklist and even then it's barely usable. That said, it's still a useful way to see different takes on the same topic. Their grouping algorithm is a lot better than their vetting algorithm. Some of those sources should just not show up for anyone.
If you don't like Google News, then you can go with the next best -- Apple News.
But then you can see the consequence. Apple News has less crazy but sometimes misses entire stories. Google catches what Apple misses. For the purposes of understanding the news landscape, it is more important to know that a conversation exists and to estimate its trajectory, than it is to get correct takes.
But then you can see the consequence. Apple News has less crazy but sometimes misses entire stories. Google catches what Apple misses. For the purposes of understanding the news landscape, it is more important to know that a conversation exists and to estimate its trajectory, than it is to get correct takes.
I would if Apple ever publishes it on Android. They don't really believe in cross-platform =/
I only ever really make time for the news on the crapper. It's a nice way to compartmentalize. Plus it cleanses the soul... shit goes in, shit goes out. Current events are too depressing otherwise.
I only ever really make time for the news on the crapper. It's a nice way to compartmentalize. Plus it cleanses the soul... shit goes in, shit goes out. Current events are too depressing otherwise.
Google News is a dumpster fire. They include Sputnik and other govt propaganda sites from oppressive regimes.
It's gotten significantly worse over time. Are there better alternatives that collate news, by topic, from multiple sources?
Newsvoice was an app that tried to crowdsource that job instead of using algorithms. It very quickly became an alt-right cesspool, presumably because those are the same people who feel disenfranchised by FAKE NEWS LIBERAL MEDIA and so flock to alternative communities.
Newsvoice was an app that tried to crowdsource that job instead of using algorithms. It very quickly became an alt-right cesspool, presumably because those are the same people who feel disenfranchised by FAKE NEWS LIBERAL MEDIA and so flock to alternative communities.
I just use Feedly and select sources that I trust. There's no other way to do it.
I do not see that as a problem. Most news media is at least to some extent propaganda and basically all of it is biased. At the end of the day, if I want truth then I have to evaluate each bit of news media for its credibility whether it comes from state funded propaganda or from some supposedly impartial organization. So what I want from an aggregator is to just show me relevant content without trying to sort it by credibility. I trust myself to sort news media by credibility much more than I trust any aggregator to sort it for me.
Yes, the utility of an aggregator is not to show you correctness, but to help you survey the landscape of narratives and trajectories.
The utility of looking at multiple similar voices is to get a sense of the scale of a story, and inter-rater reliability; otherwise you have a portfolio of unweighted novelties.
The utility of looking at multiple similar voices is to get a sense of the scale of a story, and inter-rater reliability; otherwise you have a portfolio of unweighted novelties.
The Guardian and the BBC basically represent the same political faction as say the New York Times and CNN in the USA, except obviously with more focus on UK stories. You can even see the overlap when they report on stories from the other country.
Inter-rater reliability is very useful. You don't simply seek novelty, right? Not having the vocabulary to discuss the agreement and disagreement of the BBC or the Guardian would be a mistake if you want to talk about news fluency, as they have made a name for themselves in the west.
The BBC and the Guardian do differ on takes, but both are very far cry from the right-leaning outlets. Both are part of the same left-leaning echo chamber in that nobody on the right trusts either source.
Good luck getting a Breitbart/Newsmax reader to switch to even the NY Times or Reuters or AP, much less The Guardian.
Good luck getting a Breitbart/Newsmax reader to switch to even the NY Times or Reuters or AP, much less The Guardian.
I identify pretty closely with one side. But certainly there are Outrage Machines on both sides, a network of media and personalities hyping up the latest calumny that the other side committed, for views and clicks. These machines can't slow down -- even if the other side has been quiet lately, all those people need something to do and talk about. They'll find something.
Have you considered not “identifying”? Just choose your opinions on issues a la carte. Or even don’t have an opinion on a bunch of issues.
I started doing that and now I’m kind of politically homeless but oh well. I do notice that I can talk to either side now which is cool and no one automatically puts up their defenses.
I started doing that and now I’m kind of politically homeless but oh well. I do notice that I can talk to either side now which is cool and no one automatically puts up their defenses.
I went the other way: I started by outright refusing to label or identify myself politically and picking opinions a la carte, and over time most of my opinions on the things I care most about tended to converge on one political ideology, so I've started to generally identify with that ideology as a result. There's notable exceptions, which I do keep in mind, but they tend to be just exceptions.
(Of course, even then it's not simple. There's also party infighting, subparties, etc, so even if my opinion on "what the issue is" lines up, my opinion on "what the solution is" might not.)
Edit: another complication is strength of conviction. For example, standard American left/right dichotomy comes with very strong conviction about guns. I have very very weak conviction about guns. Even though I tend to agree with my ideologies' opinion on what should be done about gun control, I don't really care that much either way whether there's no gun control or super strict gun control. So while I do "identify" as my ideology here, there's clearly a disconnect from the mainstream form of it.
(Of course, even then it's not simple. There's also party infighting, subparties, etc, so even if my opinion on "what the issue is" lines up, my opinion on "what the solution is" might not.)
Edit: another complication is strength of conviction. For example, standard American left/right dichotomy comes with very strong conviction about guns. I have very very weak conviction about guns. Even though I tend to agree with my ideologies' opinion on what should be done about gun control, I don't really care that much either way whether there's no gun control or super strict gun control. So while I do "identify" as my ideology here, there's clearly a disconnect from the mainstream form of it.
I think the really frustrating thing is that these side issues for some of us (like gun control) take center stage so much and so loudly that we're effectively forced into listening to and arguing about things that are low on our personal considerations.
I don't think that makes sense unless you are particularly apathetic.
Like sure, neither of the major parties in America matches all of my opinions exactly but I still have strong opinions on a number of things, and they tend to align with a particular party.
I imagine this is the position most Americans find themselves in.
Like sure, neither of the major parties in America matches all of my opinions exactly but I still have strong opinions on a number of things, and they tend to align with a particular party.
I imagine this is the position most Americans find themselves in.
It's challenging to not identify with one "side" when the other side loudly and proudly support policies that directly harm (or would harm) many people you care about. It's natural to band together when under attack, and in fact it's really difficult not to.
> It's natural to band together when under attack
IMHO, the most inflammatory and dangerous things in our political discourse nowadays are the "we're under an existential attack (by our domestic political opponents)" narratives. Shit stirrers in both camps are enthusiastically engaging in them, and in the short term that keeps their bases enthusiastic and committed, but it leads to a vicious cycle that might actually bring about one of the feared scenarios in the medium/long term. Power play responses to the "existential threat" posed by the other side are likely to themselves be interpreted as "existential threats" by that side.
Deescalation is needed, and that's going to look like compromise that the activists/partisans are going to be really unhappy with.
IMHO, the most inflammatory and dangerous things in our political discourse nowadays are the "we're under an existential attack (by our domestic political opponents)" narratives. Shit stirrers in both camps are enthusiastically engaging in them, and in the short term that keeps their bases enthusiastic and committed, but it leads to a vicious cycle that might actually bring about one of the feared scenarios in the medium/long term. Power play responses to the "existential threat" posed by the other side are likely to themselves be interpreted as "existential threats" by that side.
Deescalation is needed, and that's going to look like compromise that the activists/partisans are going to be really unhappy with.
I can totally see that. I think the portrayal of the other side by the media is more of a parody of them than what they actually are.
As a data point. I moved to a red state and have befriended quite a few republicans. Any of them with a busy life really don’t care about the current hot button issues the media says they do. They mainly seem to want the government to leave them alone. It’s hard to fault them for that.
The only ones that care about the hot button issues are the ones that watch the news several hours a day.
As a data point. I moved to a red state and have befriended quite a few republicans. Any of them with a busy life really don’t care about the current hot button issues the media says they do. They mainly seem to want the government to leave them alone. It’s hard to fault them for that.
The only ones that care about the hot button issues are the ones that watch the news several hours a day.
Laws being passed at the state level that limit trans rights, or restrict access to reproductive medical care, or erect barriers to voting that disproportionately impact people of color are not parody, they are very real and binding.
It's fine to feel this way while acknowledging that the "other team" has gotten at least one or two issues right.
For example, lots of left-leaning Asian Americans agree that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional, which puts them at odds with many of the people they'll likely vote for.
For example, lots of left-leaning Asian Americans agree that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional, which puts them at odds with many of the people they'll likely vote for.
Sure, but I don't see a ton of legislation being passed by Republicans about affirmative action or other areas where there may be some agreement across the political spectrum. I do see dozens of bills being voted on to limit trans rights, to reduce voting access to marginalized groups, to restrict access to reproductive medical care. Their priorities are being shown very clearly by the laws they prioritize. It doesn't help much if we agree on a few things but they have no interest in pursuing policies in those areas of agreement and instead keep focusing on divisive issues over and over and over.
Speaking personally... I did this until a good friend pointed out that while I identified as independent, I basically agreed with most conservative view points. I come by my views honestly. My typical response goes like this .. I hear about something presented on the local news in a very fact based way. I form an opinion. Then I read others opinions and 9/10 times I match with the conservatives.
I mean sometimes I fit with the far left (for example, mother Jones had a great article on private prisons a while ago), but for the most part I'm a conservative.
Anyway, my friend pointed out it's disingenuous to basically always end up with conservative views and claim to be independent because you want the brownie points. And he's right.
I mean sometimes I fit with the far left (for example, mother Jones had a great article on private prisons a while ago), but for the most part I'm a conservative.
Anyway, my friend pointed out it's disingenuous to basically always end up with conservative views and claim to be independent because you want the brownie points. And he's right.
Part of the problem with this is "what is a conservative?". Democrats and Republicans are both economically right wing, pro imperialism, anti workers rights, pro the wealthy. There is no left wing major political party in the united states. The difference between the two parties is on cultural values, cultural progressives vs social conservatives. It is possible to be economically left wing, and socially conservative (roughly 25% of people fall into that group).
Well, I think I'm like most people in that I think one side is okay, but the other is absolutely evil. Definitely don't agree with my side on everything, and they're far from perfect, but I feel I have to support them because the alternative would be a genuine threat to the country.
One thing a lot of people miss is that there is a profit motive here. You can make money, sometimes a lot of money, by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant. You can find examples of people doing this on all sides, especially at the extremes where outrage and other powerful negative emotions can most easily be stirred up.
All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorship. Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much. What the outrage is about is money. While you can still speak elsewhere or on your own web site, being kicked off the majors makes it hard to monetize that speech.
Deplatforming really knocked the wind out of a burgeoning outrage-for-profit industry that had some influencers making millions by being controversy and outrage trolls on social media.
All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorship. Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much. What the outrage is about is money. While you can still speak elsewhere or on your own web site, being kicked off the majors makes it hard to monetize that speech.
Deplatforming really knocked the wind out of a burgeoning outrage-for-profit industry that had some influencers making millions by being controversy and outrage trolls on social media.
Not really. Like a recent cancel attempt was Scott Cawthon, creator of the game series Five Nights at Freddy's. His crime? Voting for trump.
No really, that's it. His games weren't political, and while he was open about who he was, he pretty much seemed to be inoffensive in practice. But since his fanbase has a lot of LGBT, they felt betrayed because he did so, and as far as i know he was definitely not trolling them or being any form of negative person apart from supporting people they disliked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1...
I can understand not wanting to support legit offensive personalities, but increasingly it will be used as a weapon to enforce proper thought.
You can't really get used to siccing the tiger of cancel culture on people, because it gets really tempting to sic it on anyone. Homophobia for example is a useful concept to make people think about why they disagree with legalizing gay marriage, or their attitudes about alternative sexualities. But it also can and has been used as a club to silence enemies or any disagreement whatsoever.
You have to keep things civil and restrained because once unrestrained, like the tiger, it can be used on and go after anyone.
No really, that's it. His games weren't political, and while he was open about who he was, he pretty much seemed to be inoffensive in practice. But since his fanbase has a lot of LGBT, they felt betrayed because he did so, and as far as i know he was definitely not trolling them or being any form of negative person apart from supporting people they disliked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/nybyo1...
I can understand not wanting to support legit offensive personalities, but increasingly it will be used as a weapon to enforce proper thought.
You can't really get used to siccing the tiger of cancel culture on people, because it gets really tempting to sic it on anyone. Homophobia for example is a useful concept to make people think about why they disagree with legalizing gay marriage, or their attitudes about alternative sexualities. But it also can and has been used as a club to silence enemies or any disagreement whatsoever.
You have to keep things civil and restrained because once unrestrained, like the tiger, it can be used on and go after anyone.
> But since his fanbase has a lot of LGBT, they felt betrayed because he did so
The LGBT community was [1] and still are violently attacked for the mere act of existing. The idea that people's political beliefs, what, don't affect other people who live in that country? Is insane.
Voting is a political act which affects others. If someone votes for a politician who gives cover and support to a group which - as an example - believes atheists are unfit to have the right to vote - then they are voting to strip the right to vote from me and I do not and will not support them or their personal enterprises.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
The LGBT community was [1] and still are violently attacked for the mere act of existing. The idea that people's political beliefs, what, don't affect other people who live in that country? Is insane.
Voting is a political act which affects others. If someone votes for a politician who gives cover and support to a group which - as an example - believes atheists are unfit to have the right to vote - then they are voting to strip the right to vote from me and I do not and will not support them or their personal enterprises.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
Reading about Trump on this, he seems to flipflop more than be hateful or anything; in one breath he supports same sex marriage, in another he restricts certain federal aspects like gender dysphoric individuals being allowed in the military. The actual content of what he did for LGBT seems to be a minor negative mostly surrounding limiting federal power over employment; he refused to put up any fight against same sex marriage and there's a lot of "well it could LEAD to this" going on.
I don't think this is a cancellable offense. I think if you are going to sanction someone for voting, it has to be real and clear danger of present harm, not "they are republicans, you know they hate us."
Like, if that's the case, why not just sanction everyone who voted for him?
I don't think this is a cancellable offense. I think if you are going to sanction someone for voting, it has to be real and clear danger of present harm, not "they are republicans, you know they hate us."
Like, if that's the case, why not just sanction everyone who voted for him?
> in one breath he supports same sex marriage, in another he restricts certain federal aspects like gender dysphoric individuals being allowed in the military
These are incredibly different issues. For me personally, given that we ought to only have a small peace time army and we currently have lots of volunteers I support only accepting the strongest, buffets, most agile soldiers which 99/100 times will be a mostly male force.
When we have a war, then we can talk about adding more people, but fighting a war or being in the army is not a right and frankly the army is too big.
Now whether those men are homosexual or not is immaterial, but trans soldiers would require higher costs and more lifetime healthcare costs.
These are incredibly different issues. For me personally, given that we ought to only have a small peace time army and we currently have lots of volunteers I support only accepting the strongest, buffets, most agile soldiers which 99/100 times will be a mostly male force.
When we have a war, then we can talk about adding more people, but fighting a war or being in the army is not a right and frankly the army is too big.
Now whether those men are homosexual or not is immaterial, but trans soldiers would require higher costs and more lifetime healthcare costs.
It's irrelevant whether this is a Trump thing, a Biden thing or a Bernie Sanders thing. Politics effects people's lives. This attitude that you can vote for candidates or policies which would destroy other people's lives and not be criticized is some entitled privilege.
Being "cancelled" isn't some autonomous process, it's not a button that gets pushed it's people reading about an issue and making a personal decision they're entitled to make. What I do with my free time and money, and who I choose to support is my decision to make. Not yours.
Being "cancelled" isn't some autonomous process, it's not a button that gets pushed it's people reading about an issue and making a personal decision they're entitled to make. What I do with my free time and money, and who I choose to support is my decision to make. Not yours.
[deleted]
> The idea that people's political beliefs, what, don't affect other people who live in that country? Is insane.
Yes, that is insane, but I don't think the person you're replying to or the FNAF guy believe that. It sounds like Mr. FNAF might actually be opposed to Trump to some extent on LGBT issues. However, he feels more strongly about other things (USA-China relations, abortion), and he, like all of us, only gets two choices. So he chose the mix of good and bad stuff that he thought was better than the other mix of good and bad stuff. I disagree with him so I voted the other way, but I'm not going to hold him accountable for everything Trump says or does, and I hope I am not held accountable for everything Biden says or does.
Presidents cause unnecessary death and suffering without exception. That's not to say that "everything's a gray area so nothing matters", rather it means that you can't just take one issue and be like "I can't imagine how you would vote for somebody who believes this". Maybe the other option was somebody who is ~3% more likely to start a bad war, for example. Or 3% more likely to lose an inevitable war. I might take a bible-thumping evangelical with a slightly higher chance of winning WWII over somebody with exactly my ethics in office with less strategic acumen. It depends on the actual degree of difference. I'd have to assign weights to things and sum them up, because it's democracy and that's what you do.
Yes, that is insane, but I don't think the person you're replying to or the FNAF guy believe that. It sounds like Mr. FNAF might actually be opposed to Trump to some extent on LGBT issues. However, he feels more strongly about other things (USA-China relations, abortion), and he, like all of us, only gets two choices. So he chose the mix of good and bad stuff that he thought was better than the other mix of good and bad stuff. I disagree with him so I voted the other way, but I'm not going to hold him accountable for everything Trump says or does, and I hope I am not held accountable for everything Biden says or does.
Presidents cause unnecessary death and suffering without exception. That's not to say that "everything's a gray area so nothing matters", rather it means that you can't just take one issue and be like "I can't imagine how you would vote for somebody who believes this". Maybe the other option was somebody who is ~3% more likely to start a bad war, for example. Or 3% more likely to lose an inevitable war. I might take a bible-thumping evangelical with a slightly higher chance of winning WWII over somebody with exactly my ethics in office with less strategic acumen. It depends on the actual degree of difference. I'd have to assign weights to things and sum them up, because it's democracy and that's what you do.
Running a gay bar in New York City wasn't illegal in 1969.
The Stonewall Inn was effectively a brothel with mafia protection, not a gay version of Cheers.
The Stonewall Inn was effectively a brothel with mafia protection, not a gay version of Cheers.
Homosexual behavior was branded disorderly conduct and liquor licenses were revoked as a consequence. So yes, it was effectively illegal if you didn’t bribe the cops. People were arrested because the police didn’t consider their genitals to match their clothes.
Drug deals and transactions for sex occurred at Stonewall just as they have occurred on Discord, but I’ve not seen any credible evidence that it was a primary function of the place.
It seems somewhat a habit of yours to find something bad about victims and then use that to dismiss any wrong done to them. Someone subjected to police abuse? Oh they had a criminal record, so it’s ok. Indigenous people being tortured, enslaved and slaughtered by Spain? Oh, it’s ok because some of them practiced human sacrifice. There’s no going the extra step and recognizing Spain was in the middle of the Inquisition and creating their own murderous horror, or that the Spanish allied with the Aztecs to eliminate groups that didn’t have human sacrifice, or that the Spanish cruelty was applied to the people in the Caribbean as sport from Columbus. It reads like intellectual laziness.
Drug deals and transactions for sex occurred at Stonewall just as they have occurred on Discord, but I’ve not seen any credible evidence that it was a primary function of the place.
It seems somewhat a habit of yours to find something bad about victims and then use that to dismiss any wrong done to them. Someone subjected to police abuse? Oh they had a criminal record, so it’s ok. Indigenous people being tortured, enslaved and slaughtered by Spain? Oh, it’s ok because some of them practiced human sacrifice. There’s no going the extra step and recognizing Spain was in the middle of the Inquisition and creating their own murderous horror, or that the Spanish allied with the Aztecs to eliminate groups that didn’t have human sacrifice, or that the Spanish cruelty was applied to the people in the Caribbean as sport from Columbus. It reads like intellectual laziness.
> Spanish allied with the Aztecs to eliminate groups that didn’t have human sacrifice
As far as I can recall the Spanish did not ally with the Aztecs but conquered the leading faction of the Aztecs through an alliance with rival factions and effects of smallpox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire
As far as I can recall the Spanish did not ally with the Aztecs but conquered the leading faction of the Aztecs through an alliance with rival factions and effects of smallpox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire
You didn't like my comment, so you went through my post history?
Recasting criminals as innocent angels is a disinformation tactic. You don't get to accuse people of laziness when they correct the record.
Recasting criminals as innocent angels is a disinformation tactic. You don't get to accuse people of laziness when they correct the record.
Your habitual rhetoric is lazy, regardless of much you want it to be considered "correcting the record".
> His crime? Voting for trump.
> No really, that's it.
No, that's really not it. Cawthon contributed thousands of dollars to multiple Republican campaigns in 2020, including some noted hate magnets (e.g. Devin Nunes and Mitch McConnell). This naturally sparked discussion of boycotting his products, some of which was level-headed and some of which wasn't. As has happened countless times for many other vendors and issues across the political spectrum.
> No really, that's it.
No, that's really not it. Cawthon contributed thousands of dollars to multiple Republican campaigns in 2020, including some noted hate magnets (e.g. Devin Nunes and Mitch McConnell). This naturally sparked discussion of boycotting his products, some of which was level-headed and some of which wasn't. As has happened countless times for many other vendors and issues across the political spectrum.
But what exactly is this "cancel" attempt? Is he legally prohibited from expressing his views somewhere? It seems more like his former fans deciding they don't want to support him and "voting with their feet".
This guy can still produce whatever games he wants, say whatever he wants in a public forum, make his own websites declaring whatever he wants to declare, probably get on TV and talk about it, get licensure to establish a talk radio station and talk about it all day, ... He isn't legally muzzled, and he's hardly reached a point where he has no audience in society. This is the balance of free speech. You are allowed to hold and express an opinion and everyone else is too.
This guy can still produce whatever games he wants, say whatever he wants in a public forum, make his own websites declaring whatever he wants to declare, probably get on TV and talk about it, get licensure to establish a talk radio station and talk about it all day, ... He isn't legally muzzled, and he's hardly reached a point where he has no audience in society. This is the balance of free speech. You are allowed to hold and express an opinion and everyone else is too.
> But what exactly is this "cancel" attempt?
Basically it’s just like calling for a boycott and removal of apps and removal from social media platforms.
It’s not calling for execution, just for reducing the person’s ability to communicate and/or make a living.
This seems like a basic understanding of what “cancelling” is although it gets spun up quite a bit because lots of people like arguing about it.
But I think it’s a “bad thing” TM to call for boycott and removal from social media. Not that it’s illegal or shouldn’t be allowed, just that it’s dumb and people who do it are dumb.
Similar to how Tipper Gore was dumb in the 80s/90s for calling for the “cancelling” of rappers and whatnot.
Basically it’s just like calling for a boycott and removal of apps and removal from social media platforms.
It’s not calling for execution, just for reducing the person’s ability to communicate and/or make a living.
This seems like a basic understanding of what “cancelling” is although it gets spun up quite a bit because lots of people like arguing about it.
But I think it’s a “bad thing” TM to call for boycott and removal from social media. Not that it’s illegal or shouldn’t be allowed, just that it’s dumb and people who do it are dumb.
Similar to how Tipper Gore was dumb in the 80s/90s for calling for the “cancelling” of rappers and whatnot.
Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, it’s indisputable that President Trump is the single most polarizing figure in American politics at the moment. He is radioactive for a large proportion of our fellow citizens.
Trump’s positions included his belief that people should be able to be fired solely for being LGBT+. You know, like cancelled.
So, people who are or care about LGBT+ share the information that Cawthon voted in a way that could harm them. That’s not ‘siccing a tiger’ for any disagreement whatsoever.
So, people who are or care about LGBT+ share the information that Cawthon voted in a way that could harm them. That’s not ‘siccing a tiger’ for any disagreement whatsoever.
Trump was cancelled by the election, so that makes sense. People vote for lots of reasons so assuming that a voter supports every single issue is simplistic.
Imagine people not being impressed with arguments like “I don’t agree with his attempted oppression of a vulnerable group of citizens, but I sure do like his position on immigration/tariffs/capital gains tax.”
I’m not sure your point as that’s exactly what people do. I have a neighbor who is gay and voted for Trump because of gun rights. People are really diverse and it takes lots of particulars to find out why people do stuff.
It’s not a good idea to “cancel” people based on a single characteristic.
It’s not a good idea to “cancel” people based on a single characteristic.
If that characteristic were bad enough (a genocidaire as an extreme example) and your potential survival and wellbeing hinged upon it, I think you'd change your mind about how good of an idea it was.
Ballots are secret in the Unites States. Therefore this person must have vocally supported Trump. Therefore you are being misleading about what incited his former fans.
yeah, well he gave money to him rather. My mistake. About the same difference imo, contributions are limited to the point that at best you can say its a vote +1.
My point remains. You are deliberately minimizing his support for Trump, his support for other anti-gay politicians and his political statements to make it seem like people were against him over his quiet political preferences. If you try to influence politics and use your platform/money to do so then you absolutely should expect some sort of response, if only from your partisan opposition.
I think that two things can be true at the same time: there are people piling on rage about “cancel culture” to gain following/money; cancel culture is real and a bad thing.
Similar to how I think that racism is bad and systemic and must be eliminated and there are people who make a good living on raging about stuff. People building on a cause doesnt mean that the cause is bad.
Similar to how I think that racism is bad and systemic and must be eliminated and there are people who make a good living on raging about stuff. People building on a cause doesnt mean that the cause is bad.
> make money [...] by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant.
I think you have summarised both the nature of the US "information economy" and the state of political discourse in the US.
I think you have summarised both the nature of the US "information economy" and the state of political discourse in the US.
When you want to know why Fox News does anything it does, just take a look at it's marketshare [1]. That's why.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-networ...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-networ...
I couldn't fully see what was posted in the article since it was wanting me to sign in or something, but I will assume that it was showing Fox had a larger market share than the alternatives.
The reason why is NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc are far more in competition with each other than Fox is with them. There are no major right of center competitors to Fox. This results in most right of center tv news watchers going with Fox. If there was only one left of center news channel Fox would closer to even with it.
The reason why is NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc are far more in competition with each other than Fox is with them. There are no major right of center competitors to Fox. This results in most right of center tv news watchers going with Fox. If there was only one left of center news channel Fox would closer to even with it.
I think this is the real export behind the phenomenon of social memia:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488950
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488950
[deleted]
>Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much.
>cen·sor (sĕn′sər)
>1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and *to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.*
Being authorized by twitter to do it on twitter is still censorship. A simple non-political example: censor bars on nudity in media, literally labelled 'censored': https://duckduckgo.com/?q=censored&iax=images&ia=images
The mental gymnastics to excuse censorship by private entities when it's done to the "correct" targets or for the "correct" reasons is infuriating.
Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter who is doing it.
>cen·sor (sĕn′sər)
>1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and *to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.*
Being authorized by twitter to do it on twitter is still censorship. A simple non-political example: censor bars on nudity in media, literally labelled 'censored': https://duckduckgo.com/?q=censored&iax=images&ia=images
The mental gymnastics to excuse censorship by private entities when it's done to the "correct" targets or for the "correct" reasons is infuriating.
Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter who is doing it.
That makes censorship a basically meaningless concept, since any exercise of one's property rights to deny a soap box to anyone now counts as censorship. It makes access to privately owned media an entitlement.
Censorship historically means the initiation of force by the state (in the form of bans, fines, arrests, etc.) to suppress speech. There's very little of that in the USA outside certain well known areas like child porn or explicit personal threats of violence.
Censorship historically means the initiation of force by the state (in the form of bans, fines, arrests, etc.) to suppress speech. There's very little of that in the USA outside certain well known areas like child porn or explicit personal threats of violence.
> Censorship historically means the initiation of force by the state
No, it doesn't, it historically means action by any locus of institutional power to control speech (and, before and directly inspiring that, specifically the review by particular officials of the Roman Catholic Church in the process of pre-publication review of material to assure it was free of doctrinal error.)
No, it doesn't, it historically means action by any locus of institutional power to control speech (and, before and directly inspiring that, specifically the review by particular officials of the Roman Catholic Church in the process of pre-publication review of material to assure it was free of doctrinal error.)
Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech
Since when? You're attempting to give default context to a word that has none.
Somehow, api, I doubt that you'd be attempting that redefinition if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were silencing people and organizations of the Left.
Since when? You're attempting to give default context to a word that has none.
Somehow, api, I doubt that you'd be attempting that redefinition if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were silencing people and organizations of the Left.
No need for the hypothetical — that happens regularly, and people on the left criticize them for it. They just don't often describe it as "censorship".
Also, to add a bit of context: the top performing posts on Facebook are almost exclusively far-right demagoguery. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
Also, to add a bit of context: the top performing posts on Facebook are almost exclusively far-right demagoguery. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
that happens regularly
It happens in a token way in infrequent and extreme circumstances. But there's nothing even remotely comparable to the fact that Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter, that numerous internet powers worked together to shut down Parler, that the NY Post was locked out of Twitter for reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, etc.
the top performing posts on Facebook are almost exclusively far-right demagoguery
Popularity despite censorship just goes to show how the operators of Facebook are in a different narrative bubble than a sizable portion of their users. The notion that Ben Shapiro is far-right is just demagoguery of your own. Shapiro is a pretty benign and centrist-sympathetic conservative.
It happens in a token way in infrequent and extreme circumstances. But there's nothing even remotely comparable to the fact that Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter, that numerous internet powers worked together to shut down Parler, that the NY Post was locked out of Twitter for reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, etc.
the top performing posts on Facebook are almost exclusively far-right demagoguery
Popularity despite censorship just goes to show how the operators of Facebook are in a different narrative bubble than a sizable portion of their users. The notion that Ben Shapiro is far-right is just demagoguery of your own. Shapiro is a pretty benign and centrist-sympathetic conservative.
[deleted]
Yep. Look at it this way: the same Republicans who whine about cancel culture went ahead and stripped one of their own, Liz Cheney, of her committee positions merely for the crime of daring to oppose Trump. That should tell you all you need to know about their hypocrisy.
edit: I guess I hit a nerve, lol
edit: I guess I hit a nerve, lol
Liz Cheney was in party leadership. She was unable to lead since she couldn't stop attacking her own party members. That is no different than firing somebody for failing to do their job which nobody would consider the same thing as canceling.
Trying to end a career of people because they donated to some politician or said some inappropriate years ago (that very often was accepted back then) is completely different.
Trying to end a career of people because they donated to some politician or said some inappropriate years ago (that very often was accepted back then) is completely different.
Deplatforming targeted one side of the political tribal war much more than the other, it was not just some politically neutral phenomenon that only targeted grifters.
I think this is missing the darker point, which is that the main stream media along with the political parties that support them, are the the echo chamber. It’s not that we are caught in an echo chamber, rather it’s the information from mass media corporations that has created the echo chamber. If anything, to break out so to speak, is perhaps as easy as simply turning off all news, and paying more attention directly to what politicians are saying.
> I think this is missing the darker point, which is that the main stream media along with the political parties that support them, are the the echo chamber.
They are part of the echo chamber. They aren't the echo chamber. Social media does a fantastic job of demonstrating that people naturally construct their own echo chambers. We tend to judge the main stream media & polities without appreciating a context where they don't exist. It's increasingly clear that for all their ills, they do deliver, albeit in a flawed and limited degree, on their espoused objectives.
They're terrible, except as compared to all the alternatives.
They are part of the echo chamber. They aren't the echo chamber. Social media does a fantastic job of demonstrating that people naturally construct their own echo chambers. We tend to judge the main stream media & polities without appreciating a context where they don't exist. It's increasingly clear that for all their ills, they do deliver, albeit in a flawed and limited degree, on their espoused objectives.
They're terrible, except as compared to all the alternatives.
Better to pay attention to what politicians are doing rather than what they are saying. Take a look at who donates to their campaigns, how they vote, and who they hang out with on a regular basis.
An underrated way to get out of your echo chamber is to actually talk to people in person. I lean fairly conservative, while my wife and her friends are very liberal. Whenever we happen to talk about political topics, most of the time we end up understanding where each other are coming from, even if we still don't agree.
Perhaps your political viewpoints are fairly mild compared to mainstream conservative discourse? It's difficult to have civil discourse with someone who says your identify (or the identify of those you love) should be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted by the state. That's been a core tenet of conservative politics and policy for several years now and I do not have the intellectual tools nor the emotional strength to find common ground with people who view the world that way.
I think a large bit of conservative viewpoint today is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage.
I don't at all care what you do with your life, and really I'd like it if you gave me the same courtesy.
But, if you believe that because I consider myself more conservative than not, I must then hate your lifestyle, how can we ever come to a happy coexistence?
I don't at all care what you do with your life, and really I'd like it if you gave me the same courtesy.
But, if you believe that because I consider myself more conservative than not, I must then hate your lifestyle, how can we ever come to a happy coexistence?
I don't think you hate anyone. I know that millions of voters reliably vote for candidates who are outspoken about oppressing specific groups of people, and who introduce legislation and vote in support of legislation that targets specific groups of people.
I'm glad you don't care what I do with my life. If you vote for candidates that legislate in ways that do restrict my life, I ask that you please stop.
I'm glad you don't care what I do with my life. If you vote for candidates that legislate in ways that do restrict my life, I ask that you please stop.
I replied below to another comment, but that reply fits here as well.
> This assumes that everyday conservatives believe in the republican representatives that end up in power. I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?
> Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.
> How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?
> The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.
> This assumes that everyday conservatives believe in the republican representatives that end up in power. I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?
> Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.
> How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?
> The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.
Impassionata(1)
You could not have more completely proven his point.
Well I am conservative and don't believe that so maybe you should consider talking to more conservatives.
Well, but do you vote for conservative candidate that may believe it?
So maybe a person is believes in X, but if they continue to vote for candidates or parties actively promoting "not X", you can understand why this advice rings hollow.
So maybe a person is believes in X, but if they continue to vote for candidates or parties actively promoting "not X", you can understand why this advice rings hollow.
The liberal viewpoint is vastly different from the conservative viewpoint, but only if we find a way to communicate and find common ground will we ever hope to move forward together as a nation. Seeing your political opponent as irredeemable is the first step towards sectarianism, which can easily lead to war.
I lean to the right, and yet regularly talk to and see the humanity in liberals on a pretty regular basis. We are all people, even if we see things differently.
I lean to the right, and yet regularly talk to and see the humanity in liberals on a pretty regular basis. We are all people, even if we see things differently.
If a major political party prioritizes limiting the rights and freedoms of entire groups, how can we expect to find common ground with them? If you are asking people who are directly impacted by these laws to find the humanity in their oppressors, you are asking for the impossible.
The fundamental purpose of law is to place limitations on the allowed behavior of other people. The lines between what behavior is right and wrong varies from people to people and group to group, hence why we have democracy to try to form a consensus.
There is a stark, obvious and undeniable difference between "other people" and narrowly defined groups of people, such as Jews, gay people, black people, immigrants or women. Many people view targeted restrictions on specific groups of people as some of our most atrocious and indefensible errors throughout history. I am one of those people.
Yes, but reality is muddy and people affect each other. Look at the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide, and see how well they correlate with the liberalization of American culture since 2012. Look at the declining rates of sex in our youth, the number of school shootings, the rise of populist politicians... If a generic goal of diversity and avoiding hurt feelings was what our country truly needed then our country would be better than ever, but its not.
You are obviously right when you look at the far right. Complete oppression is a bad thing. But swinging to the other extreme and saying that no ways of life are better than others causes social instability too.
Whether it should be government's job to do that is another matter.. I'd much prefer that our society handles such social pressures itself, though such social feedback systems seem to have broken down.
You are obviously right when you look at the far right. Complete oppression is a bad thing. But swinging to the other extreme and saying that no ways of life are better than others causes social instability too.
Whether it should be government's job to do that is another matter.. I'd much prefer that our society handles such social pressures itself, though such social feedback systems seem to have broken down.
> The fundamental purpose of law is to place limitations on the allowed behavior of other people.
Maybe the problem is just a majority forcing a minority into their beliefs?
I'm anti-government in general, so that _is_ my standpoint.
Maybe the problem is just a majority forcing a minority into their beliefs?
I'm anti-government in general, so that _is_ my standpoint.
Excellent job not understanding what the opposite side believes and why.
I know what legislation they pass. "Believing" sounds nice and fun, but legislating directly impacts the actual lives of people.
This assumes that everyday conservatives believe in the republican representatives that end up in power.
I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?
Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.
How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?
The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.
I didn't even vote in the last election as I felt un-represented. For me there was no 'greater evil' candidate. Prior I voted libertarian, but what good does that do?
Does having voted a certain way for a candidate make your beliefs ultimately responsible for the way the representative governs? In America we essentially get `choose red or blue`.
How can the subjects as complicated as everyday topics are ever be reduced to two colors!?
The problem _is_ our tyrannical democratic system.
>It's difficult to have civil discourse with someone who says your identify (or the identify of those you love) should be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted by the state. That's been a core tenet of conservative politics and policy for several years now
On the far right yes, but not in mainstream conservatism. For example, a recent poll shows that 55% of Republicans support gay marriage (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of...). And that is even putting aside the question of whether wishing for gay marriage to be illegal really constitutes a severe restriction of someone's identity or the identity of those they love.
On the far right yes, but not in mainstream conservatism. For example, a recent poll shows that 55% of Republicans support gay marriage (https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of...). And that is even putting aside the question of whether wishing for gay marriage to be illegal really constitutes a severe restriction of someone's identity or the identity of those they love.
TBH I am over political news and over biased sites on both spectrums. Too much information and too much making hay. Soo much of it isn't news - and it hamstrings any politicians able to talk to the other side when they report on the minutiae.
I sometimes think American politics has been reduced to a census ... whether people claim blue or red are strongly correlated to income, age, urban/rural and other factors.
Political divides are pretty demographic in most places (in particular, urban vs rural is a big one). It does seem particularly extreme in the US, but that may be partially down to the two party system, which encourages tribalism.
In Ireland, say, there's a pretty sharp divide on the issues (Dublin was Yes+50 in the same-sex marriage referendum, most rural constituencies were more like Yes+5-10; similar though not quite as extreme split on the abortion referendum), but there isn't even remotely as large a divide on the _parties_.
In Ireland, say, there's a pretty sharp divide on the issues (Dublin was Yes+50 in the same-sex marriage referendum, most rural constituencies were more like Yes+5-10; similar though not quite as extreme split on the abortion referendum), but there isn't even remotely as large a divide on the _parties_.
It's been like this forever and why gerrymandering is even a thing.
To break free of the sensationalized partisan news, I've switched to reading The New Paper's [0] Monday-Friday daily email + Wikipedia Current Events [1] (delivered daily via email [2]) + HN (I try to check just once a day).
I've found that when the news is less "exciting," I'm a lot less inclined to read it. I still know enough to participate in most conversations, and if something seems really important, I'll read more in other outlets. I still forget most of the news the next day (just like I did before).
Overall I feel equally informed and less stressed out and better able to focus on the things in my life that have an impact.
[0] https://thenewpaper.co/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events [2] https://dev.to/kiwicopple/daily-email-of-wikipedia-s-current...
I've found that when the news is less "exciting," I'm a lot less inclined to read it. I still know enough to participate in most conversations, and if something seems really important, I'll read more in other outlets. I still forget most of the news the next day (just like I did before).
Overall I feel equally informed and less stressed out and better able to focus on the things in my life that have an impact.
[0] https://thenewpaper.co/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events [2] https://dev.to/kiwicopple/daily-email-of-wikipedia-s-current...
The elephant in the room is that this sort of enlightened centrism, while it sounds noble, rests on several ill-formed assumptions.
The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
The third assumption is that being at the center or having this detachment from either side is a political position in and of itself. I think it’s too simplistic to say you’ll be the net sum of whatever each side puts out, but you’re taking a position all the same.
You’re not obligated to give equal credence to the opposing side on a number of issues. At best it will make you more detached from politics over time, splitting hairs over policy stances at the voting booth instead of more impactful grassroots political action.
The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
The third assumption is that being at the center or having this detachment from either side is a political position in and of itself. I think it’s too simplistic to say you’ll be the net sum of whatever each side puts out, but you’re taking a position all the same.
You’re not obligated to give equal credence to the opposing side on a number of issues. At best it will make you more detached from politics over time, splitting hairs over policy stances at the voting booth instead of more impactful grassroots political action.
Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that.
That enlightened centrism subreddit listed below is up there with the most toxic sub reddits I've seen on reddit where people "dunk" on the idea that anyone would be so brave to have the gall not to conform precisely with progressive rhetoric on anything. It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side.
Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools the further you get to their extremes and the best outcome for partisan politics is to give either of those groups as little power as possible. It's not some abstract goal of evenly seeing both sides on the issues.
That enlightened centrism subreddit listed below is up there with the most toxic sub reddits I've seen on reddit where people "dunk" on the idea that anyone would be so brave to have the gall not to conform precisely with progressive rhetoric on anything. It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side.
Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools the further you get to their extremes and the best outcome for partisan politics is to give either of those groups as little power as possible. It's not some abstract goal of evenly seeing both sides on the issues.
I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties.
The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?).
The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.
The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?).
The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.
It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
I agree and imagine that the overwhelming majority of people do
> feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
Yet our system only allows for `pick red or blue`. In this case the control of the minority by the majority on what are incredibly complex topics is filtered down to a binary decision.
In what world is our current system reasonable!?
Our current system is a tyrannical mess, and it's no surprise everyone is polarized to the max under it.
> feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
Yet our system only allows for `pick red or blue`. In this case the control of the minority by the majority on what are incredibly complex topics is filtered down to a binary decision.
In what world is our current system reasonable!?
Our current system is a tyrannical mess, and it's no surprise everyone is polarized to the max under it.
You may be right about orders of magnitude, but I think there is an important distinction to the relative loudness of these two groups though.
There is a large silent majority of people who distrust both parties and ignores and avoid politics.
However I think the "trusts both" group tends to be overrepresented in the media, government and political classes because it has utility to them: hard to work with or get interviews or jobs with politicians that you've called disingenuous or bought by special interests - even when it is clearly the case.
I think there is a breed of people who watch the West Wing and see it as a utopian possible reality ("Federalists"?) and they prioritize the power and respectability of the state as more important than the results of political actions. I believe these people self-sort into these roles and are able to advance in these roles more easily because of this ideology.
There is a large silent majority of people who distrust both parties and ignores and avoid politics.
However I think the "trusts both" group tends to be overrepresented in the media, government and political classes because it has utility to them: hard to work with or get interviews or jobs with politicians that you've called disingenuous or bought by special interests - even when it is clearly the case.
I think there is a breed of people who watch the West Wing and see it as a utopian possible reality ("Federalists"?) and they prioritize the power and respectability of the state as more important than the results of political actions. I believe these people self-sort into these roles and are able to advance in these roles more easily because of this ideology.
I would beg to differ. Anecdotally I have overheard a lot of people expressing frustration that there are only two real choices in political debates. There are a lot of "nonpartisans" out there but they are suppressed by ignorant and xenophobic politicos on both sides
I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that the rational position is the compromise in the middle. I have heard people argue that it's the only politically available option in one circumstance or another, which makes sense because the structure of American democracy creates a strong pressure for there to be two parties of approximately equal power.
When I talk to people I generally hear people taking specific positions on specific issues, which often but not always aligns with their preferred political party's position on that issue.
When I talk to people I generally hear people taking specific positions on specific issues, which often but not always aligns with their preferred political party's position on that issue.
Most people I know don't even trust their own political party. I have a hard time believing there's many people that actually trust both.
> The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.
As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way.
For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also blindly agreeing with anything else they come up with even if it's wrong. It kind of negates any good ideas because, to me, they don't come from a point of reasoning or critical thinking, but from tribalism.
I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific.
However, there are some good ideas financially coming from the (American) right that I think would work well for the US. I say this living in (and enjoying) Germany, which is largely what the left views as "socialism".
As well, living in San Francisco for a few years prior, there are of course a lot of good humanitarian efforts coming from people mostly based on the left - including renewable energy, for example, which seems to be wholly rejected by conservatives.
To me, what "makes sense" is oftentimes owned by one of the sides, and sometimes owned by neither. I'm often found to be politically homeless, and thus why I call myself a centrist - usually my viewpoints have some relation to one of the parties' extreme standpoints but generally nowhere near the fanaticism they exude (e.g. I'm what the Twitter left calls a "trans-medicalist", whereas the right tends to completely deny the humanity of trans individuals entirely).
I don't think people who claim that all issues can have a solution "somewhere in the middle" are centrist. I think they're undecided, uninformed, weak-thinkers, or people pleasers - or some mixture of those things. I myself have strong, solid opinions that oftentimes don't align with either side - hence why I call myself a centrist.
As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way.
For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also blindly agreeing with anything else they come up with even if it's wrong. It kind of negates any good ideas because, to me, they don't come from a point of reasoning or critical thinking, but from tribalism.
I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific.
However, there are some good ideas financially coming from the (American) right that I think would work well for the US. I say this living in (and enjoying) Germany, which is largely what the left views as "socialism".
As well, living in San Francisco for a few years prior, there are of course a lot of good humanitarian efforts coming from people mostly based on the left - including renewable energy, for example, which seems to be wholly rejected by conservatives.
To me, what "makes sense" is oftentimes owned by one of the sides, and sometimes owned by neither. I'm often found to be politically homeless, and thus why I call myself a centrist - usually my viewpoints have some relation to one of the parties' extreme standpoints but generally nowhere near the fanaticism they exude (e.g. I'm what the Twitter left calls a "trans-medicalist", whereas the right tends to completely deny the humanity of trans individuals entirely).
I don't think people who claim that all issues can have a solution "somewhere in the middle" are centrist. I think they're undecided, uninformed, weak-thinkers, or people pleasers - or some mixture of those things. I myself have strong, solid opinions that oftentimes don't align with either side - hence why I call myself a centrist.
Regarding "I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."
Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media, they might imply or present thinking from the right as "uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."
I take the "How informed about..." quizzes at Pew regularly. And I regularly score in the top group across the board. And I identify as conservative, after growing up as blue collar, patriotic, and somewhat liberal.
Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media, they might imply or present thinking from the right as "uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."
I take the "How informed about..." quizzes at Pew regularly. And I regularly score in the top group across the board. And I identify as conservative, after growing up as blue collar, patriotic, and somewhat liberal.
I think perhaps the reason enlightened centrism gets its reputation is because there is no well-formed critique.
There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist."
Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?
There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist."
Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?
[deleted]
Wow, all the confirmation one needs for the first two paragraphs of your post is to read the replies you got.
I'm reminded a bit of the Futurama where Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutral planet :)
I'm reminded a bit of the Futurama where Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutral planet :)
> It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side.
I think this holds well beyond that particular subreddit. I think this is horseshoe theory in action. The klansman isn't the real threat, it's the moderate who won't toe the progressive line.
I think this holds well beyond that particular subreddit. I think this is horseshoe theory in action. The klansman isn't the real threat, it's the moderate who won't toe the progressive line.
Agreed. The center is the glue the holds the populace in check. We need these people. Once the center is eroded things will not go well.
Here's an interesting article from a great blog that tries to use a game theory perspective to quantify your belief and makes a really interesting argument in agreement with you:
https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
Once the center is eroded things will not go well... for centrists. The idea that both 'extremes' are equivalently bad neglects the real differences in worldview that create a sense of political urgency. It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.
> It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.
That’s true for very few people. At the same time, injecting life-and-death urgency into politics deprives the vast majority of a sane and orderly society, which is extremely important as well.
Look, you’re not the first one to think that “politics is so serious we need to treat it extremely seriously.” I come from a part of the world where politics is “serious.” The Islamists are convinced that society must be dissolved and reformed as the Ummah. Others have dreams of creating a socialist secular utopia out of that same deeply Muslim community. For everyone it’s life or death business. (Especially in a third world country where poverty means that few people have much margin.) Elections are followed by rioting and mass protests. But this doesn’t actually lead to justice. Instead, it’s just animosity, unrest, and bitterness.
One of the things I loved about America, as an immigrant, was that elections were boring. I hate that my kids may never know that America and will have to grow up in this new one.
That’s true for very few people. At the same time, injecting life-and-death urgency into politics deprives the vast majority of a sane and orderly society, which is extremely important as well.
Look, you’re not the first one to think that “politics is so serious we need to treat it extremely seriously.” I come from a part of the world where politics is “serious.” The Islamists are convinced that society must be dissolved and reformed as the Ummah. Others have dreams of creating a socialist secular utopia out of that same deeply Muslim community. For everyone it’s life or death business. (Especially in a third world country where poverty means that few people have much margin.) Elections are followed by rioting and mass protests. But this doesn’t actually lead to justice. Instead, it’s just animosity, unrest, and bitterness.
One of the things I loved about America, as an immigrant, was that elections were boring. I hate that my kids may never know that America and will have to grow up in this new one.
Wether or not one side is better or worse than the other is besides the point.
"A house divided against itself can not stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln
The centrist who vote with rationality as the primary mechanism of choice are the third leg that holds up the democracy. They are the lifeline connecting the two sides. We can not survive with out them. Once they are gone we are left only with dogmatic ideology.
"A house divided against itself can not stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln
The centrist who vote with rationality as the primary mechanism of choice are the third leg that holds up the democracy. They are the lifeline connecting the two sides. We can not survive with out them. Once they are gone we are left only with dogmatic ideology.
I agree. I think one way to demonstrate that is to consider a particularly contentious debate. Say, the Palestine-Israel conflict. If you're on the side of Palestine, agreeing with Israel only leads to more death and hate. If you're on the side of Israel, agreeing with Palestine only leads to more death and hate. The center doesn't know what to think-- it's complicated but it definitely needs to end. So the centrist point is almost pointless. If your on either end, then they are simply protecting injustice. Same thing with people who were lukewarm about civil rights. The ones who said "yeah blacks should get rights but there are a lot of people against it that deserve a say" we now look at as wrong. In a task life scenario, necessity sometimes demands a choice be made
False dichotomy. Strawman.
Just because someone is centrist doesn't mean they don't know what to think. It usually means they have a nuanced position on an issue that doesn't conveniently fit into a box that is red or blue.
Just because someone is centrist doesn't mean they don't know what to think. It usually means they have a nuanced position on an issue that doesn't conveniently fit into a box that is red or blue.
All the people I know who like to think about issues deeply generally hate to be described as left or right and much prefer to reject labels.
Sometimes I'm not sure they actually can't be labelled, and sometimes the difficulty in labelling them comes from an overall lack of coherency rather than a truly uncategorisable position, but, I don't know anyone who calls themselves a centrist and could talk about politics in any depth. Centrism seems mostly, at least where I live, to be what people call themselves when they just support the status quo and wish politics would go away.
Sometimes I'm not sure they actually can't be labelled, and sometimes the difficulty in labelling them comes from an overall lack of coherency rather than a truly uncategorisable position, but, I don't know anyone who calls themselves a centrist and could talk about politics in any depth. Centrism seems mostly, at least where I live, to be what people call themselves when they just support the status quo and wish politics would go away.
As an example, Sweden where I live has 8 major political parties and during elections years there are usually tests where one can compare each parties political program to ones own political views. For me, the lowest rated for me sit at 45% and highest sit around 60% (which wasn't the centrist party).
I would definitively not call myself a centrist, nor left or right. There is some good goals even in the far left and far right, but also a lot of things I strongly disagree with to the point of alienation. Centrism simply just an other political agenda with its own set of prioritized demographics and intentions.
I would definitively not call myself a centrist, nor left or right. There is some good goals even in the far left and far right, but also a lot of things I strongly disagree with to the point of alienation. Centrism simply just an other political agenda with its own set of prioritized demographics and intentions.
Therein lies the problem with labels.
"I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."
~ Number 6
"I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."
~ Number 6
> The center doesn't know what to think
On the I-P and the way you've framed it, there centrist-on-this-question positions that don’t meet that description, e.g.:
“both Israel and various entities on the Palestinian side have engage in, and continue to engage in, actions which are intolerable and not excused by abuses on the other side The international community should cease aid to all offending parties so long as that continues, while engaging in dialogue aimed to a more complete resolution, with readiness to commit substantial resources to support a peaceful resolution.
On the I-P and the way you've framed it, there centrist-on-this-question positions that don’t meet that description, e.g.:
“both Israel and various entities on the Palestinian side have engage in, and continue to engage in, actions which are intolerable and not excused by abuses on the other side The international community should cease aid to all offending parties so long as that continues, while engaging in dialogue aimed to a more complete resolution, with readiness to commit substantial resources to support a peaceful resolution.
>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools
You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people.
As an aside, this portion of your statement:
>It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side.
Feels like a strawman. The existence of critique isn't a censure. It's just how rational analysis works. You find ideas and you work through them.
If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint to get above it all that's a very political position to adopt.
You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people.
As an aside, this portion of your statement:
>It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side.
Feels like a strawman. The existence of critique isn't a censure. It's just how rational analysis works. You find ideas and you work through them.
If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint to get above it all that's a very political position to adopt.
Not the OP, but I'll counter:
>You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change. And it's this all-or-nothing discussion that drives the country apart and makes for little or no common ground on major issues. The US Federal laws impact hundreds of millions of people. In most cases, this requires gray areas, exceptions, and a one-size-fits-all approach leaning to one extreme or another creates externalities and negative consequences. People who hold extreme views either don't feel these consequences, don't know them, or do not care about them. If they did, then they wouldn't be in the extreme.
For any given situation there are extremes and some path of action between the two that is optimal. Let's say an infected finger - there are extremes (do nothing, cut it off) and an optimal path (some treatment). If OP is in the "some treatment" standpoint, he or she is not advocating for inaction (inaction is actually an extreme in this case), but may be advocating for an optimal, less aggressive approach.
It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change. And it's this all-or-nothing discussion that drives the country apart and makes for little or no common ground on major issues. The US Federal laws impact hundreds of millions of people. In most cases, this requires gray areas, exceptions, and a one-size-fits-all approach leaning to one extreme or another creates externalities and negative consequences. People who hold extreme views either don't feel these consequences, don't know them, or do not care about them. If they did, then they wouldn't be in the extreme.
For any given situation there are extremes and some path of action between the two that is optimal. Let's say an infected finger - there are extremes (do nothing, cut it off) and an optimal path (some treatment). If OP is in the "some treatment" standpoint, he or she is not advocating for inaction (inaction is actually an extreme in this case), but may be advocating for an optimal, less aggressive approach.
I'm not sure how "Extreme views enacting change" => Centrism.
I was replying to OP: "Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change."
>It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change.
This position sounds fine until you realize all it has done is shift discussion away from the effectiveness and correctness of a given policy, to a pre-discussion of the reasonableness of that policy. The heuristic replaces the thing itself. "Is this an extreme position?" replaces "Is this good policy?"
This is fine when public discourse is a never-ending deluge of extreme ideas: 'should we commit genocide?' - let's not even bother working through that one.
However, in practice this position is often used to prevent or shut down discussion of social legislation aimed at fixing publicly broken but privately lucrative policy positions.
Is single-payer healthcare too extreme an idea for the states? Regardless of your answer you've likely seen this exact form of argument. It adds nothing to the discussion and creates a presumption that the status quo is correct.
The inverse position isn't 'Is single-payer healthcare good?', it's 'Is remaining on employer funded healthcare too extreme an idea for the states?' Note how the existence of the status quo makes this an uphill battle - how can what already exists be too extreme?
Everyone wants the policies they want. Being able to define the policies they do not want as 'extreme' is just an extra tool to ossify and slow legislative change. Which, again, is itself a position to take.
This position sounds fine until you realize all it has done is shift discussion away from the effectiveness and correctness of a given policy, to a pre-discussion of the reasonableness of that policy. The heuristic replaces the thing itself. "Is this an extreme position?" replaces "Is this good policy?"
This is fine when public discourse is a never-ending deluge of extreme ideas: 'should we commit genocide?' - let's not even bother working through that one.
However, in practice this position is often used to prevent or shut down discussion of social legislation aimed at fixing publicly broken but privately lucrative policy positions.
Is single-payer healthcare too extreme an idea for the states? Regardless of your answer you've likely seen this exact form of argument. It adds nothing to the discussion and creates a presumption that the status quo is correct.
The inverse position isn't 'Is single-payer healthcare good?', it's 'Is remaining on employer funded healthcare too extreme an idea for the states?' Note how the existence of the status quo makes this an uphill battle - how can what already exists be too extreme?
Everyone wants the policies they want. Being able to define the policies they do not want as 'extreme' is just an extra tool to ossify and slow legislative change. Which, again, is itself a position to take.
If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.
I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme in the sense that it has (whether real or perceived) negative externalities on a large portion of the population. Two years ago, I (and perhaps the country) would have said the PPP for paychecks would have been extreme. Given the (extreme) circumstances that occurred, it became a reasonable approach.
I would argue people that shut down dialogue are advocating for an extreme position (e.g. doing nothing and maintaining status quo can be an extreme approach in some cases).
I don't know if single-payer health care is too extreme, but any and all options should be discussed, and a reasonable course of action should be taken. I think most people agree that the current situation we have is a broken mess of half-measures. I don't think we're stuck with an either-or situation. [This feels like the most Yogi Berra thing I've ever written]
There is merit to discussing chopping off the finger or doing nothing. Both solutions are worth understanding - one avoids gangrene and the other saves the finger at the potential for the infection. Given no other choices or options available, the decision maker will have to choose one option or the other. But when other alternatives exist (e.g. modern medicine), creating a false dichotomy between the two camps yelling the loudest is not an optimal approach.
I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme in the sense that it has (whether real or perceived) negative externalities on a large portion of the population. Two years ago, I (and perhaps the country) would have said the PPP for paychecks would have been extreme. Given the (extreme) circumstances that occurred, it became a reasonable approach.
I would argue people that shut down dialogue are advocating for an extreme position (e.g. doing nothing and maintaining status quo can be an extreme approach in some cases).
I don't know if single-payer health care is too extreme, but any and all options should be discussed, and a reasonable course of action should be taken. I think most people agree that the current situation we have is a broken mess of half-measures. I don't think we're stuck with an either-or situation. [This feels like the most Yogi Berra thing I've ever written]
There is merit to discussing chopping off the finger or doing nothing. Both solutions are worth understanding - one avoids gangrene and the other saves the finger at the potential for the infection. Given no other choices or options available, the decision maker will have to choose one option or the other. But when other alternatives exist (e.g. modern medicine), creating a false dichotomy between the two camps yelling the loudest is not an optimal approach.
>If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.
>I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme
The issue is that you've begged the question in your definition: Good policy isn't extreme, therefore all policy that is extreme isn't good, therefore no extreme policy. You've just redefined extreme to mean bad - so we can't really discuss much more.
I'll propose a different definition for use here, one that accords with common use: 'Extreme', in this case, is whether or not the position is unreasonable, unmoderate, or exceedingly unusual.
With this definition we can find examples of positive extreme policy positions: We take take the abolition of slavery as an example of extreme policy. Granting women suffrage is another. Desegregation is another.
This isn't to say that all extreme policy positions are right - many, maybe most, are wrong. But digging into the trade-offs between the two requires a far more nuanced discussion than the one we're having here, because there's a lot of legal history about the relative velocity of legislative change and that's gonna take up more room than we have.
>I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme
The issue is that you've begged the question in your definition: Good policy isn't extreme, therefore all policy that is extreme isn't good, therefore no extreme policy. You've just redefined extreme to mean bad - so we can't really discuss much more.
I'll propose a different definition for use here, one that accords with common use: 'Extreme', in this case, is whether or not the position is unreasonable, unmoderate, or exceedingly unusual.
With this definition we can find examples of positive extreme policy positions: We take take the abolition of slavery as an example of extreme policy. Granting women suffrage is another. Desegregation is another.
This isn't to say that all extreme policy positions are right - many, maybe most, are wrong. But digging into the trade-offs between the two requires a far more nuanced discussion than the one we're having here, because there's a lot of legal history about the relative velocity of legislative change and that's gonna take up more room than we have.
The abolishment of slavery wasn’t an extreme positive position to take in pre civil war America. A truly extreme position would be granting non-white races equal rights up to and including the right to vote. Pennsylvania and New Jersey abolished slavery but walked back equal rights in voting after once passing laws to allow it.
To contrast, the ideals of the slave holders were extreme.
As for abolishing slavery, internationally both slavery and serfdom had slowly been banned by every organized headed religion and country on the European continent. It was only in the US, and then only in the Southern states that people held the extreme position of needing to enslave an entire race despite how immoral and unprofitable it was.
I say this to argue that an effective policy is rarely an extreme one. Effective policies are simply one step to the left or right of where we already stand, not a great leap into the unknown. Often, as with abolishing slavery, we already will have examples where other people experimented with the policy.
To contrast, the ideals of the slave holders were extreme.
As for abolishing slavery, internationally both slavery and serfdom had slowly been banned by every organized headed religion and country on the European continent. It was only in the US, and then only in the Southern states that people held the extreme position of needing to enslave an entire race despite how immoral and unprofitable it was.
I say this to argue that an effective policy is rarely an extreme one. Effective policies are simply one step to the left or right of where we already stand, not a great leap into the unknown. Often, as with abolishing slavery, we already will have examples where other people experimented with the policy.
There is a ton of room for movement between or beside the two extremes that are usually associated with Democrats and Republicans. And one issue voters would be able to find those points to move forward if it wasn’t an all-or-nothing situation.
I say “good” in the sense of good policy, not the moral sense. Good policy should obviously be moral but needs to be tractable and not extreme.
So yes, I would say extreme policy is bad policy, because it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. First, it’s extreme because of impacts to others. A policy wouldn’t be considered extreme if the vast majority of people agreed with it and it aligned with common sense. People often don’t agree with it because it impacts them in a negative way.
You can’t pass “extreme” policy that is extreme in the eyes of the voters without blowback of some kind and a massive swing the other way. So I’d make the argument that incremental progress would get more done in the long run. We don’t need massive change that will be unwound when one side loses control in a few years.
And the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and desegregation were not “extreme” things. They were ensuring the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for United States Citizens. They were progressive, but not extreme in their time.
And do you have reading on the relative velocity of legislative change? I’d like to see how it changed as tech evolved.
So yes, I would say extreme policy is bad policy, because it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. First, it’s extreme because of impacts to others. A policy wouldn’t be considered extreme if the vast majority of people agreed with it and it aligned with common sense. People often don’t agree with it because it impacts them in a negative way.
You can’t pass “extreme” policy that is extreme in the eyes of the voters without blowback of some kind and a massive swing the other way. So I’d make the argument that incremental progress would get more done in the long run. We don’t need massive change that will be unwound when one side loses control in a few years.
And the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and desegregation were not “extreme” things. They were ensuring the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for United States Citizens. They were progressive, but not extreme in their time.
And do you have reading on the relative velocity of legislative change? I’d like to see how it changed as tech evolved.
>If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.
Now if we could just convince most Senators to follow this principle!
Now if we could just convince most Senators to follow this principle!
> Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo.
Non sequitur.
> You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
Non sequitur.
> If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint
Strawman.
Non sequitur.
> You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.
Non sequitur.
> If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint
Strawman.
I don't think there are or could be neutral political positions, nor would it be desirable to have them.
Free speech as a sacred right means you have the absolute right to put yourself anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that one isn't right and the other side is wrong. I also think that "centrist" is a pretty meaningless term. I prefer to think of myself as more of an empiricist. I like policy that follows evidence. 90% of the time that's liberal policy. Roughly 0% of the time is that conservative policy. There's some rallying cries like $15 min wage or forgiving student loan debt that seem like foolish hills to die on, but universal healthcare, equal rights, voting rights, progressive taxation and aggressive action on climate are so blindingly obvious that anyone who questions them is wrong in my book. You have right to be wrong, but you're wrong. Saying that you oppose the poles because they are "cesspools" strongly implies you don't like the loudest proponents and aren't considering the validity of their policy.
This is how liberal policies of Oakland, California will decide how to educate their children [PDF]: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
I am not convinced, at all - this is coming from a liberal who has voted for every democratic candidate since age 18.
I am not convinced, at all - this is coming from a liberal who has voted for every democratic candidate since age 18.
Yeah I don't back every policy just because a liberal came up with it. I think racial equity in education is great and it's a thing conservatives don't seem to care about. I'm not familiar enough with this plan to say if it's a bad idea or not. I think it's a really difficult problem to solve and no one has a great solution.
> In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
The unchecked progressivism is destroying entire cities, enmasse. No one wants to live in defunded police state, and I would be pretty pissed if I owned property in Portland.
I might just vote for the republican party in the next election. I can't stand this just like I couldn't stand the prior republican administration. But, then I think about all the shitty politicians... America, you're broken. Find someone reasonable in the center that I can vote for.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
The unchecked progressivism is destroying entire cities, enmasse. No one wants to live in defunded police state, and I would be pretty pissed if I owned property in Portland.
I might just vote for the republican party in the next election. I can't stand this just like I couldn't stand the prior republican administration. But, then I think about all the shitty politicians... America, you're broken. Find someone reasonable in the center that I can vote for.
There are two centrisms that can't be confused.
The first kind of centrist examines each issue on its merits and arrives at a principled conclusion, regardless of how other people think about an issue. This kind of centrism is reasonable. This person can't really even be called a centrist. He's just non-partisan.
The second kind of centrist looks at the existing parties to an argument and averages their viewpoints: "Group A insists 2+2=4 and group B insists 2+2=6, but I'm a virtuous centrist, so I believe that 2+2=5."
I don't think anyone has any issue with the first kind of centrist. But there are far too many of the second kind.
The first kind of centrist examines each issue on its merits and arrives at a principled conclusion, regardless of how other people think about an issue. This kind of centrism is reasonable. This person can't really even be called a centrist. He's just non-partisan.
The second kind of centrist looks at the existing parties to an argument and averages their viewpoints: "Group A insists 2+2=4 and group B insists 2+2=6, but I'm a virtuous centrist, so I believe that 2+2=5."
I don't think anyone has any issue with the first kind of centrist. But there are far too many of the second kind.
Can you give an example of the second type? I see this kind of strawman argument against centrism all the time, yet I rarely see "worst of both worlds" outcomes in a political sense
During the civil rights era, there were people that said "yeah I don't like racism but it's people choice to ban blacks from their businesses. I totally empathize with you it's awful, but over turning freedom would be more awful"
That's not a centrist position. That's a position solidly entrenched in favour of right of association over other rights.
Meta comment: I'm not allowed to vote specifically on this comment. I can vote on its parent and children. Does anyone know why that might be the case?
It's probably to prevent pointless tit-for-tat downvotes from replies. eg:
1. user A makes a comment
2. user B downvotes user A for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user A's wrong
3. user A sees the downvote (or not), downvotes user B for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user B's wrong
continue ad infinitum.
1. user A makes a comment
2. user B downvotes user A for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user A's wrong
3. user A sees the downvote (or not), downvotes user B for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user B's wrong
continue ad infinitum.
I'm not the parent of this
Did you already vote on it and forgot?
Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest.
If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception.
If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust.
The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.
If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception.
If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust.
The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.
Very few people decide the value of a fetus on a binary. Some leftists say it’s always just a clump of cells, some rightists say it’s always a human life.
Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions.
In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions.
In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
> In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise.
This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience.
> You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.
This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience.
> You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.
In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. People are prone to trends as much as the market is, but the market of ideas tends to be somewhat efficient (not least because all profits from financial to business to psychic stem from people and their expectations). So the conclusion that everyone is wrong requires serious burden of proof. Doesn’t mean you can’t be contradictory and correct, it just means that’s unlikely. You can beat the market, but usually you won’t without good evidence
This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
> In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude.
> This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
Even assuming moral absolutism is valid, that very much depends on what measure you choose to apply to values that, even if they are naturally quantifiable (which I doubt for morality, even one assumes it is absolute), clearly have no obvious natural ratio-level measure, making orders of magnitude and other ratio-dependent comparisons entirely arbitrary.
> This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
Even assuming moral absolutism is valid, that very much depends on what measure you choose to apply to values that, even if they are naturally quantifiable (which I doubt for morality, even one assumes it is absolute), clearly have no obvious natural ratio-level measure, making orders of magnitude and other ratio-dependent comparisons entirely arbitrary.
Statistically, without any other data, about half of the people will be smarter than I am, and half of them won't. How can I be sure that I chose the right half to follow, especially if we're assuming that I'm average?
Regardless, I still hold that following the herd is a recipe for disaster. It is a form of the Just World Fallacy.
Regardless, I still hold that following the herd is a recipe for disaster. It is a form of the Just World Fallacy.
> Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest.
This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti...
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
The link contradicts your statement
> Most Americans support an abortion ban
Doesn't imply the same thing as
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
> Most Americans support an abortion ban
Doesn't imply the same thing as
> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
Actually, this seems like a coherent position: they believe that fetuses are somewhat like a human person, but not entirely. They should generally be protected, but in exceptional cases might not be.
Technically, one could make arguments based on genetics for the "middle" position. Something like: allowing abortion following rape puts a damper on the spread of genes that tend to lead towards rape.
That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.
That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.
Allowing abortion for purposes of eugenics is self-contradictory with the notion that life should be inviolate.
That's not self-contradictory though -- it's just good old contradiction with a different position. So a person who only holds one of those beliefs would potentially be fine, as far as self-contradiction is concerned.
Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.
Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.
> Most Americans support an abortion ban
This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.
This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.
As your example you use a weird right wing wedge issue.
How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient.
Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).
How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient.
Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).
It's a weird left wing wedge issue too. The point of a wedge is that it cleanly divides. They're thus bipartisan, almost by definition.
No, because it requires religious conservatism. Which is very much in the right sphere of the political spectrum.
Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.
Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.
The US left aligned view on this is also beyond that of most of the eu. They've basically come to differing consensi on what limits to engage, whether they be waiting periods or time periods.the US left would despise German abortion law for instance, which requires mandatory counselling about their decision.
What I see from the US is an eternal war to drag it further, regardless of its current position. Its culture war for culture wars sake.
What I see from the US is an eternal war to drag it further, regardless of its current position. Its culture war for culture wars sake.
[deleted]
TIL analysis paralysis goes by centrism
gremlinsinc(1)
I agree with you in a lot of ways, although my problem with the center is:
When Democrats want to blow out the budget by spending $10 trillion and then centrist Republicans say, "Okay, we'll do $5 trillion", there's nowhere to go besides further to the right.
is to give either of those groups as little power as possible
The only two groups that even talk about decreasing the power of all the extremists are Libertarians and Conservatives. Those people have no voice in the center. The very lack of their agreeing to keep increasing the power of government labels them as "extremists".
When Democrats want to blow out the budget by spending $10 trillion and then centrist Republicans say, "Okay, we'll do $5 trillion", there's nowhere to go besides further to the right.
is to give either of those groups as little power as possible
The only two groups that even talk about decreasing the power of all the extremists are Libertarians and Conservatives. Those people have no voice in the center. The very lack of their agreeing to keep increasing the power of government labels them as "extremists".
Historically, democrats make debt smaller and republicans larger.
Actually, nobody makes the debt smaller. They monkey with the deficit, but the debt continues to grow.
But your original claim is a naive talking point based upon who happened to be President at the time. Often, the Congress has a lot more to do with what happens spending-wise.
Clinton was a good example. The Republicans were the ones who reined in the budget under Clinton, but somehow Clinton liked to talk about how he had "balanced the budget".
But your original claim is a naive talking point based upon who happened to be President at the time. Often, the Congress has a lot more to do with what happens spending-wise.
Clinton was a good example. The Republicans were the ones who reined in the budget under Clinton, but somehow Clinton liked to talk about how he had "balanced the budget".
You mention both sides being terrible cesspools, but your concrete examples only hit out at what you deem to be progressive subreddits. One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.
> One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.
This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions:
1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others.
2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining.
The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them.
And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".
This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions:
1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others.
2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining.
The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them.
And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".
So in the issues of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, anti-lynching laws, Voting Rights what position would a centrist have taken that wouldn't have explicitly maintained white supremacy?
This is the typical bait to attack centrism: moral coercion by framing an issue so that "NO" can never be an answer.
Centrism doesn't mean indifference regarding any topic, nor does it mean "meet in the middle" on any topic.
Centrism doesn't mean indifference regarding any topic, nor does it mean "meet in the middle" on any topic.
So centrism means everything and nothing at once.
Pretty much, yes. What it means depends on context, the topic at hand, and the position of the person regarding the matter:
- Indifference - Do care, yet reject both extremer view points on left and right - Studied topic deeply and actually concluded middle ground is the best fit - Sees status quo as valid
It could mean any of these things. Therefore, it's inaccurate to conclude anything on centrists as if they are a well defined group.
Even the term centrist itself is inaccurate, as very few people would have a fully centrist view on every single topic imaginable.
Coercing somebody with a centrist view into a hard choice under the threat that otherwise you approve the "murdering of children" or some other awful consequence, is plain idiotic. It's a polarization tactic: friend or foe.
- Indifference - Do care, yet reject both extremer view points on left and right - Studied topic deeply and actually concluded middle ground is the best fit - Sees status quo as valid
It could mean any of these things. Therefore, it's inaccurate to conclude anything on centrists as if they are a well defined group.
Even the term centrist itself is inaccurate, as very few people would have a fully centrist view on every single topic imaginable.
Coercing somebody with a centrist view into a hard choice under the threat that otherwise you approve the "murdering of children" or some other awful consequence, is plain idiotic. It's a polarization tactic: friend or foe.
I would call the Civil Rights Act of 1965 pretty damn centrist considering how many of today's "progressives" claim it did absolutely nothing to seriously free black people or abolish white supremacy.
It's hard to assume a centrist's opinions on these things. Anecdotally, the centrists I know and talk to regularly are entirely aligned with the left on those issues.
Centrists don't pick the middle of every issue, they pick issues from both sides they agree with.
For example, a centrist may be FOR universal healthcare and AGAINST gun control. Or FOR lower taxes all around and FOR $15 min wage.
Taking each issue as it's own instead of aligning with one party or another on all issues is what a centrist is, to me.
Edit: I'm a self admitted centrist. Feel free to ask questions on my views if you'd like more info.
Centrists don't pick the middle of every issue, they pick issues from both sides they agree with.
For example, a centrist may be FOR universal healthcare and AGAINST gun control. Or FOR lower taxes all around and FOR $15 min wage.
Taking each issue as it's own instead of aligning with one party or another on all issues is what a centrist is, to me.
Edit: I'm a self admitted centrist. Feel free to ask questions on my views if you'd like more info.
The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture.
I could continue, but that is the point.
I could continue, but that is the point.
"If you aren't for us, you are against us."
This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.
This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.
This doesn't actually address the parent post in that quite literally half-truths aren't truths. Of course the rhetorical implication is that only one side had those truths but that is most certainly not the argument being made here.
Except politics is based on conflicting value systems not objective truth.
What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing.
Political center are not passive bystanders. They are people who are active in politics and either actively stop or actively push for real policies. That then affect how country operates.
It is set of ideologies as much as any other political group is. They make aliances or refuse to make them too.
Political center are not passive bystanders. They are people who are active in politics and either actively stop or actively push for real policies. That then affect how country operates.
It is set of ideologies as much as any other political group is. They make aliances or refuse to make them too.
A random example policy position: "We should vote for the immediate shutdown of coal plants and demand their replacement with large scale nuclear reactors."
There are lots of good objections available here, from pointing out that blackouts kill people and coal is an important part of energy capacity, to jobs arguments, to arguments about micro-reactors and the lifespan of nuclear plants.
If you're going to sit on one side of the debate and say anyone who isn't fully aligned is wrong/a liar/etc, then you are both doomed for failure and have started at a maximally partisan position.
Political positions have little to do with objective truths and instead tend to fall on value arguments.
There are lots of good objections available here, from pointing out that blackouts kill people and coal is an important part of energy capacity, to jobs arguments, to arguments about micro-reactors and the lifespan of nuclear plants.
If you're going to sit on one side of the debate and say anyone who isn't fully aligned is wrong/a liar/etc, then you are both doomed for failure and have started at a maximally partisan position.
Political positions have little to do with objective truths and instead tend to fall on value arguments.
A "centrist" who looks at each issue and takes the average of the mainstream parties' positions is a fool, and will be wrong more often than someone who picks a party and follows along with their beliefs.
Someone who looks at each issue and comes to their own conclusion is likely to end up with views that will not line up cleanly with any political coalition, and must choose which issues to compromise on when deciding which coalition to back in a given political contest.
Someone who looks at each issue and comes to their own conclusion is likely to end up with views that will not line up cleanly with any political coalition, and must choose which issues to compromise on when deciding which coalition to back in a given political contest.
A political party is a compromise - a bunch of people who've decided they can accept one-another's redlines and non-negotiables.
A sane person doesn't just choose a party and adopt their party-line; a sane person works out what their opinions are, and maybe then chooses to support a party with policies that are sufficiently congruent with their views. Or not.
People who don't think for themselves are not really participating in politics. They're kidding themselves. They should voluntarily refrain from voting.
A sane person doesn't just choose a party and adopt their party-line; a sane person works out what their opinions are, and maybe then chooses to support a party with policies that are sufficiently congruent with their views. Or not.
People who don't think for themselves are not really participating in politics. They're kidding themselves. They should voluntarily refrain from voting.
All of humanity does not agree with your personal subjective assessment of "the truth", whatever that is supposed to even mean.
If you are determined to pick middle of all issues, you are not superior neutral thinker. Instead, you are enabler for whoever is bigger lier or whoever is set up to cause more harm.
People dont have to have same opinions as me. But the contemporary idea that if you position yourself in the middle you are doing good by definition is wrong.
People dont have to have same opinions as me. But the contemporary idea that if you position yourself in the middle you are doing good by definition is wrong.
I don't think a lot of centrists claim to be "doing good" just for being in the middle.
You can't read from this position the intent. It could be indifference about a topic, caring about it yet rejecting both extreme views, or somebody that did deeply study the topic and found the center to be just right.
Both rejecting centrism or glorifying it, makes no sense in any case.
You can't read from this position the intent. It could be indifference about a topic, caring about it yet rejecting both extreme views, or somebody that did deeply study the topic and found the center to be just right.
Both rejecting centrism or glorifying it, makes no sense in any case.
That sounds like a great philosophy.
Who gets to decide what is truth and what is a lie?
Case in point. The Pulse Nightclub shooting 5 years ago. Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him.
Now it is hailed as persecution of the LGBTQ+ community - a target. Who is doing this? Politicians, activist, etc.
Who decides what the truth is? Why do they spin the lies as truths? This is societies problem today. Manipulation of fact and fiction by those who want to control you, and those who control the message.
Inaguration Day at the US Capitol. Police officer killed after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher. No proof, not even a strand. Now thought to have had a stroke. Pols, pundits, and Trump haters still swear he was MURDERED. Female protester killed by capital police - still no identification which officer did it, or what she was doing when shot. Sound like open&shut case of self-defense? Wouldn't they sing that from the heavens?
How about Jeffery Epstein? How did he hang himself in a maximum security facility where two video cameras failed, and guards checked him frequently? Guilty - probably. I'm surprised if they aren't taking bets on when girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell committed suicide. Who else was involved in their island escapades? Who benefits from their silence?
Who controls the truth?
Who gets to decide what is truth and what is a lie?
Case in point. The Pulse Nightclub shooting 5 years ago. Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him.
Now it is hailed as persecution of the LGBTQ+ community - a target. Who is doing this? Politicians, activist, etc.
Who decides what the truth is? Why do they spin the lies as truths? This is societies problem today. Manipulation of fact and fiction by those who want to control you, and those who control the message.
Inaguration Day at the US Capitol. Police officer killed after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher. No proof, not even a strand. Now thought to have had a stroke. Pols, pundits, and Trump haters still swear he was MURDERED. Female protester killed by capital police - still no identification which officer did it, or what she was doing when shot. Sound like open&shut case of self-defense? Wouldn't they sing that from the heavens?
How about Jeffery Epstein? How did he hang himself in a maximum security facility where two video cameras failed, and guards checked him frequently? Guilty - probably. I'm surprised if they aren't taking bets on when girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell committed suicide. Who else was involved in their island escapades? Who benefits from their silence?
Who controls the truth?
>Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him.
How? By whom? Why should we trust you or your sources?
Your thesis is that no one can be trusted to decide what is truth and what is a lie... then you follow up with several "facts" which clearly share a common ideological bias. Like most people who pretend only to be concerned with the integrity of the truth and ask "who controls the truth? Who watches the watchers?", you're just attempting to move the Overton window by pretending an anti-leftist narrative is a neutral one.
How? By whom? Why should we trust you or your sources?
Your thesis is that no one can be trusted to decide what is truth and what is a lie... then you follow up with several "facts" which clearly share a common ideological bias. Like most people who pretend only to be concerned with the integrity of the truth and ask "who controls the truth? Who watches the watchers?", you're just attempting to move the Overton window by pretending an anti-leftist narrative is a neutral one.
On June 12, 2016, Mateen spent just over three hours in PULSE from the time he began slaughtering innocent people at roughly 2:00 a.m. until he was killed by a SWAT team at roughly 5:00 a.m. During that time, he repeatedly spoke to his captives about his motive, did the same with the police with whom he was negotiating, and discussed his cause with local media which he had called from inside the club. Mateen was remarkably consistent in what he said about his motivation. Over and over, he emphasized that his attack at PULSE was in retaliation for U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. In his first call with 911 while inside PULSE, this is what he said about why he was killing people:
Because you have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people. What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there. … You need to stop the U.S. airstrikes. They need to stop the U.S. airstrikes, OK? . … This went down, a lot of innocent women and children are getting killed in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, OK? … The airstrikes need to stop and stop collaborating with Russia. OK?
In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable, instead always emphasizing his geo-political motive. Not a single survivor reported him saying anything derogatory about LGBTs or even anything that suggested he knew he was in a gay club. All said he spoke extensively about his vengeance on behalf of ISIS against U.S. bombing of innocent Muslims.
Mateen's postings on Facebook leading up to his attack all reflected the same motive. They were filled with rage about and vows of retaliation against U.S. bombing. Not a single post contained any references to LGBTs let alone anger or violence toward them. “You kill innocent women and children by doing U.S. airstrikes,” Mateen wrote on Facebook in one of his last posts before attacking PULSE, adding: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”
: People still surround the Pulse nightclub which is still an active crime scene on June 18, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive, but that never made sense: the whole point of terrorism is to publicize, not conceal, the grievances driving the violence. And again, good journalism requires evidence before ratifying claims. There never was any to support the story that Mateen's attack was driven by anti-LGBT hatred, and all the available evidence early on negated that suspicion and pointed to a radically different motive. But the media frenzy ended up, by design or otherwise, obscuring Mateen's anger over Obama's bombing campaigns as his motive in favor of promoting this as an anti-LGBT hate crime.
As the FBI investigation into Mateen proceeded, all the early media gossip — that Mateen was a closeted gay man who had searched for male sexual partners and had even previously visited PULSE — were debunked. The month after the attack, The Washington Post reported that “The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele,” and quoted a federal investigator as saying: “While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted PULSE because it was a gay club.” The New York Times quickly noted that no evidence could be found to support the speculation that Mateen was gay:
F.B.I. investigators, who have conducted more than 500 interviews in the case, are continuing to contact men who claim to have had sexual relations with Mr. Mateen or think they saw him at gay bars. But so far, they have not found any independent corroboration — through his web searches, emails or other electronic data — to establish that he was, in fact, gay, officials said.
The following year, the local paper that most extensively covered the PULSE massacre, The Orlando Sentinel, acknowledge that “there’s still no evidence that the Pulse killer intended to target gay people.”
As the investigation proceeded, this anti-LGBT hate crime narrative became more and more unlikely. But the question of Mateen's motives was settled once and for all — or at least it should have been — during the unsuccessful attempt by the Justice Department to prosecute Mateen's wife, Noor Salman, on numerous felony charges alleging her complicity in her husband's attack. That trial — quite justifiably — ended in a full acquittal for Salman, but evidence emerged during it that conclusively disproved the widely held view that Mateen chose PULSE because he wanted to kill gay people.
Because you have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people. What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there. … You need to stop the U.S. airstrikes. They need to stop the U.S. airstrikes, OK? . … This went down, a lot of innocent women and children are getting killed in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, OK? … The airstrikes need to stop and stop collaborating with Russia. OK?
In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable, instead always emphasizing his geo-political motive. Not a single survivor reported him saying anything derogatory about LGBTs or even anything that suggested he knew he was in a gay club. All said he spoke extensively about his vengeance on behalf of ISIS against U.S. bombing of innocent Muslims.
Mateen's postings on Facebook leading up to his attack all reflected the same motive. They were filled with rage about and vows of retaliation against U.S. bombing. Not a single post contained any references to LGBTs let alone anger or violence toward them. “You kill innocent women and children by doing U.S. airstrikes,” Mateen wrote on Facebook in one of his last posts before attacking PULSE, adding: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”
: People still surround the Pulse nightclub which is still an active crime scene on June 18, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive, but that never made sense: the whole point of terrorism is to publicize, not conceal, the grievances driving the violence. And again, good journalism requires evidence before ratifying claims. There never was any to support the story that Mateen's attack was driven by anti-LGBT hatred, and all the available evidence early on negated that suspicion and pointed to a radically different motive. But the media frenzy ended up, by design or otherwise, obscuring Mateen's anger over Obama's bombing campaigns as his motive in favor of promoting this as an anti-LGBT hate crime.
As the FBI investigation into Mateen proceeded, all the early media gossip — that Mateen was a closeted gay man who had searched for male sexual partners and had even previously visited PULSE — were debunked. The month after the attack, The Washington Post reported that “The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele,” and quoted a federal investigator as saying: “While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted PULSE because it was a gay club.” The New York Times quickly noted that no evidence could be found to support the speculation that Mateen was gay:
F.B.I. investigators, who have conducted more than 500 interviews in the case, are continuing to contact men who claim to have had sexual relations with Mr. Mateen or think they saw him at gay bars. But so far, they have not found any independent corroboration — through his web searches, emails or other electronic data — to establish that he was, in fact, gay, officials said.
The following year, the local paper that most extensively covered the PULSE massacre, The Orlando Sentinel, acknowledge that “there’s still no evidence that the Pulse killer intended to target gay people.”
As the investigation proceeded, this anti-LGBT hate crime narrative became more and more unlikely. But the question of Mateen's motives was settled once and for all — or at least it should have been — during the unsuccessful attempt by the Justice Department to prosecute Mateen's wife, Noor Salman, on numerous felony charges alleging her complicity in her husband's attack. That trial — quite justifiably — ended in a full acquittal for Salman, but evidence emerged during it that conclusively disproved the widely held view that Mateen chose PULSE because he wanted to kill gay people.
Ok. I'm not even claiming you're wrong, but again, if we can't trust anyone to determine what truth is, why should we believe you?
How can you prove you're right without invoking exactly the same sources of truth that are being discredited as untrustworthy due to their biases?
Once you play the "Who controls the truth?" card, it applies as much to you as anyone else. That argument becomes infinite and recursive when the implication is that no one can be trusted. Otherwise, the implication is that only certain sources of truth can't be trusted - which itself is simply a statement of bias. Just tell us which side you're on, in that case.
How can you prove you're right without invoking exactly the same sources of truth that are being discredited as untrustworthy due to their biases?
Once you play the "Who controls the truth?" card, it applies as much to you as anyone else. That argument becomes infinite and recursive when the implication is that no one can be trusted. Otherwise, the implication is that only certain sources of truth can't be trusted - which itself is simply a statement of bias. Just tell us which side you're on, in that case.
Epistemological proofs are an impossible standard. Take in what you think has credibility or value and make a personal judgement.
But his point is that's not what's being asked. The original poster in this sub-discussion said "trust on one" then posted something he regards as "truth" to counteract "the narrative".
He was rightly called out for being someone we can't trust by his own definitions.
"Trust no one" is a bad philosophy because it's infinite regress. And anyone who claims to follow that philosophy at some point reaches a point where they have to be hypocritical and trust someone because unless they've acquired all of this information firsthand by being everywhere at all times they can't say they didn't acquire the information from someone else. And since someone isn't no one, we can't trust them.
He was rightly called out for being someone we can't trust by his own definitions.
"Trust no one" is a bad philosophy because it's infinite regress. And anyone who claims to follow that philosophy at some point reaches a point where they have to be hypocritical and trust someone because unless they've acquired all of this information firsthand by being everywhere at all times they can't say they didn't acquire the information from someone else. And since someone isn't no one, we can't trust them.
The best measure of truth I've found is when someone reports something that goes against their own interests.
I use that as a rough barometer of reliability, amongst others.
I use that as a rough barometer of reliability, amongst others.
This is incorrect. Our readership at The Factual is polled every day on trending questions and results show that they do not fall along party lines consistently. The same person often agrees with different sides on different issues. (Our polls often match up to national polls like Pew and Gallup so they may be representative of the US though we do not ask demographic information to prove this).
Moreover, research shows that reading different sides, when they are both presented in an informative fashion, helps people appreciate different viewpoints if not change it at times. It's only when viewpoints are presented with highly inflammatory language that we tend to dig into our pre-existing beliefs.
This isn't about finding some mythical center. People are often curious why people have different viewpoints. Indeed, I think this is a big reason why comment sections like HN work so well. The net effect likely is one of moderation in one's beliefs, which seems like a good thing overall.
Moreover, research shows that reading different sides, when they are both presented in an informative fashion, helps people appreciate different viewpoints if not change it at times. It's only when viewpoints are presented with highly inflammatory language that we tend to dig into our pre-existing beliefs.
This isn't about finding some mythical center. People are often curious why people have different viewpoints. Indeed, I think this is a big reason why comment sections like HN work so well. The net effect likely is one of moderation in one's beliefs, which seems like a good thing overall.
I mostly agree with you but I think it’s interesting that you make an additional assumption that I think is incorrect: You say "You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.” Which misses another possibility: that the overton window can shift when one side moves further to the center.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.
The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.
This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.
This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.
I don't think this article is necessarily arguing for centrism. Being able to understand the perspective of all sides of an issue doesn't mean your own views will necessarily fall directly in the "middle" of those perspectives. It probably does mean, however, that you're less likely to demonize those who disagree with you.
There are no sides, and certainly not just 2 positions to have on issues. The rest of the world is a lot less binary than US politics as well.
I live in China and I smirk painfully at people in a biparty telling us our monoparty is oppressive and reduce variation of solution (having only 2 mutually exclusive choices is not twice as good as only one, it's like 10% better if you consider there are 10 choices of solutions). I vote for French elections and the choices are much more nuanced. Hell our president could only be described to an American as centrist when he's a lot more than the synthesis of socialism and conservatism.
I live in China and I smirk painfully at people in a biparty telling us our monoparty is oppressive and reduce variation of solution (having only 2 mutually exclusive choices is not twice as good as only one, it's like 10% better if you consider there are 10 choices of solutions). I vote for French elections and the choices are much more nuanced. Hell our president could only be described to an American as centrist when he's a lot more than the synthesis of socialism and conservatism.
You'll notice I said all sides, not "both". That was intentional. As you say, there are often more than two sides to any one issue, and a near-infinite number of different perspectives once you start considering more than one issue at a time.
For what it's worth, the US actually does have more than two political parties. It's just that our first-past-the-post election system ensures only two of them are able to effectively compete on the national stage at a given time.
For what it's worth, the US actually does have more than two political parties. It's just that our first-past-the-post election system ensures only two of them are able to effectively compete on the national stage at a given time.
First and foremost: I agree with you on all counts regarding enlightened centrism.
Second: I think there's some value to increasing awareness of counter-arguments. I do not believe that good discourse inevitably drives out bad, but I do think there are practical advantages when people I agree with understand opposing arguments, and I think some percentage of people I disagree with will think twice if they know more.
(Yeah, you can figure out which are which from my comment history, but I like a good Rawlsian veil of ignorance.)
There is definitely a line between "all sides are of equal value" and "this is what the different sides are saying." It's a difficult one to draw. The stated intent of Ground News seems quite good, for example.
Second: I think there's some value to increasing awareness of counter-arguments. I do not believe that good discourse inevitably drives out bad, but I do think there are practical advantages when people I agree with understand opposing arguments, and I think some percentage of people I disagree with will think twice if they know more.
(Yeah, you can figure out which are which from my comment history, but I like a good Rawlsian veil of ignorance.)
There is definitely a line between "all sides are of equal value" and "this is what the different sides are saying." It's a difficult one to draw. The stated intent of Ground News seems quite good, for example.
> Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
If differently aligned parties cover different sections of a broad issue, then aren’t you gaining more knowledge by listening to more varied sources? V.s. listening to just one political angle that would give you only a narrow slice of reality.
Also, what is “commonly known”? I personally have found when taking in 3-4 different sources that the amount of common knowledge is vanishingly small! How many of the pro covid lockdown group know anything about the death rate for your age group? Or knew accurate ratios of outdoor v.s. indoor spread? How many of the anti-lockdown group knew these things? There’s a lot of things which should be common knowledge that really aren’t.
You can combat some of this by reading “both sides”. But if you’re doing that, doesn’t it sort of mean that you trust neither of your sources? Aren’t you doing extra overhead to sort out where each side is wrong/lying? Seems better to just find a source that you trust instead.
If differently aligned parties cover different sections of a broad issue, then aren’t you gaining more knowledge by listening to more varied sources? V.s. listening to just one political angle that would give you only a narrow slice of reality.
Also, what is “commonly known”? I personally have found when taking in 3-4 different sources that the amount of common knowledge is vanishingly small! How many of the pro covid lockdown group know anything about the death rate for your age group? Or knew accurate ratios of outdoor v.s. indoor spread? How many of the anti-lockdown group knew these things? There’s a lot of things which should be common knowledge that really aren’t.
You can combat some of this by reading “both sides”. But if you’re doing that, doesn’t it sort of mean that you trust neither of your sources? Aren’t you doing extra overhead to sort out where each side is wrong/lying? Seems better to just find a source that you trust instead.
In practice there are three possible outcomes for resolving differences between large groups of people.
1) Some negotiated middle between viewpoints
2) Some converged position based on a winning argument.
3) War
If viewpoints remain diverged for a sufficiently long period, 3 is almost inevitable. Understanding the different sides helps lead to either 1 or 2.
My ask with family members who are on the other side of recent issues has always been to broaden their news/media consumption. Reading the other sides media has given me insight into why they feel the way they feel, even if I don't believe the feeling is valid.
1) Some negotiated middle between viewpoints
2) Some converged position based on a winning argument.
3) War
If viewpoints remain diverged for a sufficiently long period, 3 is almost inevitable. Understanding the different sides helps lead to either 1 or 2.
My ask with family members who are on the other side of recent issues has always been to broaden their news/media consumption. Reading the other sides media has given me insight into why they feel the way they feel, even if I don't believe the feeling is valid.
1. Your view that there are only two sides is too simplistic. To be in the center doesn't mean you're in a 1-dimensional line you could be on a 2D circle or worse n-dimensional space where there are several competing and opposing views on many different orthogonal axes. To be in the center means not to become beholden to one political view and on one side of a very specific axis.
2. Whether or not opposing content can be merged is irrelevant if there are many different ways of thinking about a topic than a simple binary right or wrong. Often reasoning from first principles yields vastly different results if slight changes are made up and along the chain of reasoning. And different people can have vastly diverging points of view even though they did their own thinking. Therefore to be in the center simply means not to drink the Kool-Aid the latest politician is selling.
3. I think you could reasonably argue being in the center is itself a valid political position if you agree that, again, there are more than two sides. If there are many more viewpoints some not even discussed by current politicians why must everyone pick a side that is currently most fashionable? To be in the center doesn't mean you'll be the net sum of each side, it means you have your own opinion and do not necessarily buy into the narrative that is being sold by either political parties.
2. Whether or not opposing content can be merged is irrelevant if there are many different ways of thinking about a topic than a simple binary right or wrong. Often reasoning from first principles yields vastly different results if slight changes are made up and along the chain of reasoning. And different people can have vastly diverging points of view even though they did their own thinking. Therefore to be in the center simply means not to drink the Kool-Aid the latest politician is selling.
3. I think you could reasonably argue being in the center is itself a valid political position if you agree that, again, there are more than two sides. If there are many more viewpoints some not even discussed by current politicians why must everyone pick a side that is currently most fashionable? To be in the center doesn't mean you'll be the net sum of each side, it means you have your own opinion and do not necessarily buy into the narrative that is being sold by either political parties.
I don think that is what it purports to do, or likely will end up doing.
It might result in people seeing how much common aspects a story has, and that helps to divorce the factual aspects from the editorialization. Maybe.
It might result in a broader intake of facts (if both/either side is being selective).
It might result in a litany of things better than the binary dung-hosing we have now.
If the worst that happens is people attempt to be less binary, I'd still consider that a small victory.
Being centrist is not inherently bad either, it just is. The only concern there I would have would be if one intentionally tries to triangulate towards a middle, as opposed to arriving there naturally.
It's what Paul Graham referred to as an "accidental moderate" versus and intentional one. http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
It might result in people seeing how much common aspects a story has, and that helps to divorce the factual aspects from the editorialization. Maybe.
It might result in a broader intake of facts (if both/either side is being selective).
It might result in a litany of things better than the binary dung-hosing we have now.
If the worst that happens is people attempt to be less binary, I'd still consider that a small victory.
Being centrist is not inherently bad either, it just is. The only concern there I would have would be if one intentionally tries to triangulate towards a middle, as opposed to arriving there naturally.
It's what Paul Graham referred to as an "accidental moderate" versus and intentional one. http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
You don't need to give equal credence, but you do need a source of facts that is not cherry-picked. Polarization leads to cherry-picking, so the only way to get facts that might falsify (or complicate) narratives is to seek out adversarial sources with their own (but different) biases.
> ill-formed assumption...by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center.
Not at all.
1. The assumption is that reading from multiple sides, you'll arrive at the enlightened position, center or otherwise.
This is the same assumption as in a courtroom. The idea isn't that the prosecution and the defense are both equally valid positions. (They don't.) The idea is that vigorous argument will yield the truth.
2. There's a lot of news that isn't necessarily "a side" but that you'd miss from a monotonous diet.
For example, in Jan 2020 I watched some Tucker Carlson episodes on Fox News. At the time the news media was overwhelmingly focused on Trump's first impeachment, but Carlson chose to cover this new "Chinese coronavirus."
I want to know what's going on in the world and it's absurd to think one particular source covers it all, even it wanted to.
Not at all.
1. The assumption is that reading from multiple sides, you'll arrive at the enlightened position, center or otherwise.
This is the same assumption as in a courtroom. The idea isn't that the prosecution and the defense are both equally valid positions. (They don't.) The idea is that vigorous argument will yield the truth.
2. There's a lot of news that isn't necessarily "a side" but that you'd miss from a monotonous diet.
For example, in Jan 2020 I watched some Tucker Carlson episodes on Fox News. At the time the news media was overwhelmingly focused on Trump's first impeachment, but Carlson chose to cover this new "Chinese coronavirus."
I want to know what's going on in the world and it's absurd to think one particular source covers it all, even it wanted to.
>The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Or, alternatively, and I think this will be a rather more accurate description of most centrists, it means that the partisan axis doesn't really describe any "principal component" of variation in people's actual opinions.
Indeed, this is broadly what political scientists find, IIRC: very few people hold the opinion "we should do as little as possible", but many people hold an opinion on one issue that gets them classed as "left-wing" and an opinion on another issue that gets them classed as "right-wing" -- and see no real contradiction between the two.
Or, alternatively, and I think this will be a rather more accurate description of most centrists, it means that the partisan axis doesn't really describe any "principal component" of variation in people's actual opinions.
Indeed, this is broadly what political scientists find, IIRC: very few people hold the opinion "we should do as little as possible", but many people hold an opinion on one issue that gets them classed as "left-wing" and an opinion on another issue that gets them classed as "right-wing" -- and see no real contradiction between the two.
Credence isn't required to be neutral in the center. I vote center in my country (France) which I also disagree with should call center because it gives this impression to be at a border of two "sides" of the population but whatever.
I can understand what's credible or not on both sides but what matters to be is WHY they believe these positions. I don't want to synthetise them as much as I want these people to either stop suffering or stop believing they suffer.
So I vote not for more socialism or more traditionalism, but to remove the need for tradition while lowering the grouping effect of socialism. It is obviously a position in itself to reject the left or right visions of a path forward.
Your mistake maybe is that there are two sides to a political spectrum while there are many dimensions to the political hypercube.
I can understand what's credible or not on both sides but what matters to be is WHY they believe these positions. I don't want to synthetise them as much as I want these people to either stop suffering or stop believing they suffer.
So I vote not for more socialism or more traditionalism, but to remove the need for tradition while lowering the grouping effect of socialism. It is obviously a position in itself to reject the left or right visions of a path forward.
Your mistake maybe is that there are two sides to a political spectrum while there are many dimensions to the political hypercube.
mseidl(2)
No, those aren’t the assumptions at all. The assumption is not that “the truth is likely to lie between the two poles” but rather that, in a democracy, you have to pay attention to what the other half of the country thinks.
Democracy isn’t about “finding the truth.” It’s not really even about “truth” anyway. Most disputes are about differing moral judgments not disagreements about facts. For example, liberals I’ve talked to are often a bit surprised to learn that a fetus stops being “just a bundle of cells” very soon, and by 12-13 weeks has all its parts, a face, etc. That doesn’t cause them to go “oh, now my view of abortion is totally the opposite!” Views on what stage of development entitled a human to a right to life isn’t about truth finding, it’s about differing moral judgments. In a democracy, the most important thing is accommodating those disparate world views so we can live together productively.
Democracy isn’t about “finding the truth.” It’s not really even about “truth” anyway. Most disputes are about differing moral judgments not disagreements about facts. For example, liberals I’ve talked to are often a bit surprised to learn that a fetus stops being “just a bundle of cells” very soon, and by 12-13 weeks has all its parts, a face, etc. That doesn’t cause them to go “oh, now my view of abortion is totally the opposite!” Views on what stage of development entitled a human to a right to life isn’t about truth finding, it’s about differing moral judgments. In a democracy, the most important thing is accommodating those disparate world views so we can live together productively.
> it’s about differing moral judgments
I submit that it's less about moral judgements--no one comes out in favor of, say, chattel slavery--than it is about controlling people via cognitive dissonance[1].
After a life-altering act, e.g. aborting a pregnancy, or having a gender reassignment surgery, it is cheaper for the mind to fall in with a re-enforcement group than to realize the decision was wrong.
Not to judge these wrong calls as worse than my own wrong calls. Merely being descriptive.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I submit that it's less about moral judgements--no one comes out in favor of, say, chattel slavery--than it is about controlling people via cognitive dissonance[1].
After a life-altering act, e.g. aborting a pregnancy, or having a gender reassignment surgery, it is cheaper for the mind to fall in with a re-enforcement group than to realize the decision was wrong.
Not to judge these wrong calls as worse than my own wrong calls. Merely being descriptive.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I want to given an outside perspective as somebody living in a full opposite of your binary political system. I'm from the Netherlands, where we have too many political parties, so many it's becoming a joke in itself.
The contrast is stark compared to the US because in our political system, a coalition has to be formed after each election to form a majority.
This means building consensus and thinking multi-partisan is the default. This pretty much rules out the "total war" approach on political opponents as it means shooting yourself in the foot. You may need that other party to form a majority.
Therefore, centrism in the broadest sense, which I see as the spectrum center-left, center, center-right...is the heart of the matter here, instead of some barren wasteland. Over 90% of the population votes within that relatively narrow bandwidth, therefore this is the negotiation space.
And negotiate we will. Whilst we too have pockets of extreme left and right getting disproportionate media attention, reality on the ground (voting and policy) is basically centrists all around, with minor tweaks to the left and right.
The above system isn't perfect, above all it does lead to slow progress at best, as policy is watered down due to the nature of coalitions, but let's not stray too far off topic.
The US political system indeed seems designed to destroy or at least "win" from the other party, and basically...anything goes.
Without any choice, centrism is not represented, at least not in media. But that doesn't mean centrism does not exist. I would expect in any developed nation the majority of the population to be in the center or fairly close to it, the so-called silent majority.
The thing I find most baffling is how besides polarization between the left and right reaching new heights, many of you seem so indoctrinated into this us versus them dogma that many if not most comments below heavily criticize or even attack centrism.
You should take some time to think about that position. The point of the article was to break out of your bubble, yet you double down. When you reject both the opposing party as well as centrism, you basically reject some 50-70% of the typical population. This besides the ridiculous notion of reducing something as complex as a human being to "friend" or "enemy".
Way to miss the point.
The contrast is stark compared to the US because in our political system, a coalition has to be formed after each election to form a majority.
This means building consensus and thinking multi-partisan is the default. This pretty much rules out the "total war" approach on political opponents as it means shooting yourself in the foot. You may need that other party to form a majority.
Therefore, centrism in the broadest sense, which I see as the spectrum center-left, center, center-right...is the heart of the matter here, instead of some barren wasteland. Over 90% of the population votes within that relatively narrow bandwidth, therefore this is the negotiation space.
And negotiate we will. Whilst we too have pockets of extreme left and right getting disproportionate media attention, reality on the ground (voting and policy) is basically centrists all around, with minor tweaks to the left and right.
The above system isn't perfect, above all it does lead to slow progress at best, as policy is watered down due to the nature of coalitions, but let's not stray too far off topic.
The US political system indeed seems designed to destroy or at least "win" from the other party, and basically...anything goes.
Without any choice, centrism is not represented, at least not in media. But that doesn't mean centrism does not exist. I would expect in any developed nation the majority of the population to be in the center or fairly close to it, the so-called silent majority.
The thing I find most baffling is how besides polarization between the left and right reaching new heights, many of you seem so indoctrinated into this us versus them dogma that many if not most comments below heavily criticize or even attack centrism.
You should take some time to think about that position. The point of the article was to break out of your bubble, yet you double down. When you reject both the opposing party as well as centrism, you basically reject some 50-70% of the typical population. This besides the ridiculous notion of reducing something as complex as a human being to "friend" or "enemy".
Way to miss the point.
I didn't know about https://www.theflipside.io/latest-issue which compares news coverage of left and right leaning sources. Anyone know more sites like that they can recommend?
Not sure I'm a fan of this site in general, but I do like their list of sites at https://swprs.org/media-navigator/.
I've picked up some great regular reads from that list.
I've picked up some great regular reads from that list.
I launched Read Across The Aisle to help people find new news sources and balance their news media diets. It’s totally free.
http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com
If you skip the opinion section, reporting from business news operations like Reuters or Bloomberg is basically as objective as it gets while still not being a plain recitation of facts.
> “We can’t pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says.”
And then you read how some Supreme Court justices make a decision and you’re wondering if they are even reading the same document
And then you read how some Supreme Court justices make a decision and you’re wondering if they are even reading the same document
We also pretend the law doesn’t say what it says. Look at the sanctuary states for illegal immigration and marijuana. Then the red states started doing the same thing with second amendment sanctuary states.
Looks like if there’s no political will to enforce the law it doesn’t get enforced.
Looks like if there’s no political will to enforce the law it doesn’t get enforced.
The US system is, perhaps, unusual in that it started from a set of independent states that formed a federal government. While the balance of power has shifted century-upon-century towards federal centralization, the power of the federal government to enforce federal law is still constrained by the money spent on federal-level enforcement; states are not generally legally obligated to go out of their way to assist federal law enforcement (and proving obstruction of justice in an inter-jurisdictional situation is pretty difficult most of the time if the states just use "malicious compliance" and stick to the letter of the law).
Hence, "sanctuary cities" where the state and local government just doesn't feel obligated to hand over records and resources they aren't legally compelled to. It's basically daring the federal government that if the law is so important, they can spend the money on ICE / FBI / ATF / etc. resources to enforce it (because those resources are paid from a completely different pool than the state or town police).
Hence, "sanctuary cities" where the state and local government just doesn't feel obligated to hand over records and resources they aren't legally compelled to. It's basically daring the federal government that if the law is so important, they can spend the money on ICE / FBI / ATF / etc. resources to enforce it (because those resources are paid from a completely different pool than the state or town police).
I can hardly imagine how our technical jargon will change in the next 250 years. If you'll permit me…
What it means to execute code on the "bare metal" has changed over time. If you track its usage on HN, it is now common for programmers to use this to describe running a program outside of a Docker container or hypervisor/VM, but still atop an OS.
(I personally think this change in meaning is silly, but my feelings on this matter don't matter.)
Interpreting security policy making use of this "bare metal" term is now tricky. Choice #1 is to interpret the policy in the context in which it was written. Choice #2 is to attempt to interpret the policy in the context of how the term is now used.
(The best choice is, of course, to rewrite the security policy in question to address the change in definition, but for the sake of argument let's consider this to be too impractical to even consider.)
Let's assume that the 1996 policy in question is: "No company-written code that interacts with the Internet shall run on bare metal."
If we strictly interpret the policy in the context in which it was written, then we're in a pickle. Agner's hand-rolled x86_64 HTTP server is permitted. It runs atop GNU/Linux, so it's not freestanding and therefore isn't a "bare metal" program.
On the other hand, if we determine that the modern use of "bare metal" is compatible with what the authors of the policy intended, then the security team is clear to insist that Agner run his HTTP server within Docker, for instance.
What it means to execute code on the "bare metal" has changed over time. If you track its usage on HN, it is now common for programmers to use this to describe running a program outside of a Docker container or hypervisor/VM, but still atop an OS.
(I personally think this change in meaning is silly, but my feelings on this matter don't matter.)
Interpreting security policy making use of this "bare metal" term is now tricky. Choice #1 is to interpret the policy in the context in which it was written. Choice #2 is to attempt to interpret the policy in the context of how the term is now used.
(The best choice is, of course, to rewrite the security policy in question to address the change in definition, but for the sake of argument let's consider this to be too impractical to even consider.)
Let's assume that the 1996 policy in question is: "No company-written code that interacts with the Internet shall run on bare metal."
If we strictly interpret the policy in the context in which it was written, then we're in a pickle. Agner's hand-rolled x86_64 HTTP server is permitted. It runs atop GNU/Linux, so it's not freestanding and therefore isn't a "bare metal" program.
On the other hand, if we determine that the modern use of "bare metal" is compatible with what the authors of the policy intended, then the security team is clear to insist that Agner run his HTTP server within Docker, for instance.
If you’re thinking of things in terms Republicans vs Democrats, or left vs right, you are already behind the 8-ball. The entire framing of this article is counterproductive to clear thinking.
If you really want to break out of your political echo chamber, you have to first decide how you want the world to be, and why, and then look for people and orgs who can help make it that way. You have to start with facts and policy and then find partners to work with, and politicians who will be open to your preferences. This is how the pros approach governing, including the names you read in the paper every day.
Partisan politics is the tool that powerful people wield to get what they want; it’s not a core part of their identity. If you’re not approaching politics with the same pragmatic skepticism, you are the one getting used by them.
If you really want to break out of your political echo chamber, you have to first decide how you want the world to be, and why, and then look for people and orgs who can help make it that way. You have to start with facts and policy and then find partners to work with, and politicians who will be open to your preferences. This is how the pros approach governing, including the names you read in the paper every day.
Partisan politics is the tool that powerful people wield to get what they want; it’s not a core part of their identity. If you’re not approaching politics with the same pragmatic skepticism, you are the one getting used by them.
> Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides, you don’t understand the issue.
Russ Roberts, host of the podcast Econ Talk, is really good at this. Independent of the guests political background, he does a good job of offering debate using a charitable interpretation of other people's arguments (even ones he doesn't disagree with). He also is pretty good at trying to find common ground with people he disagrees with, and when he realizes he's made a statement that would demonstrate his bias, he's pretty quick to call out his own bias.
Russ Roberts, host of the podcast Econ Talk, is really good at this. Independent of the guests political background, he does a good job of offering debate using a charitable interpretation of other people's arguments (even ones he doesn't disagree with). He also is pretty good at trying to find common ground with people he disagrees with, and when he realizes he's made a statement that would demonstrate his bias, he's pretty quick to call out his own bias.
In my opinion if you want to break out of echo chambers, you'd better read books, not news. I don't mean books written on occasion by the same people who write opinion columns and blog posts - rather great books that go deeper in how things work.
Among the modern writings, Arendt's Human Condition was a real eye opener for me. I hope to find more modern book of such quality of thought, but older ones by classic philosophers don't lose their relevance either.
Among the modern writings, Arendt's Human Condition was a real eye opener for me. I hope to find more modern book of such quality of thought, but older ones by classic philosophers don't lose their relevance either.
[deleted]
Wired has gotten considerably more political lately, which is a major disappointment. I canceled my print subscription to them for this reason.
I have full access to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. I go to Wired to read about tech, not some worse version of a take made in WaPo or WSJ.
I have full access to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. I go to Wired to read about tech, not some worse version of a take made in WaPo or WSJ.
> “Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides,” she says, “you don’t understand the issue.”
While this may be true for many issues, I don't think this is true for all issues. Imagine someone saying that just prior to the civil war on the issue of slavery, for example.
While this may be true for many issues, I don't think this is true for all issues. Imagine someone saying that just prior to the civil war on the issue of slavery, for example.
As much as I despise slavery I'd definitely be interested in understanding the way slavery was rationalized (if it was? if not, how did they cope with the suffering etc.?). We have to understand the principles allowing such an emotional and rational detachment from our set of ethics to prevent something like this happening again.
This is quite similar to Germany's handling of the 2nd World War. You cannot just pretend it didn't happen, and you cannot just pretend everybody was devil's child and pure evil. You have to accept that "normal" people may act like absolute beasts, and try to understand why, not ignore it.
If we don't, then we'll repeat history. Oh well.
This is quite similar to Germany's handling of the 2nd World War. You cannot just pretend it didn't happen, and you cannot just pretend everybody was devil's child and pure evil. You have to accept that "normal" people may act like absolute beasts, and try to understand why, not ignore it.
If we don't, then we'll repeat history. Oh well.
I think we agree. Understanding why something was rationalized is important (slavery, the holocaust, etc). But being able to make an impassioned argument for those things isn't necessary for that kind of understanding.
Better take: Until you can't passionately make arguments for any side you are biased.
Yes, I'll admit, I'm biased against slavery. Proudly guilty as charged.
Lysander Spooner was happy to say that.
If I read something and it's just super-intense wow how can you doubt me you scumbag, I immediately attempt to find evidence disproving it. Generally, I look for something that will contradict the stance, and the more intense the stance, the more I will look.
If I find a source has been manipulative in the past, I lower the faith I have in them to be objective in the future.
If someone makes some kind of desperate reach or strawman to "win," I wonder what else they are reaching about.
The shorter the quote, the longer the original source text I want to find from which it was drawn, because so much gets taken out of context.
Similarly, Twitter is too short to allow for nuanced commentary.
If I can find notable hypocrisy from someone, well ... their worth goes to about zero.
If I find a source has been manipulative in the past, I lower the faith I have in them to be objective in the future.
If someone makes some kind of desperate reach or strawman to "win," I wonder what else they are reaching about.
The shorter the quote, the longer the original source text I want to find from which it was drawn, because so much gets taken out of context.
Similarly, Twitter is too short to allow for nuanced commentary.
If I can find notable hypocrisy from someone, well ... their worth goes to about zero.
I'm all for people getting out of their bubbles, but the idea that the truth is "somewhere in the middle" or is even discernible by a process of digestion applied to the two "sides" of the American political spectrum is pretty dumb.
That's why I use https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news. Makes it very easy to see across the spectrum.
The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Sometimes there are questions of objective facts that reading lies from alternative sources do not actually help you in understanding the truth of the world.
The person who desperately tries to cite "50/50" liberal and conservative sources in the article is the worst kind of fence sitter. Sometimes, one side or the other is just wrong, or their position is disingenuous. It doesn't make sense to provide a fair and balanced view when the other view is that maybe there are literal demons running the government.
One of these sites outright says they offer a "conspiracy theorist" feed. While there is some educational benefit to understanding what those people are reading, in the context of getting a balanced perspective, we should acknowledge it's useless information to most people, if not downright harmful.
The person who desperately tries to cite "50/50" liberal and conservative sources in the article is the worst kind of fence sitter. Sometimes, one side or the other is just wrong, or their position is disingenuous. It doesn't make sense to provide a fair and balanced view when the other view is that maybe there are literal demons running the government.
One of these sites outright says they offer a "conspiracy theorist" feed. While there is some educational benefit to understanding what those people are reading, in the context of getting a balanced perspective, we should acknowledge it's useless information to most people, if not downright harmful.
> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment.
Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery?
To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery?
To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
It is important to understand the different sides. Understanding a side doesn't mean it is on equal ground, or really any ground at all.
A failure to understand allows the underlying causes to remain in place.
A failure to understand allows the underlying causes to remain in place.
Actually I would say it is. Not because the argument for slavery actually had merit, but because that position did not form in a vacuum and it is important to understand how such ideas came to be and why people might be unwilling to give them up.
> Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery?
We don't need to imagine this. This is actively happening in the American South in their high school history books: https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 (tweet and replies)
We don't need to imagine this. This is actively happening in the American South in their high school history books: https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 (tweet and replies)
> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
There is no end to conspiracy theories. Why should I be obligated to delve into other people's psychosis? I'm not a psychiatrist. There are many more constructive things to spend time on.
When such ideas become mainstream enough to start influencing politics, it would be a good idea to try to understand why those ideas have taken root and grown to that level of influence.
Even when such ideas are batshit insane, they are almost always indicative of some severe underlying issue. If that issue isn't addressed, then such ideas keep growing and growing and could eventually lead to disaster.
That Q Anon and the like are taken seriously by as many people as they appear to be, enough to start influencing mainstream politics, should set off all sorts of alarm bells about the state of our society.
Even when such ideas are batshit insane, they are almost always indicative of some severe underlying issue. If that issue isn't addressed, then such ideas keep growing and growing and could eventually lead to disaster.
That Q Anon and the like are taken seriously by as many people as they appear to be, enough to start influencing mainstream politics, should set off all sorts of alarm bells about the state of our society.
As I said in another part of the thread: For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
I don't think the misinformation is a cause so much as a symptom. The Nazis alleged conspiracy by communists and jews, but that misinformation probably wouldn't have taken root if Germany's economy wasn't burning to the ground because of the Treaty of Versailles. Desperate people sometimes cling to crazy ideologies that promise to relieve their suffering.
There's a difference between trying to understand and explain why crazy ideas take root, and treating the crazy ideas themselves as legitimate.
Identify the core issues, absolutely. But trying to explain why the earth isn't flat is a waste of time, as it won't convince the true believers and it will only legitimize the idea.
Identify the core issues, absolutely. But trying to explain why the earth isn't flat is a waste of time, as it won't convince the true believers and it will only legitimize the idea.
They aren't strongly held views -- it's much more interesting to hear about the things they actually believe in rather than today's distraction
Q Anon isn’t taken seriously by very many people. It’s a blown-out-of-proportion phenomenon. The left seems to be the one that continues to promote it as if millions of people are paying attention to it. I spend a lot of time on conservative news and opinion sites and Q Anon stuff is never mentioned. Nor are any of the wacky conspiracies taken seriously. But the left loves to use that to discredit opposing viewpoints much in the same way they quickly use the “Nazi” tag when it suits their purposes.
As far as “how we got here,” the answer is pretty simple: social media shutting down debate and “fact checkers” who are really “conforming verifiers” who have been given outsized credibility.
Did Covid come from a lab, a year ago was “fact checked” by those with conflicts of interest. Yet there wasn’t any actual fact check — it used the opinions of certain officials rather than actual verifiable fact. If Fauci said it didn’t come from a lab, that’s his opinion. But was any data actually presented to dispute the assertion? None. The Appeal To Authority isn’t a valid fact-check.
The media literally ignores facts if those facts don’t fit the narrative. And, they use all sorts of rhetorical strategies to discredit the other side.
The hatred of all things Trump resulted in media organizations losing all credibility.
As far as “how we got here,” the answer is pretty simple: social media shutting down debate and “fact checkers” who are really “conforming verifiers” who have been given outsized credibility.
Did Covid come from a lab, a year ago was “fact checked” by those with conflicts of interest. Yet there wasn’t any actual fact check — it used the opinions of certain officials rather than actual verifiable fact. If Fauci said it didn’t come from a lab, that’s his opinion. But was any data actually presented to dispute the assertion? None. The Appeal To Authority isn’t a valid fact-check.
The media literally ignores facts if those facts don’t fit the narrative. And, they use all sorts of rhetorical strategies to discredit the other side.
The hatred of all things Trump resulted in media organizations losing all credibility.
If you were a little more curious, maybe you wouldn't dismiss large swathes of the population as psychotic.
>Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
There's an infinite number of ways you can be wrong; it isn't on everyone to hermetically disprove all wrongs to meaningfully participate in civil society in good faith.
It isn't disturbing for people to want to focus on real issues rather than discussing whether or not the president is farming baby blood to enact a global immortal one government future.
There's an infinite number of ways you can be wrong; it isn't on everyone to hermetically disprove all wrongs to meaningfully participate in civil society in good faith.
It isn't disturbing for people to want to focus on real issues rather than discussing whether or not the president is farming baby blood to enact a global immortal one government future.
Frankly I don't have the time in my day to entertain every perspective and still enjoy life.
I think this is unfair. You can try to have empathy and understanding for someone without knowing the intricacies of their beliefs.
[deleted]
Or imagine having to dedicate equal time in school to the flat earth "theory", which can be disproved by video calling anyone in a different time zone...
> Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery?
But that’s a straw man. Did the virus come from a lab or not isn’t a “slavery” argument. Should taxes be lower or higher also isn’t a slavery argument. Are there election irregularities also isn’t a slavery argument.
These are all issues that, stating opposing facts or even conclusions that differ from the Facebook-Twitter “Approved Truth,” will get you banned.
Even questioning Covid vaccine safety, or even linking to mainstream news about safety concerns will get you a “missing context” label or outright banned. We aren’t allow to even hint that the vaccine could be dangerous (when compared to other vaccines.)
So yes, there are often two or more sides that have a legitimate value in being heard.
When was the last time we had mainline publications or socials or even scientific journals shutting down debate on scientific research? It’s insane. There have even been instances of papers that didn’t support the Fauci views being obfuscated or removed from search results. Or other instances of statistical election anomalies being ignored by people that would normally be very interested in such things. And none of those things are the equivalent of “the other side of the slavery argument.”
Look at how the left has treated Glen Greenwald, a journalist that has earned some credibility with his Snowden reporting. Yet, when he points out some of the nonsense parading as “fact,” he gets accused of being some kind of right wing shill. If Glen is being accused of being “right wing,” then something has gone really wrong. Even Bill Maher is speaking out about the lunacy.
Is the vaccine safe? Did Covid come from a Chinese lab funded by Fauci? Were there unexplained statistical anomalies in the election?
Those are all topics that deserve hearing “both sides.” It would seem like shutting down debate is indicative of an agenda as opposed to a commitment to truth. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
But that’s a straw man. Did the virus come from a lab or not isn’t a “slavery” argument. Should taxes be lower or higher also isn’t a slavery argument. Are there election irregularities also isn’t a slavery argument.
These are all issues that, stating opposing facts or even conclusions that differ from the Facebook-Twitter “Approved Truth,” will get you banned.
Even questioning Covid vaccine safety, or even linking to mainstream news about safety concerns will get you a “missing context” label or outright banned. We aren’t allow to even hint that the vaccine could be dangerous (when compared to other vaccines.)
So yes, there are often two or more sides that have a legitimate value in being heard.
When was the last time we had mainline publications or socials or even scientific journals shutting down debate on scientific research? It’s insane. There have even been instances of papers that didn’t support the Fauci views being obfuscated or removed from search results. Or other instances of statistical election anomalies being ignored by people that would normally be very interested in such things. And none of those things are the equivalent of “the other side of the slavery argument.”
Look at how the left has treated Glen Greenwald, a journalist that has earned some credibility with his Snowden reporting. Yet, when he points out some of the nonsense parading as “fact,” he gets accused of being some kind of right wing shill. If Glen is being accused of being “right wing,” then something has gone really wrong. Even Bill Maher is speaking out about the lunacy.
Is the vaccine safe? Did Covid come from a Chinese lab funded by Fauci? Were there unexplained statistical anomalies in the election?
Those are all topics that deserve hearing “both sides.” It would seem like shutting down debate is indicative of an agenda as opposed to a commitment to truth. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
"are there election irregularities" pretty well is a slavery argument.
Its a thinly veiled "I don't think black people should have been allowed to vote" and you can verify that by the laws states are implementing to ensure they don't vote next election
Its a thinly veiled "I don't think black people should have been allowed to vote" and you can verify that by the laws states are implementing to ensure they don't vote next election
How are you supposed to argue against something if you don't even understand why someone supports what they support? All you will end up doing is strawmaning their views which won't convince anybody to change their views.
Do I need to understand why someone supports flat earth theory to be able to argue that it's scientifically invalid? Why is it up to me to figure out how they got deluded?
You only need to understand their positions if you want to argue against it. Since like 5 people actually believe in a flat earth (there are a lot of memers) it probably isn't worth the effort to learn about their positions. For more mainstream issues you should absolutely understand all sides of an issue to the best of your abilities. Many people only understand generals and miss a lot of nuance when it comes to their opponent's views.
If you are going to argue with a flat earther they will not accept the arguments you will make if you just argue for a round earth. You can show them some math, images from space, eyewitness testimony or whatever you want, but they have almost certainly seen it all before. They were unconvinced by those arguments in the past and you will likely not be any more convincing to them. The only way to convince them is to tear down their arguments one by one which means you have to actually know what they believe. If you tear down strawman arguments they don't even believe they won't change their mind.
Just to be clear, when you say it is not up to you to figure out how they got deluded. I agree. You don't have to know what books or videos or whatever they consumed. You only need to understand the views themselves.
If you are going to argue with a flat earther they will not accept the arguments you will make if you just argue for a round earth. You can show them some math, images from space, eyewitness testimony or whatever you want, but they have almost certainly seen it all before. They were unconvinced by those arguments in the past and you will likely not be any more convincing to them. The only way to convince them is to tear down their arguments one by one which means you have to actually know what they believe. If you tear down strawman arguments they don't even believe they won't change their mind.
Just to be clear, when you say it is not up to you to figure out how they got deluded. I agree. You don't have to know what books or videos or whatever they consumed. You only need to understand the views themselves.
How can you both show a claim is scientifically invalid and simultaneously not understand the claim? The "why" here is the "why of the claim" not the "why they came to think that" (though the latter may still be useful if you're trying to convince someone but that's a different issue).
You don't have to argue with flat earthers if you don't want to. But if you're going to argue against that position then yes, you absolutely must first understand why they hold it. Otherwise you'll spend all your time attacking straw men and get nowhere with your argument.
More importantly, why does that deserve priority in my time, vs say, climate change regulation, or ending police violence
The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment.
Another point is that there aren't "two sides" to political issues but a wide variety of sides and that often, when you pick the two supposed sides of an issue, you've actually picked the answer - without, say, having to have an argument for this answer.
Unpopular note: HN has had too many of these garbage articles leveraging this vacuous and manipulative "two sides" rhetoric - "Ivy League" article but several others. And these have had an actually pretty strong center-right bias and just generally detract from the site imo.
Another point is that there aren't "two sides" to political issues but a wide variety of sides and that often, when you pick the two supposed sides of an issue, you've actually picked the answer - without, say, having to have an argument for this answer.
Unpopular note: HN has had too many of these garbage articles leveraging this vacuous and manipulative "two sides" rhetoric - "Ivy League" article but several others. And these have had an actually pretty strong center-right bias and just generally detract from the site imo.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Teach the conspiracy!
The glorious promise of the post truth world (Andrew Odlyzko) https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=3061712
I wish the issue is as simple as what the title suggests. Just read both sides, our political divide can be bridged. Well, what if the two sides don't agree on the facts. It may be a good idea to have centralists on policies, but the notion of centralists hardly applies to facts. It may be possible to have compromises on policies only when both sides at least assume good faith of the other. In today's American politics, I don't see an easy solution to agree on facts or good faith. It is sad.
One thing that comes to mind on this topic is that I neve rhear anyone discuss the genealogy of moral outrage in recent America culture. Daytime TV in the 90s was _all_ moral outrage and proto-reality TV as theatre of legalo-moral adjudication: Jerry Springer (the vulgar pinnacle of it), The People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, Riki Lake, etc etc. Americans had already proven market fit for "outrage media" a long time ago.
IMHO, moral outrage is just a consistent human trait. I don't think there was a time or era in known history that we didn't shame the other side.
If you want to look at TV entertainment, even something as "wholesome" as Lucy or Leave it to Beaver all they way from the 50s is chocked full of outrage at anything not considered acceptable at the time.
If you want to look at TV entertainment, even something as "wholesome" as Lucy or Leave it to Beaver all they way from the 50s is chocked full of outrage at anything not considered acceptable at the time.
I wonder how different the polarization is at the local level. It's easy to get outraged about policies in another part of the country if your position doesn't really affect you. I'm guessing people have more nuanced views about, say, fertilizer or pesticides if they live in a very agricultural area or about investing in mass transport if they live in an urban area.
Almost all media outlets are shifting towards more and more opinion content, which drives clicks and revenue for them. Even the New York Times has dramatically shifted to opinion content and even dramatically increased the share and prominence of opinion on their front page.
The problem with aggregators like this is they themselves have their own implicit bias in how they define the boundaries of the left and right.
While sites like The Federalist and Breitbart may offer an accurate sampling of palatable far right viewpoints, this does not extend to the far left. The deficiency is exposed with the inclusion of CNN and MSNBC in the far left category. You need only look at the 2020 Democratic primary and observe how these cable channels reacted to the Sanders campaign[1] to get a sense of how incoherent it is to place them there.
What is lost in defining the left border as such is the erasure of publications on the far left that help describe some of the ideas and thought that drove Bernie's popularity. Of course he eventually lost the primary but can we really call CNN and MSNBC far left when they played a role in the demise of the most viable left-wing candidate in recent US history?
This is an important consideration because a news diet of the CNN, NYT, WSJ and Ben Shapiro may appear to be balanced but there is no left source that is the same magnitude of the right wing Ben Shapiro.
[1]: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1231353446336548867?s...
While sites like The Federalist and Breitbart may offer an accurate sampling of palatable far right viewpoints, this does not extend to the far left. The deficiency is exposed with the inclusion of CNN and MSNBC in the far left category. You need only look at the 2020 Democratic primary and observe how these cable channels reacted to the Sanders campaign[1] to get a sense of how incoherent it is to place them there.
What is lost in defining the left border as such is the erasure of publications on the far left that help describe some of the ideas and thought that drove Bernie's popularity. Of course he eventually lost the primary but can we really call CNN and MSNBC far left when they played a role in the demise of the most viable left-wing candidate in recent US history?
This is an important consideration because a news diet of the CNN, NYT, WSJ and Ben Shapiro may appear to be balanced but there is no left source that is the same magnitude of the right wing Ben Shapiro.
[1]: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1231353446336548867?s...
[deleted]
Assigning a person a label of right or left or center is too simplistic. People are more complex. Their preferences are tied to issues. For each issue, every person might have a tilt/preference and they may not always tilt in one direction on all issues.
Somehow I saw absolutely no examples of the subject line statement in the articles body. I also see no evidence of broken echo chambers in the wild, the only thing that is changing on both sides is accelerating distrust of media
Michael Malice has some very insightful comments on this very subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HqHzA3atQ&t=647s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HqHzA3atQ&t=647s
I would suggest reading news from other countries about USA.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada
https://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada
RT is fantastic for criticizing the US government. Though I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them when covering Russia.
Abby Martin's Breaking the Set show is what got me to pay attention to just how coddled by our domestic media our government is. There are so many things that they straight up don't cover at all.
It's not a slant in stories, it's a total refusal to cover important things.
Abby Martin's Breaking the Set show is what got me to pay attention to just how coddled by our domestic media our government is. There are so many things that they straight up don't cover at all.
It's not a slant in stories, it's a total refusal to cover important things.
It seems to me that culture war posturing is one thing, a deliberate source of divisive power that some milk for outrage.
It seems to me that there are some issues with a clear right and wrong: the climate emergency. We essentially cannot overreact, we should be doing 309% of what we are currently doing to go zero carbon. In such a case as the “real world outside our society” id involved, it would seem that there are objectively right and wrong courses of action, in addition to many complex calculi that can have mixed value even if implemented with purely good faith and intentions. (Aka actual error)
It would seem that legions of conservative and prudent scientists from diverse fields are to be considered “political radicals” for merely telling the truth.
It seems to me that there are some issues with a clear right and wrong: the climate emergency. We essentially cannot overreact, we should be doing 309% of what we are currently doing to go zero carbon. In such a case as the “real world outside our society” id involved, it would seem that there are objectively right and wrong courses of action, in addition to many complex calculi that can have mixed value even if implemented with purely good faith and intentions. (Aka actual error)
It would seem that legions of conservative and prudent scientists from diverse fields are to be considered “political radicals” for merely telling the truth.
I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, and that having made up your mind on an issue is necessarily wrong.
When it comes to an issue like, say, climate change, I spent years reading the blogosphere, reading blogs like WUWT and whatever Judith Curry would come up with, and then the rebuttals, sometimes waiting years for the science to come out.
For any issue around climate science, there's probably a web page on it at skeptical sicence. I've probably skimmed at least half the papers on that webpage. After many years of that (I'm a veteran of the mid-2000s global "pause" debate) I've made up my mind.
The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been.
And implicitly I bet it isn't Fox News viewers that you see starting to listen to NPR (although I'm certainly they'll pick out some individuals that do) it is predominantly working to get the open-minded-liberal crowd and Joe Rogan viewers to spend some time letting Fox News pour information into their head in the name of being better informed about both sides.
Some news really is equivalent to trans fats and highly refined sugars for the brain. Trying to achieve "balance" there isn't actually healthy. Some of it is just bad. And the two outcomes are either that you're going to get sucked in (and not even realize it) or that you're just going to get angry at it.
When it comes to an issue like, say, climate change, I spent years reading the blogosphere, reading blogs like WUWT and whatever Judith Curry would come up with, and then the rebuttals, sometimes waiting years for the science to come out.
For any issue around climate science, there's probably a web page on it at skeptical sicence. I've probably skimmed at least half the papers on that webpage. After many years of that (I'm a veteran of the mid-2000s global "pause" debate) I've made up my mind.
The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been.
And implicitly I bet it isn't Fox News viewers that you see starting to listen to NPR (although I'm certainly they'll pick out some individuals that do) it is predominantly working to get the open-minded-liberal crowd and Joe Rogan viewers to spend some time letting Fox News pour information into their head in the name of being better informed about both sides.
Some news really is equivalent to trans fats and highly refined sugars for the brain. Trying to achieve "balance" there isn't actually healthy. Some of it is just bad. And the two outcomes are either that you're going to get sucked in (and not even realize it) or that you're just going to get angry at it.
> is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going. One side is getting very desperate because of how incredibly wrong they've consistently been.
Agree completely that it's used as a divide and conquer tactic.
However, convincing the consumers of said wrong information, or more than wrong just outright fabrications in many cases, is a tough sell. Telling someone that their major belief system and ideology is "wrong" will usually harden their beliefs further.
Agree completely that it's used as a divide and conquer tactic.
However, convincing the consumers of said wrong information, or more than wrong just outright fabrications in many cases, is a tough sell. Telling someone that their major belief system and ideology is "wrong" will usually harden their beliefs further.
> The idea that having made my mind is a horrible thing, is just a tactic to try to creates wedges of doubt to try to keep a zombie political idea going.
You're an extreme minority in how in-depth you've looked into the science. The only really rational position for someone who hasn't done so is at most vague trust based on the scientific consensus. People who both haven't sufficiently looked into the science and yet who still have a strongly held belief are part of the problem even when they happen to be right.
Then the political implications are a different matter to the scientific question. There is a whole range of political positions you can come to even given a consensus on the science. Do you drastically reduce carbon usage or accept the warming and adapt? Maybe both? That is where the political x/y/z axes come in.
You're an extreme minority in how in-depth you've looked into the science. The only really rational position for someone who hasn't done so is at most vague trust based on the scientific consensus. People who both haven't sufficiently looked into the science and yet who still have a strongly held belief are part of the problem even when they happen to be right.
Then the political implications are a different matter to the scientific question. There is a whole range of political positions you can come to even given a consensus on the science. Do you drastically reduce carbon usage or accept the warming and adapt? Maybe both? That is where the political x/y/z axes come in.
While I accept that humans are to some degree altering the climate, I've come the opposite conclusion.
And I'm not a veteran dating back to mid 2000's. I'm a veteran dating to the late 80's at which time I was very concerned. But the dire predictions simply didn't come to pass. We have been burning coal for well over 200 years. And oil for over 100. Where is the massive climate change? Where is the massive increase in extreme weather events?
So I highly doubt the accuracy of many models. I also highly doubt a slightly warmer wetter world will be net negative for humanity should it come to pass.
I don't see my skepticism to be anti scientific at all. My purpose for posting this is not to argue against climate change, simply to point out that the magnitude and ultimate effects are not settled in my mind at least. The issue isn't closed. It's not "fact". It's a hypothesis as to what the effects will be and the way forward is very much opened to debate. It's certainly not "one side is absolutely right!" at all.
And I'm not a veteran dating back to mid 2000's. I'm a veteran dating to the late 80's at which time I was very concerned. But the dire predictions simply didn't come to pass. We have been burning coal for well over 200 years. And oil for over 100. Where is the massive climate change? Where is the massive increase in extreme weather events?
So I highly doubt the accuracy of many models. I also highly doubt a slightly warmer wetter world will be net negative for humanity should it come to pass.
I don't see my skepticism to be anti scientific at all. My purpose for posting this is not to argue against climate change, simply to point out that the magnitude and ultimate effects are not settled in my mind at least. The issue isn't closed. It's not "fact". It's a hypothesis as to what the effects will be and the way forward is very much opened to debate. It's certainly not "one side is absolutely right!" at all.
I listened to and contributed to NPR for years, long before Trump, Hillary , or Obama were things. I watch Fox news also. When you distinguish between news and opinion shows, Fox is at least as good as CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS. When you watch a cropped clip, then the full clip, and the entire circumstances change that should be a sign. Notice the Wired example mentioned kids in a TN classroom, and it was the liberal kids they implied were scared to express their opinions. I'm pretty sure they cherrypicked that. Because that is the opposite in most states, especially those where the teachers assign specific homework based on opinion shows, demonizing specific parties and ideas.
Your initial point about climate science... It was cooling, then heating, now change, and sea level rise. Most people you would characterize as "climate deniers" believe in climate change. Many do not agree that by adopting electric cars and burning ethanol(remember that transfer of wealth?) in the US, we control change after crippling our economy while China churns out multiple times what the rest of the world does. I'm sure they'll stop tho, once the completely dominate the world economy.
Wanna talk about gun control now?
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -- Karl Marx
The rest of what you wrote about climate change comes under Brandolini's law.
The rest of what you wrote about climate change comes under Brandolini's law.
Why mention Joe Rogan viewers...?
Because Joe Rogan has a habit of hosting individuals who are blatant frauds and plays it off as "representing both sides". When you have Alex Jones on and let him spew outright lies for an hour without questioning any of it, you've lost all credibility.
have you seen last podcast? he questions a lot of Alex' stuff.
Further are the three AJs podcasts great entertainment
Maybe, just maybe, we should stop going out of our way to provide platforms to influential fraudsters and lunatics?
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 environment of open dialogue. Do you believe they have ideas worth listening to?
The gish gallop is a depreddingly effective tool, and not one generally leveraged by people on the right side of a debate.
> 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 environment of open dialogue. Do you believe they have ideas worth listening to?
The gish gallop is a depreddingly effective tool, and not one generally leveraged by people on the right side of a debate.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right"
I totally disagree, Alex Jones is a satirist. His biggest contribution is being sometimes correct with his outlandish claims. And casting doubt of the corporate media narrative, which is often just as false, but presented as some sort of gospel, that must be accepted with ernest, and repeated with one voice.
I think because Joe Rogan-ites tend to be "apolitical" in a very specific way (at least in my personal experience). They are fundamentally different from the hippies, but still believe in sampling many opinions
Unfortunately the whole "Lab Leak" COVID thing has given them another 5 years of legitimacy probably.
Unfortunately?
This is exactly why living in the default media bubble is such a problem. The COVID lab leak coverup was the normal state of affairs. It wasn't an outlier.
We saw all last year as the media stood in front of looting, rioting, and burning buildings and told us that the protests were "mostly peaceful". We heard that the police are "systemically racist" and practically hunting black people in the streets, but if you looked at the police interactions statistics, you saw that it just wasn't true.
We were told by the media last year that Hydroxychloroquine was a dangerous drug... simply because Trump suggested it might be a good treatment for COVID. Social media companies are still banning people for touting it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychlo...
The current normal is for most of the media to lie and push Democrat political narratives. Yeah, yeah, Fox News is a real counterbalance when they aren't even a tenth of the audience of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS. There's no social media narrative bubble to speak of. It's all Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and on and on.
This is exactly why living in the default media bubble is such a problem. The COVID lab leak coverup was the normal state of affairs. It wasn't an outlier.
We saw all last year as the media stood in front of looting, rioting, and burning buildings and told us that the protests were "mostly peaceful". We heard that the police are "systemically racist" and practically hunting black people in the streets, but if you looked at the police interactions statistics, you saw that it just wasn't true.
We were told by the media last year that Hydroxychloroquine was a dangerous drug... simply because Trump suggested it might be a good treatment for COVID. Social media companies are still banning people for touting it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9671029/Hydroxychlo...
The current normal is for most of the media to lie and push Democrat political narratives. Yeah, yeah, Fox News is a real counterbalance when they aren't even a tenth of the audience of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS. There's no social media narrative bubble to speak of. It's all Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and on and on.
Yes. I'm reminded of the woman who had survived the Holocaust and was asked to be interviewed — where they would also bring on a Holocaust denier ... you know, for balance.
Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.
Thankfully, she declined. But the point is of course: here we are.
Context aside, that sounds like it would have been a powerful film. A denier face to face with an eyewitness, presumably with the eyewitness prepared with all of the innumerable pieces of indisputable evidence. Talk about losing, that's losing.
She would be eye witness talking about own experience. It is super easy to attack against that or manipulate to make her sound crazy. She is not historian to know nuances of stuff deniers talk about.
The denier would be prepared too.
Deniers often claim the extend of it was much smaller or that leadership had no idea. Victim being tortured cant speak of thosez historian could.
The denier would be prepared too.
Deniers often claim the extend of it was much smaller or that leadership had no idea. Victim being tortured cant speak of thosez historian could.
I've read and even said a lot of uncomfortable things on the internet, but seeing someone lament the loss of not pitting a holocaust survivor with a denier probably takes the cake.
A lot of holocaust survivors have made very cogent cases against deniers, you may be underestimating their strength. Maybe some people couldn't do that, but other people could. It is a lot of people we are talking about.
This isn't about making a case, it's about giving equal credence to the narratives of a holocaust survivor and someone who denies it.
Hoisting someone up to get humiliated on national TV is giving them equal credence? It's impossible to give equal credence to Flat-Earth equivalents, except by engineering things so that they get to talk about their "persecution" without saying anything about what they believe. (That is a common trick, watch out for it and you'll see it in many fringe subcultures.) Get them talking about their beliefs on a concrete level and the credence goes out the window. Putting its head on a stake where everyone can see it will do nothing to assist it.
>...I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally,
Let's be honest here, the direction of this thread, and people most enthused about the linked article are people who are sympathetic to right-wing ideologies. Currently, because of demographic trends, the right-wing is scared that their ideas will be run out of the marketplace of ideas. The only way to prevent that is to 1. Embrace enlightened centrism, and 2. Complain that their opinions aren't being treated "equally".
Let's be honest here, the direction of this thread, and people most enthused about the linked article are people who are sympathetic to right-wing ideologies. Currently, because of demographic trends, the right-wing is scared that their ideas will be run out of the marketplace of ideas. The only way to prevent that is to 1. Embrace enlightened centrism, and 2. Complain that their opinions aren't being treated "equally".
I disagree. Climate change is a terrible example to prove your point. It's an easy one and weakens your argument about balance. Climate change has scientific consensus and has gotten better over time. Most political issues left/right are concerned about issues that are far more nuanced and there isn't enough data to back it up, or even if there is data, there are gaping holes in methodology and eventually boils down to philosophical/ideological discussions about rights, duties of citizens and the governing bodies.
People that follow the ideology of echo-chambering that you're proposing is exactly what we don't need at this time. Labeling centrists with condescendence of fetishism is uncalled for. I suggest RTFA.
The press is doing a poor job of omitting facts (which is different from lying) because they don't echo back in their chambers. People that follow your proposal would be illinformed of the facts that are omitted.
People that follow the ideology of echo-chambering that you're proposing is exactly what we don't need at this time. Labeling centrists with condescendence of fetishism is uncalled for. I suggest RTFA.
The press is doing a poor job of omitting facts (which is different from lying) because they don't echo back in their chambers. People that follow your proposal would be illinformed of the facts that are omitted.
You think that climate change is a settled issue across the political spectrum?
I have seen the contrary.
I have seen the contrary.
Here is the core problem that I have a hard time articulating:
Here is what OP is doing:
1) Point out ills on the other side - QAnon, Climate denial, etc.
2) Make a sweeping statement that being a centrist means giving attention to aforementioned theories and giving "equal" importance to both sides. That's not what centrists do.
OP's condenscending take on Centrists is based on low-blows and not much substance.
Here is what OP is doing:
1) Point out ills on the other side - QAnon, Climate denial, etc.
2) Make a sweeping statement that being a centrist means giving attention to aforementioned theories and giving "equal" importance to both sides. That's not what centrists do.
OP's condenscending take on Centrists is based on low-blows and not much substance.
I feel like there was a time when you could be centrist and it made you appear objective, wise, open to discourse from both sides (a bit like Switzerland, LOL?).
I think that time has passed though. Maybe it's the extremists that are forcing us to take sides. It's a little too nuanced in today's political climate to say, "I'm a centrist and entertain ideas from both sides … but not those crazy ideas."
I think that time has passed though. Maybe it's the extremists that are forcing us to take sides. It's a little too nuanced in today's political climate to say, "I'm a centrist and entertain ideas from both sides … but not those crazy ideas."
Do you think we're being manipulated by foreign adversaries? I know its crazy to think about and conspiratorial, but we're rotting from the inside and it's insane how divided America is.
I think there are foreign actors. But I don't think that's the entire explanation. I think rather they're taking advantage of rifts that were already here. And there are plenty of home-grown actors taking advantage of these rifts as well.
>Climate change has scientific consensus and has gotten better over time.
You do realize that the Fox New crowd and the Republican party are still denying that humans have any affect on the climate, right? 30 seconds in the comments section on this latest story for instance tells you all you need to know:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-climate-change-greate...
You do realize that the Fox New crowd and the Republican party are still denying that humans have any affect on the climate, right? 30 seconds in the comments section on this latest story for instance tells you all you need to know:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-climate-change-greate...
Sure, I do. That's my point - Climate change is an easy one to make a point about siding with scientific consensus. I don't need a political side to side with why wearing masks is beneficial to reducing the spread of the virus.
OP is using CC as a token to make a point that we should cease to be centrists. I am asking to listen to both sides (even if it is absolute lunacy), figure out what are the facts and what are ideological positions which are not as clearcut as CC.
OP is using CC as a token to make a point that we should cease to be centrists. I am asking to listen to both sides (even if it is absolute lunacy), figure out what are the facts and what are ideological positions which are not as clearcut as CC.
If we're talking about global fiscal policy in America I'm not certain what party you're pointing to as not being neo-liberal. There are many problems with a two party system but the one America is currently suffering from is that the GOP is made up of neoliberals and the Dems are also neoliberals. This is why Trump saw success in the primary, and why it is extremely foolish to discount demagogues no matter what their truly held beliefs. Being able to spin yourself as a non-neoliberal, even briefly, makes 80% of America start salivating.
I've found that I have to carefully tailor my arguments depending on the audience, to a greater and greater degree lately. In many places it seems the only way to get someone to listen to you is to couch everything you say in the terms of their pet causes. If I argue for LGBT rights with a conservative I have to make it about constitutionality and government overreach. If I discuss male victims of sexual and domestic violence with a leftist I have to talk mostly about female victims. If I advocate for the free speech rights of racists I get called a Nazi and when I advocate for the free speech rights of Drag Queen Story Hour I get called a communist.
Here in the US I try to get the majority of my news from NPR and PBS, both of whom are heavily reliant on AP. Your mileage may vary...
The Week magazine pretty much does this already. For every issue, they present what left and right leaning publications say about it.
Who cares? The framing of this issue is strange to me. I know what my values are, I know which side I'm on, I know what I fight for.
If you're looking for new philosophies or perspectives, I strongly suggest two things:
1. fiction
2. history
I don't think day-to-day news coverage can ever be written at a level where it might affect your fundamental values; among many other problems, it is typically written in a hurry, with a lack of context, and so it lacks long-term perspective.
In terms of books that have changed my perspective on some subject, here are some important ones I've read over the last year:
Reading Lolita In Tehran, by Azar Nafisi
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Lolita-Tehran-Memoir-Books/dp...
Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security, by Sarah Chayes
https://www.amazon.com/Thieves-State-Corruption-Threatens-Se...
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, by Andrew J. Bacevich
https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Power-American-Exceptionalism-...
The Emergence of China: From Confucius to the Empire, by E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks
https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-China-Confucius-Ancient-Con...
Azar Nafisi's book is both a true life action story, and it's also an intellectual journey, a consideration of how authoritarianism slowly takes over.
Sarah Chayes book is remarkably ambitious, not only did I suddenly see corruption as a global issue, but she connects it to religious extremism and then reviews the corruption of the Catholic Church in the 1400s and how that lead to Martin Luther and that era's own explosion of religious extremism.
Andrew J. Bacevich's book is a sober look at all the things the USA probably cannot do, even though it has the worlds most powerful military
The Brooks book about China was eye opening for me. I previously knew nothing about the Warring States period, or the intense intellectual debate that occurred over the meaning of the state and the duties of the leader to the people. I wish more Westerners knew this story.
Should I expect this kind of writing from the daily newspaper? Absolutely not. It's ridiculous. It's a category error. That's now what the daily newspaper is for. That's certainly not what the 24 hour news cycle is for.
Sometimes I want actionable news I can use, which is partly a matter of knowing which candidates might have the best chances of advancing my goals. Especially during primary races, day-to-day political news is useful to me when it gives me the information I need to decide who of many candidates I should donate money to.
But when I want new perspectives and philosophies? I turn to books.
If you're looking for new philosophies or perspectives, I strongly suggest two things:
1. fiction
2. history
I don't think day-to-day news coverage can ever be written at a level where it might affect your fundamental values; among many other problems, it is typically written in a hurry, with a lack of context, and so it lacks long-term perspective.
In terms of books that have changed my perspective on some subject, here are some important ones I've read over the last year:
Reading Lolita In Tehran, by Azar Nafisi
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Lolita-Tehran-Memoir-Books/dp...
Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security, by Sarah Chayes
https://www.amazon.com/Thieves-State-Corruption-Threatens-Se...
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, by Andrew J. Bacevich
https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Power-American-Exceptionalism-...
The Emergence of China: From Confucius to the Empire, by E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks
https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-China-Confucius-Ancient-Con...
Azar Nafisi's book is both a true life action story, and it's also an intellectual journey, a consideration of how authoritarianism slowly takes over.
Sarah Chayes book is remarkably ambitious, not only did I suddenly see corruption as a global issue, but she connects it to religious extremism and then reviews the corruption of the Catholic Church in the 1400s and how that lead to Martin Luther and that era's own explosion of religious extremism.
Andrew J. Bacevich's book is a sober look at all the things the USA probably cannot do, even though it has the worlds most powerful military
The Brooks book about China was eye opening for me. I previously knew nothing about the Warring States period, or the intense intellectual debate that occurred over the meaning of the state and the duties of the leader to the people. I wish more Westerners knew this story.
Should I expect this kind of writing from the daily newspaper? Absolutely not. It's ridiculous. It's a category error. That's now what the daily newspaper is for. That's certainly not what the 24 hour news cycle is for.
Sometimes I want actionable news I can use, which is partly a matter of knowing which candidates might have the best chances of advancing my goals. Especially during primary races, day-to-day political news is useful to me when it gives me the information I need to decide who of many candidates I should donate money to.
But when I want new perspectives and philosophies? I turn to books.
I strongly recommend:
https://www.memeorandum.com/
https://www.memeorandum.com/
I'm not sure this is news or reflects any actual trends in 2021. I work in this area and almost all of the tools/websites in this article have been around for years — since Trump's election or even before.
If I had to guess, this seems like a well-placed piece to raise awareness for the startup Ground News, which has begun advertising heavily in recent months (and is the only new tool mentioned in the article). Either way, congrats to their team on the work they're doing, and on being mentioned in this piece!
If I had to guess, this seems like a well-placed piece to raise awareness for the startup Ground News, which has begun advertising heavily in recent months (and is the only new tool mentioned in the article). Either way, congrats to their team on the work they're doing, and on being mentioned in this piece!
Here is an awesome take on this subject: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informati...
I’m going to suggest that unless you work directly in the news media industry yourself, you too should be paying absolutely no attention to the news.
“It is all Bullshit”, is what Mr. Money Mustache says, “You need to get the News out of your life, right away, and for life.”
The reasons for this are plentiful, from the inherently sucky nature of news programming itself, to the spectacular life benefits of adopting a Low Information Diet in general. But let’s start with the news.
News programs are, with the exception of a few non-profit or publicly funded ones, commercial enterprises designed to turn and maximize profit. Many of them are owned by larger shareholder-owned corporations, most notably Rupert Murdoch’s News corp. The profit comes from advertising, and advertising revenue is maximized by pulling the largest audience, holding their attention for the longest possible time, and putting them into the mental state most conducive to purchasing the products of the advertisers (which turns out to be helplessness and vulnerability).
Another great perspective on this: This Video Will Make You Angry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
I’m going to suggest that unless you work directly in the news media industry yourself, you too should be paying absolutely no attention to the news.
“It is all Bullshit”, is what Mr. Money Mustache says, “You need to get the News out of your life, right away, and for life.”
The reasons for this are plentiful, from the inherently sucky nature of news programming itself, to the spectacular life benefits of adopting a Low Information Diet in general. But let’s start with the news.
News programs are, with the exception of a few non-profit or publicly funded ones, commercial enterprises designed to turn and maximize profit. Many of them are owned by larger shareholder-owned corporations, most notably Rupert Murdoch’s News corp. The profit comes from advertising, and advertising revenue is maximized by pulling the largest audience, holding their attention for the longest possible time, and putting them into the mental state most conducive to purchasing the products of the advertisers (which turns out to be helplessness and vulnerability).
Another great perspective on this: This Video Will Make You Angry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
As a non US citizen,I would say US politics is not all that bad, neither party can be overthrown or something.
I have plenty American friends who live or used to live in various states and different segments of society. Like anywhere else it's not perfect, but top 5 in the world I would say.
In many latin American countries there is a fierce divide between left and right, the distribution of wealth is unlike anywhere else, the poor live in favelas, the middle class lives in gated and secured communities, simple things like leaving a gated community can be a danger to your wallet or life.
The leftists are very extreme, the middle class is conservative, they want their status protected. Neither side realizes that it's better anywhere else in the world, almost literally.
The left does not even offer a social system for the unemployed, this cannot deserves the label left and leads to most of the crime, they happen due to dire economic straits.
No really, the USA are doing fine.
Some people say the left in the us is a right wing light, but that is not accurate. Some states are as left as many EU countries.
If you think either Obama or Trump were the worst, don't worry , Europe has worse, in the UK, Farrage, the hypocrite, Boris fake name Johnson and many more.
I have been reading daily news for 50 years. When I first started reading the news, it was objective. It portrayed facts with little opinion. Then during the Reagan presidency, I noticed a trend towards liberal bias in the media. This is well documented by MRC.org. To counter this, conservative talk radio was born, and Fox news was created.
In the din of infinite media outlets, the major media outlets must stand out from the crowd. They do this by extending their bias to outright advocacy for their political side. This is happening on both sides. Other niche outlets are doing the same thing to be attractive to a specialized set of readers.
Unfortunately, it has gone from advocacy to outrage. A daily outrage occurred in the media in response to Trump, where every action created an outrage from one offended group or another. It was more than just Trump. "Cancel culture" was created where those who were outraged by something someone said on social media "cancelled" the speaker's life by erasing them from society. They lost their jobs and were ostracized by their peers.
Where does all this lead? I hope it is not violence. However, the political violence I see everyday in the form of violent protests and riots is not a welcome sight.
In the din of infinite media outlets, the major media outlets must stand out from the crowd. They do this by extending their bias to outright advocacy for their political side. This is happening on both sides. Other niche outlets are doing the same thing to be attractive to a specialized set of readers.
Unfortunately, it has gone from advocacy to outrage. A daily outrage occurred in the media in response to Trump, where every action created an outrage from one offended group or another. It was more than just Trump. "Cancel culture" was created where those who were outraged by something someone said on social media "cancelled" the speaker's life by erasing them from society. They lost their jobs and were ostracized by their peers.
Where does all this lead? I hope it is not violence. However, the political violence I see everyday in the form of violent protests and riots is not a welcome sight.
What I continue to be surprised by is how the left-leaning sources keep denying their liberal bias. Fox news more or less admits to being right-leaning, but CNN is still insisting that they're unbiased, which is almost comical. I think that somehow left-biased types really, honestly, believe they're actually considering both sides of every issue, and just coming to the conclusion that "reality has a liberal bias".
> What I continue to be surprised by is how the left-leaning sources keep denying their liberal bias
There are no left-leaning major news outlets in the US (the nature of capitalism assures that; you can’t get the kind of capitalist backing for anti-capitalist positions required to be a major media source), only far-right and center-right, and even the center-right ones treat targets to their left much worse than those their right.
And if there was a left-leaning outlet, their bias would be left, not liberal.
> Fox news more or less admits to being right-leaning
Only recently, in the Trump era, did Fox drop “Fair and Balanced” for “Standing Up For What's Right”.
> but CNN is still insisting that they're unbiased
That's because Fox is marketing to people who see themselves as on the Right and CNN is marketing to people who identify as centrist, non-ideological, or above the fray (who are largely the pro-status quo center-right.) Both label according to the identity group they are marketing to.
There are no left-leaning major news outlets in the US (the nature of capitalism assures that; you can’t get the kind of capitalist backing for anti-capitalist positions required to be a major media source), only far-right and center-right, and even the center-right ones treat targets to their left much worse than those their right.
And if there was a left-leaning outlet, their bias would be left, not liberal.
> Fox news more or less admits to being right-leaning
Only recently, in the Trump era, did Fox drop “Fair and Balanced” for “Standing Up For What's Right”.
> but CNN is still insisting that they're unbiased
That's because Fox is marketing to people who see themselves as on the Right and CNN is marketing to people who identify as centrist, non-ideological, or above the fray (who are largely the pro-status quo center-right.) Both label according to the identity group they are marketing to.
myko(2)
Get a list of the names of medium-to-large town newspapers (from, say, 1980, before many of them closed). Look at the names. Note how many papers have "Democrat" or "Republic" in the name. Many of those papers were founded to deliberately support one political party.
So "it was objective" may be a bit much. UPI, AP, and the national news were pretty close to unbiased. Local papers often had their slant, which would include editorials, local news, and maybe even which national stories were covered.
It was far better than today, I'll grant you.
So "it was objective" may be a bit much. UPI, AP, and the national news were pretty close to unbiased. Local papers often had their slant, which would include editorials, local news, and maybe even which national stories were covered.
It was far better than today, I'll grant you.
I would have to say that maybe it's not the news that has changed, but your view of it.
The media has always had biases. How can it not, it's run by people.
Look at the propaganda during the Spanish-American War. That's the most obvious U.S. example of how biased media can be. And we enjoy the temporal distance to not be invested in the events so we can evaluate it from a third-party perspective.
Are you saying the media became less biased after that then more biased?
The media has always had biases. How can it not, it's run by people.
Look at the propaganda during the Spanish-American War. That's the most obvious U.S. example of how biased media can be. And we enjoy the temporal distance to not be invested in the events so we can evaluate it from a third-party perspective.
Are you saying the media became less biased after that then more biased?
It's certainly possible that my views have changed over time biasing my perspective. I can only speak to the time I have observed the news.
Abd you're point is correct. Yellow Journalism was a phrase coined in past history to described biased news, which obviously has existed in one form or another since the first newspapers. It is not a modern phenomena.
Abd you're point is correct. Yellow Journalism was a phrase coined in past history to described biased news, which obviously has existed in one form or another since the first newspapers. It is not a modern phenomena.
I miss Jay Leno, who through pretty even-handed comedy would present the news.
I worked at a large US news agency for several years. It's a for-profit shit show.
After watching CNN's technical director saying on spy cam that their publication is entirely driven by propaganda, I lost trust in all the news agencies out there. Quote:
> Yeah. I mean like Trump, we did it, like when Trump was, I don't know, like his hand was shaking or whatever I think. We brought in like so many medical people to like all tell a story that like, it was all speculation, that he was neurologically damaged, that he was losing it. He's unfit to, you know, whatever. We were... we were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about, you know? That's what -- I think that's propaganda, you know? We had nothing else to run with at that time. We were like, just taking shots off the bow just hoping something would hit, you know?
I'm a massive centrist, not a US citizen, trying to be as objective as possible. A shit and for-profit/power propaganda is flowing from both ends.
After watching CNN's technical director saying on spy cam that their publication is entirely driven by propaganda, I lost trust in all the news agencies out there. Quote:
> Yeah. I mean like Trump, we did it, like when Trump was, I don't know, like his hand was shaking or whatever I think. We brought in like so many medical people to like all tell a story that like, it was all speculation, that he was neurologically damaged, that he was losing it. He's unfit to, you know, whatever. We were... we were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about, you know? That's what -- I think that's propaganda, you know? We had nothing else to run with at that time. We were like, just taking shots off the bow just hoping something would hit, you know?
I'm a massive centrist, not a US citizen, trying to be as objective as possible. A shit and for-profit/power propaganda is flowing from both ends.
More americans have migrated to 4chan and Gab. Interesting art, mind expending videos, and news about as accurate as the weather forecast from your grandpa. Apparently, "2 more weeks" boys.
You can always find incendiary articles from both sides at RealClearPolitics, too.
I regularly read it, Fox news, CNN, NBC, and Breitbart to get ideas about what my colleagues might be thinking.
I regularly read it, Fox news, CNN, NBC, and Breitbart to get ideas about what my colleagues might be thinking.
[deleted]
I don't understand the jabs HN is taking against Centrists - Centrists do not give equal importance to, say, Holocaust deniers and QAnon consipiracists. Listening to other side and believing it in are two different things. The alternative of camping out in your echo chambers is far more terrifying that exposing yourself to the entire spectrum (and ignore lunatic theories).
When we speak of centrism in terms of political parties, the implicit false assumption in some of this discussion is that Trumpism is a legitimate political position. These days when we talk about "the right" we largely mean Trumpism -- the GOP's new political stance (including Mitch McConnell, btw).
The idea of "centrism" makes no sense with Trumpism on one side. "Yes I am pro-democratic republic and I also want to be ruled by a dictator who hollows out and weaponizes public institutions and muzzles his enemies."
The center means there is common ground but Trump scorched the GOP's half of it. The only way I can envision a center is if the GOP figures out how to move beyond Trumpism and rebuild themselves into a conservative party. Currently the only people offering a shred of hope, by for example cooperating with the Democratic center, are the likes of Romney, who got booed offstage by GOP supporters.
The idea of "centrism" makes no sense with Trumpism on one side. "Yes I am pro-democratic republic and I also want to be ruled by a dictator who hollows out and weaponizes public institutions and muzzles his enemies."
The center means there is common ground but Trump scorched the GOP's half of it. The only way I can envision a center is if the GOP figures out how to move beyond Trumpism and rebuild themselves into a conservative party. Currently the only people offering a shred of hope, by for example cooperating with the Democratic center, are the likes of Romney, who got booed offstage by GOP supporters.
I'm sorry, but I find articles like this entirely disingenuous. It opens with a rural Tennessee classroom in which the teacher and a lone student bravely try to help a bunch of Trumpers understand their perspective. It continues with another example of a right-leaning former WV legislator coming around to the leftist position on transgender participation in sports. But what I did not find was a single meaningful example of the opposite. The best the article could muster - for appearances of neutrality - was an example of reduced support for minimum-wage increases by a group of Democrats. Nothing concrete.
Sorry, but the lady doth protest too much.
Sorry, but the lady doth protest too much.
The article may not do a good job highlighting where the left moves right but I believe that is because that movement is the status quo given obstruction on the right.
Remember when "$2,000 checks out the door immediately" became $1,400 checks after weeks of delays and the left leaning media outlets and thus liberals went along with it?
Remember when Biden dropped plans to help out with student loan debt and nobody batted an eyelid?
Remember when Medicare-for-All and Green New Deal were things liberals pretended to care about?
The left constantly moves right by accepting the status quo. They don't need to document specific examples in an article because it is the basis behind every major policy topic for at least the last 10 years.
Remember when "$2,000 checks out the door immediately" became $1,400 checks after weeks of delays and the left leaning media outlets and thus liberals went along with it?
Remember when Biden dropped plans to help out with student loan debt and nobody batted an eyelid?
Remember when Medicare-for-All and Green New Deal were things liberals pretended to care about?
The left constantly moves right by accepting the status quo. They don't need to document specific examples in an article because it is the basis behind every major policy topic for at least the last 10 years.
> I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian
How often do you see Christmas used as a plot device? Or a church used as a setting? Or a priest character?
I would be shocked if context didn't imply that > 95% of American film characters are Christian.
How often do you see Christmas used as a plot device? Or a church used as a setting? Or a priest character?
I would be shocked if context didn't imply that > 95% of American film characters are Christian.
Christmas and church settings don't indicate Christianity. Most secular Americans celebrate Christmas or attend weddings and funerals in Christian churches or officiated by Christian clergy. Indeed, for a very long time it was the norm to have one's own funeral or wedding at a church, officiated by Christian clergy, even if one was atheist or agnostic and even today it's quite common.
Guilty as charged. I'm an atheist (well, I'm ignostic, which is similar but I consider the distinction important), my wife is agnostic, but we had our wedding in a church officiated by a Christian minister.
Why? Because my wife liked the venue, we both wanted a traditional ceremony, and we thought it would be a better fit with our families, many of whom are devout Christians.
Why? Because my wife liked the venue, we both wanted a traditional ceremony, and we thought it would be a better fit with our families, many of whom are devout Christians.
To emphasize this, some Japanese have “church weddings”... sometimes with a fake minister... except they are not, in the great majority of cases, Christian, or even religious at all. The just like a ceremony. It’s kind of exotic, I guess.
Fortunately the Japanese don’t feel like they are othering, or appropriating or anything like that. They just want to enjoy something, something different.
Fortunately the Japanese don’t feel like they are othering, or appropriating or anything like that. They just want to enjoy something, something different.
This is true, but also underlines the very point the article was making. In the United States, Christianity is the default. Characters are typically only identified if the stray from the default. Furthermore, given the sheer imbalance of identities in the country, it’s a disingenuous to claim that say Batman is equally likely to be Zoroastrian, because he’s not explicitly stated not to be.
> This is true, but also underlines the very point the article was making. In the United States, Christianity is the default. Characters are typically only identified if the stray from the default
But Christianity isn’t the default, secular is the default. When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype (the religious clique in “Easy A”, for example). See also the link about “Hollywood’s religion problem” for many more examples. Hollywood clearly, starkly distinguishes between “normal” characters and “Christian” characters.
> Furthermore, given the sheer imbalance of identities in the country, it’s a disingenuous to claim that say Batman is equally likely to be Zoroastrian, because he’s not explicitly stated not to be.
Right, because that would be unjust. Justice demands proportional representation, and you can’t have proportional representation and equal representation. If I create a cult tomorrow I shouldn’t have the same representation as Atheists or Hindus, who constitute a much larger share of the country.
But Christianity isn’t the default, secular is the default. When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype (the religious clique in “Easy A”, for example). See also the link about “Hollywood’s religion problem” for many more examples. Hollywood clearly, starkly distinguishes between “normal” characters and “Christian” characters.
> Furthermore, given the sheer imbalance of identities in the country, it’s a disingenuous to claim that say Batman is equally likely to be Zoroastrian, because he’s not explicitly stated not to be.
Right, because that would be unjust. Justice demands proportional representation, and you can’t have proportional representation and equal representation. If I create a cult tomorrow I shouldn’t have the same representation as Atheists or Hindus, who constitute a much larger share of the country.
> But Christianity isn’t the default, secular is the default. When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype (the religious clique in “Easy A”, for
You seem to believe that in your face conservative white evangelical Protestants are the only Christians. This speaks more to your own biases than society’s.
Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.[0]
As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?
[0] https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
You seem to believe that in your face conservative white evangelical Protestants are the only Christians. This speaks more to your own biases than society’s.
Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.[0]
As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?
[0] https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
> You seem to believe that in your face conservative white evangelical Protestants are the only Christians. This speaks more to your own biases than society’s.
I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus", etc but carry on.
> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice.
More popular choice of what? Music? Films? Television?
> There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.
Sure there is. The simplest conceivable explanation is that Hollywood doesn't represent a cross-section of the United States; that Hollywood skews more secular, and that those biases are what get represented in film. I suspect it's a bit more complex than that; I think the fact that the upper classes in general skew secular has a fair bit to do with it (not only the people who create the content, but also the people for whom the content is created). However, that's harder for me to defend.
> As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?
I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus", etc but carry on.
> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice.
More popular choice of what? Music? Films? Television?
> There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.
Sure there is. The simplest conceivable explanation is that Hollywood doesn't represent a cross-section of the United States; that Hollywood skews more secular, and that those biases are what get represented in film. I suspect it's a bit more complex than that; I think the fact that the upper classes in general skew secular has a fair bit to do with it (not only the people who create the content, but also the people for whom the content is created). However, that's harder for me to defend.
> As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?
I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice.
More popular choice of what? Music? Films? Television?
Of AMERICANS. I even gave you a link. Do the minimum amount of work.
> I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why
Because all the examples you give are coded that way. You could have used any of numerous examples of explicitly observing Christians in media that aren’t WEPs, but that’s not what you went with
Of AMERICANS. I even gave you a link. Do the minimum amount of work.
> I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why
Because all the examples you give are coded that way. You could have used any of numerous examples of explicitly observing Christians in media that aren’t WEPs, but that’s not what you went with
> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.[0]
GP is talking about representation in film. That's what this whole subthread is about.
GP is talking about representation in film. That's what this whole subthread is about.
When you're the default, you have representation in all media, even without it being explicitly stated, because the audience already assumes it. Why? Because there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society. Some would even describe being the most common case and not having to explicitly be called out for representation as privileged.
> When you're the default, you have representation in all media
Not true.
> there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society
Not true.
You are simply throwing out baseless assertions.
Not true.
> there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society
Not true.
You are simply throwing out baseless assertions.
I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess you’re a straight white male from a middle class or upper middle class background, raised in a home that celebrates Christian high holidays, and have no major disabilities.
I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.
You crow about how being the default isn’t representation, but you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history as it’s commonly taught.
I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.
You crow about how being the default isn’t representation, but you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history as it’s commonly taught.
> I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess
Wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need a lot of work.
But thanks for further weakening your "case" with more baseless assertions.
Furthermore, I checked your profile and it looks like this describes your background. Ironic.
> I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.
1. This is a non-sequitur.
2. This is just some brazen projection on your part, as your comments in this discussion make clear. You're the one who comically equated population statistics with arts & media representation, which proves you haven't given much thought to the matter at all.
> how being the default isn’t representation
The point is that it isn't the default in film. Maybe take a deep breath and try reading the thread again?
> you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination
More brazen projection on your part, given that you've been utterly unable to substantiate any of your baseless claims, despite being prompted multiple (!) times to do so, not just by me.
> it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history
Oh boy. Are you really going to claim that arts & media representation has always reflected population statistics? Your claims just keep getting more bizarre.
Wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need a lot of work.
But thanks for further weakening your "case" with more baseless assertions.
Furthermore, I checked your profile and it looks like this describes your background. Ironic.
> I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.
1. This is a non-sequitur.
2. This is just some brazen projection on your part, as your comments in this discussion make clear. You're the one who comically equated population statistics with arts & media representation, which proves you haven't given much thought to the matter at all.
> how being the default isn’t representation
The point is that it isn't the default in film. Maybe take a deep breath and try reading the thread again?
> you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination
More brazen projection on your part, given that you've been utterly unable to substantiate any of your baseless claims, despite being prompted multiple (!) times to do so, not just by me.
> it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history
Oh boy. Are you really going to claim that arts & media representation has always reflected population statistics? Your claims just keep getting more bizarre.
I do love how you’re just talking in circles. You must think of yourself as very smart, but your refusal to actually engage in the discussion shows you’re just a proudly ignorant troll trying to culture war to stoke a sense of victimization.
I’d wish you’d luck, but I honestly don’t care about irrelevant people.
I’d wish you’d luck, but I honestly don’t care about irrelevant people.
More name-calling?
I accept your concession.
I accept your concession.
> But Christianity isn’t the default, secular is the default.
Says whom?
Not-strongly-denominational non-to-weakly (note the “a”; not a typo for “weekly”) practicing Christian, or similarly weakly-attached Jewish, seems to be the norm, outside of showed focussing on a distinct and different subculture.
> When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype
I don't think that's really all that much more true than other identities, and it tends to be most true in the same genres and places that there same thing is done with other, including nonreligious identities. I mean, its probably true of most identities in most of TV and film, but that’s Sturgeon’s Law, not a particular problem of Christian characters.
Says whom?
Not-strongly-denominational non-to-weakly (note the “a”; not a typo for “weekly”) practicing Christian, or similarly weakly-attached Jewish, seems to be the norm, outside of showed focussing on a distinct and different subculture.
> When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype
I don't think that's really all that much more true than other identities, and it tends to be most true in the same genres and places that there same thing is done with other, including nonreligious identities. I mean, its probably true of most identities in most of TV and film, but that’s Sturgeon’s Law, not a particular problem of Christian characters.
> Says whom?
I suspect just about every avid connoisseur of American media who isn’t out to peddle a narrative, but I didn’t do a survey at our last quarterly meeting so I can’t tell for sure. :)
> Not-strongly-denominational non-to-weakly (note the “a”; not a typo for “weekly”) practicing Christian, or similarly weakly-attached Jewish, seems to be the norm, outside of showed focussing on a distinct and different subculture.
Of the characters who are identifiably religious I could agree that Christians and Jews are a majority, but I strongly suspect that they outnumber irreligious characters.
Consider that the mainstay of virtually all pop culture are drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex, most or all of which are embraced by the “normal” characters but taboo among American Christians. When a character is identifiably Christian, they are almost always portrayed as judgmental of those things, which is to say they contrast from the “normal” characters. The default has to be some identity which jives with the popular culture, and since Christian ethos are incompatible with the bread and butter of pop culture, I am certain that the default is not Christian.
> I don't think that's really all that much more true than other identities
It seems to be different for the irreligious identities. Pop culture doesn’t rarely leans on cliches to identify a character that doesn’t believe, because it doesn’t need to, they are the default. But yes, I agree that for other identities, writers need to do something to indicate the identity and per Sturgeon’s Law (TIL, thanks) most of that is lazy stereotyping.
I suspect just about every avid connoisseur of American media who isn’t out to peddle a narrative, but I didn’t do a survey at our last quarterly meeting so I can’t tell for sure. :)
> Not-strongly-denominational non-to-weakly (note the “a”; not a typo for “weekly”) practicing Christian, or similarly weakly-attached Jewish, seems to be the norm, outside of showed focussing on a distinct and different subculture.
Of the characters who are identifiably religious I could agree that Christians and Jews are a majority, but I strongly suspect that they outnumber irreligious characters.
Consider that the mainstay of virtually all pop culture are drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex, most or all of which are embraced by the “normal” characters but taboo among American Christians. When a character is identifiably Christian, they are almost always portrayed as judgmental of those things, which is to say they contrast from the “normal” characters. The default has to be some identity which jives with the popular culture, and since Christian ethos are incompatible with the bread and butter of pop culture, I am certain that the default is not Christian.
> I don't think that's really all that much more true than other identities
It seems to be different for the irreligious identities. Pop culture doesn’t rarely leans on cliches to identify a character that doesn’t believe, because it doesn’t need to, they are the default. But yes, I agree that for other identities, writers need to do something to indicate the identity and per Sturgeon’s Law (TIL, thanks) most of that is lazy stereotyping.
> Consider that the mainstay of virtually all pop culture are drugs, alcohol, and premarital sex, most or all of which are embraced by the “normal” characters but taboo among American Christians.
Leaving aside the question of whether those are the mainstays of popular culture (the traditional formulation would drop alcohol and add rock-and-roll), that seems...distorted.
While attitudes on some of those things differ between American Christians and the general public, it doesn't really seem at all defensible to claim that either drugs, alcohol, or premarital sex are “taboo” among America Christians, generally.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/31/half-of-u-s...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/26/religious-a...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/06/americans-d...
Leaving aside the question of whether those are the mainstays of popular culture (the traditional formulation would drop alcohol and add rock-and-roll), that seems...distorted.
While attitudes on some of those things differ between American Christians and the general public, it doesn't really seem at all defensible to claim that either drugs, alcohol, or premarital sex are “taboo” among America Christians, generally.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/31/half-of-u-s...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/26/religious-a...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/06/americans-d...
Those pew links are certainly surprising with respect to Christian tolerance for premarital sex, but with respect to alcohol I should have been more clear that I was talking about binge drinking. In whichever case, the fact that half of Christians disapprove of premarital sex still makes it unlikely that the default is Christian (especially considering I suspect those attitudes represent a relatively recent shift, probably due in large part to influence on Christian attitudes by pop culture for several decades).
Anecdotally, I also ran this past my wife and a few friends and the consensus was pretty unanimous that the default character since at least the early 90s was secular. I did a little Googling for something more authoritative but couldn't find anything. It's an interesting question in any case.
Anecdotally, I also ran this past my wife and a few friends and the consensus was pretty unanimous that the default character since at least the early 90s was secular. I did a little Googling for something more authoritative but couldn't find anything. It's an interesting question in any case.
Ask people of a non-Christian faith if they agree. All the replies here saying Christmas isn't Christian seem to be from people with a Christian upbringing, even if they are atheist or "secular".
We’re not debating whether or not everyone of every faith celebrates secular Christmas, but whether or not celebrating secular Christmas is sufficient to identify a character as Christian. By your own admission (“All the replies here saying Christmas isn't Christian seem to be from people with a Christian upbringing, even if they are atheist or secular”), it is not sufficient.
Even if no one of a non-Christian background celebrated secular Christmas, “celebrating secular Christmas” still wouldn’t suffice to identify someone as Christian, but rather as either Christian or “from a Christian background”.
And of course lots of people from Jewish, Hindu, secular etc backgrounds also celebrate secular Christmas, as many have attested in this thread.
Even if no one of a non-Christian background celebrated secular Christmas, “celebrating secular Christmas” still wouldn’t suffice to identify someone as Christian, but rather as either Christian or “from a Christian background”.
And of course lots of people from Jewish, Hindu, secular etc backgrounds also celebrate secular Christmas, as many have attested in this thread.
> We’re not debating whether or not everyone of every faith celebrates secular Christmas, but whether or not celebrating secular Christmas is sufficient to identify a character as Christian.
Maybe that is what you're debating. It was only one example that I gave in my original post.
It seems to me that a lot of people who grew up in the dominant culture of the US are jumping to defend Christmas as a wholly secular thing. It would be interesting to watch if it weren't so typical.
Maybe that is what you're debating. It was only one example that I gave in my original post.
It seems to me that a lot of people who grew up in the dominant culture of the US are jumping to defend Christmas as a wholly secular thing. It would be interesting to watch if it weren't so typical.
No one is saying Christmas is “wholly secular”. They are clearly arguing that “celebrating Christmas” doesn’t identify someone as Christian.
You know, because the context of the thread is characters’ religious identities.
You know, because the context of the thread is characters’ religious identities.
It depends on what part. In Finnish we call it Joulu (deriving from Yule). There are tons of pagan traditions related to it still, even if it has been christianized.
Maybe in US it’s more strongly christian. But not necessarily everywhere.
Maybe in US it’s more strongly christian. But not necessarily everywhere.
Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America. And I can’t remember the last time I saw church in a movie that wasn’t a comedy using the setting for a set-up
Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends?
Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
About half of my Jewish friends celebrate Christmas. And my one Muslim friend (that immigrated from a Muslim majority country) celebrates it too. He also has gotten into the habit of saying "god bless" because I guess they say that a lot in Georgia?
I mean, Muslims believe in God too.
Yes, but they don't celebrate Christmas.
Anyway, Americanized Muslims tend to be quite "moderate", that is, they are either apostates or firmly on the path to becoming apostates. I don't know if this follows from selective immigration or from social pressure to assimilate into the liberal civic religion, but it is so. So it's not surprising that they would embrace the secularized counterfeit that many Americans already celebrate, just as they probably end up watching the high feast known as the Superbowl and joining into the national prostration before the Almighty Game.
Anyway, Americanized Muslims tend to be quite "moderate", that is, they are either apostates or firmly on the path to becoming apostates. I don't know if this follows from selective immigration or from social pressure to assimilate into the liberal civic religion, but it is so. So it's not surprising that they would embrace the secularized counterfeit that many Americans already celebrate, just as they probably end up watching the high feast known as the Superbowl and joining into the national prostration before the Almighty Game.
> Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
I like latkes and challah, but that doesn't make me Jewish.
All groups influence culture and culture influences all individuals. But simply having adopted a piece of culture that came from some group does not make one a member of that group.
My wife and kids and I all celebrate Christmas. We are not Christian.
If celebrating Christmas made one Christian, then anyone including a yule log in their festivities must also be pagan.
I like latkes and challah, but that doesn't make me Jewish.
All groups influence culture and culture influences all individuals. But simply having adopted a piece of culture that came from some group does not make one a member of that group.
My wife and kids and I all celebrate Christmas. We are not Christian.
If celebrating Christmas made one Christian, then anyone including a yule log in their festivities must also be pagan.
To add to it, even the Christmas tree doesn't originate from Christianity. It was just adapted from a pagan tradition. The Santa Claus image was created by commercialism. The original saint Claus is celebrating on December 6 (or 7, don't remeber exactly) and that was a priest that anonymously was donating toys to children in orphanages and later was discovered.
Easter Bunny is another commercialisation of a Christian holiday, which has nothing to do with rabbits. It is a day, where Christians celebrate Jesus raising from grave after being crucified.
Easter Bunny is another commercialisation of a Christian holiday, which has nothing to do with rabbits. It is a day, where Christians celebrate Jesus raising from grave after being crucified.
December 6th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
> Santa Claus evolved from Dutch traditions regarding Saint Nicholas (Sinterklaas). When the Dutch established the colony of New Amsterdam, they brought the legend and traditions of Sinterklaas with them
> Santa Claus evolved from Dutch traditions regarding Saint Nicholas (Sinterklaas). When the Dutch established the colony of New Amsterdam, they brought the legend and traditions of Sinterklaas with them
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.
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.
> The Santa Claus image was created by commercialism.
We Americans celebrating Christmas are definitely celebrating commercialism, though, so that checks out. :)
We Americans celebrating Christmas are definitely celebrating commercialism, though, so that checks out. :)
The rabbits (and probably the name Easter), I believe (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) come from the pagan festival of Eostre, a goddess symbolized by a rabbit. Although I've also heard that Easter comes from Ishtar, so who knows?
Easter definitely didn't originate with Christians, though. One of the things that made Christianity's spread so successful (apart from having the force of the great colonial empires of the Western world behind it) was the strategy of syncretizing and recontextualizing local pagan rituals, holidays, deities and (for better or worse) entire mytho-histories around Christianity.
Easter definitely didn't originate with Christians, though. One of the things that made Christianity's spread so successful (apart from having the force of the great colonial empires of the Western world behind it) was the strategy of syncretizing and recontextualizing local pagan rituals, holidays, deities and (for better or worse) entire mytho-histories around Christianity.
With regards to the pagan origins of Christmas I learned quite a bit by reading some of the linked articles here (such as the one about Yule or about the Christmas tree):
https://historyforatheists.com/2020/12/pagan-christmas/
Some quotes from the one about Christmas trees:
>People in the twenty-first century have this bizarre, instinctive notion that any custom we have today that we cannot rationally explain must be a survival of pre-Christian paganism. The idea of “pagan survivals” is so widespread that it has basically become the de facto explanation to any puzzling or peculiar tradition. People essentially just answer the question “Why do we decorate trees at Christmas?” with “I don’t know, so it must be paganism.”
>Most of the customs, traditions, and ideas we associate with the modern, secular Christmas are products of the past two hundred years. If you want to blame something for “ruining” Christmas and “taking Christ out Christmas,” you would be closer to the mark blaming twentieth and twenty-first century American capitalism than seventh-century BC Canaanite paganism (or whatever other variety of paganism you happen to fancy).
Some quotes from the one about Christmas trees:
>People in the twenty-first century have this bizarre, instinctive notion that any custom we have today that we cannot rationally explain must be a survival of pre-Christian paganism. The idea of “pagan survivals” is so widespread that it has basically become the de facto explanation to any puzzling or peculiar tradition. People essentially just answer the question “Why do we decorate trees at Christmas?” with “I don’t know, so it must be paganism.”
>Most of the customs, traditions, and ideas we associate with the modern, secular Christmas are products of the past two hundred years. If you want to blame something for “ruining” Christmas and “taking Christ out Christmas,” you would be closer to the mark blaming twentieth and twenty-first century American capitalism than seventh-century BC Canaanite paganism (or whatever other variety of paganism you happen to fancy).
IIRC the pagan origins of Christian holidays and symbols have their roots in making conversion more palatable for conquered Roman subjects. Christmas and Easter replace the solstice celebrations, the Christmas tree came from placing evergreen sprigs in the home during winter and the rabbit is a fertility thing.
I’ve always heard it was to make conversion to Christianity more palatable, full stop. At least in Western Europe most of the conquering was done before Rome was Christianized, and they never conquered the Germanic peoples who are the pagans who give us most or all of the familiar Christian trappings (Yule logs, Christmas in December, the word “Easter”, Christmas trees, elves, etc).
The pre-Christian Romans made conquering easier by bringing Roman luxuries (baths, food, wine, commerce, citizenship, etc) to conquered peoples and by making examples out of those who resisted, but Christianity was not part of the package.
Not sure what the Eastern Roman empire was doing with respect to conquering and Christianizing, but if they converted anyone, I don’t think those pagans contributed imagery back to Christian holidays as we know them in America.
That said, after the Western Roman empire collapsed there were lots of European powers who used conversion as part of their larger subjugation toolbox.
The pre-Christian Romans made conquering easier by bringing Roman luxuries (baths, food, wine, commerce, citizenship, etc) to conquered peoples and by making examples out of those who resisted, but Christianity was not part of the package.
Not sure what the Eastern Roman empire was doing with respect to conquering and Christianizing, but if they converted anyone, I don’t think those pagans contributed imagery back to Christian holidays as we know them in America.
That said, after the Western Roman empire collapsed there were lots of European powers who used conversion as part of their larger subjugation toolbox.
> Not sure what the Eastern Roman empire was doing with respect to conquering and Christianizing, but if they converted anyone, I don’t think those pagans contributed imagery back to Christian holidays as we know them in America.
Carol of the Bells
Carol of the Bells
Interesting, but I’m not seeing anything on the Wikipedia page that suggests it was actually pagan (only that the original chant predates Christianity; not that there is any religious significance whatsoever) nor does it seem to have been Christianized by the Eastern Roman empire to convert people.
> IIRC the pagan origins of Christian holidays and symbols have their roots in making conversion more palatable for conquered Roman subjects.
The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the retained (though radically transformed) Christian elements of consumerist celebrations like the modern American Christmas.
The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the retained (though radically transformed) Christian elements of consumerist celebrations like the modern American Christmas.
Right. People in English-speaking countries observe Sun Day, Moon Day, Tiw's Day, Odin's Day, Thor's Day, Freyja's Day, and Saturn's Day every single week.
That doesn't make them Germanic (or Roman) pagans. Ask the average person about Thor and you'll probably get something based on the comic book character. Ask him about Tiw and you're gonna get a blank look.
That doesn't make them Germanic (or Roman) pagans. Ask the average person about Thor and you'll probably get something based on the comic book character. Ask him about Tiw and you're gonna get a blank look.
Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese I know do have a Xmas, most of whom are not Christian.
And if I know someone celebrate Chanukah I’ll say happy Chanukah. Is that wrong?
And if I know someone celebrate Chanukah I’ll say happy Chanukah. Is that wrong?
My Hindu American family "celebrates" Christmas (tree/lights/presents/big meal)
So what's the argument here? Christians are represented proportionately in films if we count secular Americans as Christians?
I watched a Christian apologist recently who said basically this.
He was debating a $social-leftist and basically said:
>You say you're not religious, but the things you hold as value, the trappings of your ethics, and your decision making process seems to be more aligned with judeo-christianity than your self-proclaimed naturalist atheism"
He was debating a $social-leftist and basically said:
>You say you're not religious, but the things you hold as value, the trappings of your ethics, and your decision making process seems to be more aligned with judeo-christianity than your self-proclaimed naturalist atheism"
I watched something similar recently and I don't understand why it's so difficult for atheists to concede this point. I'm happy that Jesus argues for separation of church and state ("Render unto Caesar") and I don't need to find a non-religious inspiration. There are many examples of Christians coming up with good ideas. The fact that they did/do means very little in the debate regarding the existence of God.
Atheists celebrate Christmas. With family, gifts, Christmas songs and atmosphere. Just no God or Jesus.
Christmas is incredibly popular in Japan, which isn't very Christian at all.
Christmas is incredibly popular in Japan, which isn't very Christian at all.
My parents are non-Christian immigrants to the US and we celebrated Christmas every year growing up. Have you really not seen this? Especially in the cosmopolitan urban environments that Christmas movie settings skew towards?
That clearly isn't what GP was taking about. The point was about what % of film characters are identifiably Christian, not what % of film characters hail from a country with Christian heritage.
yeah man, stop talking about all of the non-christians like you know them all.
My family does, and we are all mixed. Also the xmass tree, was called New Years's Eve tree, and it went up every year, right before xmass.
This was even in communist Albania, where religions were forbidden. The only thing we changed, was to open presents in 1st of jan, instead on the 25th.
The whole xmass tree thing tradition, is an old pagan one, and existed way before jessus or whoever was born. It is a indo-european thing.
My family does, and we are all mixed. Also the xmass tree, was called New Years's Eve tree, and it went up every year, right before xmass.
This was even in communist Albania, where religions were forbidden. The only thing we changed, was to open presents in 1st of jan, instead on the 25th.
The whole xmass tree thing tradition, is an old pagan one, and existed way before jessus or whoever was born. It is a indo-european thing.
American Christmas is a capitalist holiday with christian roots. Christian Christmas is a christian holiday with pagan roots.
Boondock Saints. Has church, not comedy.
Daredevil (a Netflix series)
> Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America
Yes it does...
Yes it does...
Eh, not really. Christmas may have been a product of Christianity (hijacking a pagan holiday...), but it has long since become just a western culture tradition with no particular religious significance for a lot of people. Most Christmas movies don't even mention Christ.
> it has long since become just a western culture tradition with no particular religious significance for a lot of people
I think that people have a tendency to underestimate the degree of Christian influence on their way of life, and the vast majority of people who practice xmas are Christian, even if they are not weekly church attendees.
I was raised in an atheist household, we definitely viewed Christmas as a religious thing. Most of the songs are very religious, people go to mass, etc.
I think that people have a tendency to underestimate the degree of Christian influence on their way of life, and the vast majority of people who practice xmas are Christian, even if they are not weekly church attendees.
I was raised in an atheist household, we definitely viewed Christmas as a religious thing. Most of the songs are very religious, people go to mass, etc.
Christmas is a very secular holiday. There is still mass, but in American culture the religious aspect of Christmas is minuscule in comparison to the secular and consumerism aspects. "Most of the songs are very religious" is just not true for most mainstream Americans.
For most Americans Christmas is about family, Santa (Coke's version), Reindeers, Elves, Trees, and Gifts. And then local or family traditions which may include mass, but for most, it does not.
If you'd like some stats - 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Fewer than half of Americans consider Christmas primarily a religious holiday. Among younger generations that is much lower (30% of Millennials consider it a primarily religious holiday). A majority of Americans say that Christmas is less of a religious holiday than it was in the past. Only about half of Americans will go to church on Christmas (compared to 82% that will spend time with family).[1]
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-...
For most Americans Christmas is about family, Santa (Coke's version), Reindeers, Elves, Trees, and Gifts. And then local or family traditions which may include mass, but for most, it does not.
If you'd like some stats - 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Fewer than half of Americans consider Christmas primarily a religious holiday. Among younger generations that is much lower (30% of Millennials consider it a primarily religious holiday). A majority of Americans say that Christmas is less of a religious holiday than it was in the past. Only about half of Americans will go to church on Christmas (compared to 82% that will spend time with family).[1]
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/12/12/americans-say-religious-...
> Santa (Coke's version)
“The image of Santa Claus as a jolly large man in a red-and-white suit was the standard long before Coca-Cola co-opted it for their advertising.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-claus-that-refreshes/
“The image of Santa Claus as a jolly large man in a red-and-white suit was the standard long before Coca-Cola co-opted it for their advertising.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-claus-that-refreshes/
That only indicates that Christmas was secularized long before Coke borrowed the Santa imagery.
> If you'd like some stats - 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Fewer than half of Americans consider Christmas primarily a religious holiday.
Maybe we're looking at different stats. I'm looking at the ones you linked from Pew, which show that 61% of Americans who celebrate Xmas consider it to be Christian, down from 64% in 2014.
That's supposed to convince me that it is a secular holiday?
Maybe we're looking at different stats. I'm looking at the ones you linked from Pew, which show that 61% of Americans who celebrate Xmas consider it to be Christian, down from 64% in 2014.
That's supposed to convince me that it is a secular holiday?
That seems like strong evidence that there is a “secular Christmas” that is distinct from “Christian Christmas”. Certainly it suffices to disprove the original claim that “celebrating Christmas identifies someone as Christian”.
> I think that people have a tendency to underestimate the degree of Christian influence on their way of life,
One is not a Christian because Christianity influenced their culture.
> and the vast majority of people who practice xmas are Christian
The vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian. Does that make "humanity" a Christian institution?
One is not a Christian because Christianity influenced their culture.
> and the vast majority of people who practice xmas are Christian
The vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian. Does that make "humanity" a Christian institution?
Christians are a plurality of the world population but far from a majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
My mistake, but would it change the calculus if they were a strict majority?
> The vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian. Does that make "humanity" a Christian institution?
The point is that Christianity has become so normalized to you that you don't recognize Christian celebration as religious.
The fact that you incorrectly think that the "vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian" proves my point.
The point is that Christianity has become so normalized to you that you don't recognize Christian celebration as religious.
The fact that you incorrectly think that the "vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian" proves my point.
> The point is that Christianity has become so normalized to you that you don't recognize Christian celebration as religious.
So? Doesn't that just serve to lessen its overall religiousness? I mean, Christmas's traditions are themselves derived from pagan solstice celebrations. Wouldn't that make it a pagan institution by your reasoning?
Much like how Christians adopted pre-existing traditions and slapped a Jesus-shaped label on them, people are now slapping a secularity (or, I would argue, consumerist) label on to Christmas traditions.
So? Doesn't that just serve to lessen its overall religiousness? I mean, Christmas's traditions are themselves derived from pagan solstice celebrations. Wouldn't that make it a pagan institution by your reasoning?
Much like how Christians adopted pre-existing traditions and slapped a Jesus-shaped label on them, people are now slapping a secularity (or, I would argue, consumerist) label on to Christmas traditions.
> Christmas's traditions are themselves derived from pagan solstice celebrations
Well... [0]
> Wouldn't that make it a pagan institution by your reasoning?
Even when, say, a previously pagan practice is incorporated into Christianity, it is reinterpreted and given a new meaning, though probably in some way related to the original _by analogy_. This could be done to help the new converts better relate to the new faith and to preserve as much of the good in the previous culture as possible (in general, Catholicism gladly takes in whatever good and reconcilable there is in any culture[1]). In agreement with what you say, this does not make Christianity pagan.
Whether this is the same as the secularizing or commercializing or "consumerizing" of Christmas, I don't know. Maybe you could argue that this lumpenreligions are doing something analogous to what I just described, but this seems like a flaky comparison. Besides, secularism is a Christian heresy, so it's more like a heretical version of Christmas that's being practiced. The very idea of "secularism" is incomprehensible outside of Christianity (e.g., in Islam there is only Islam and the world of the infidels to be conquered and brought under the rule of Allah; the mosque is not an institution like the Church, just a building for prayer and thus no distinction, much less separation, between Church and State is thinkable).
[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/refuting-th...
[1] You can give this ultimate justification in "logos spermatikos".
Well... [0]
> Wouldn't that make it a pagan institution by your reasoning?
Even when, say, a previously pagan practice is incorporated into Christianity, it is reinterpreted and given a new meaning, though probably in some way related to the original _by analogy_. This could be done to help the new converts better relate to the new faith and to preserve as much of the good in the previous culture as possible (in general, Catholicism gladly takes in whatever good and reconcilable there is in any culture[1]). In agreement with what you say, this does not make Christianity pagan.
Whether this is the same as the secularizing or commercializing or "consumerizing" of Christmas, I don't know. Maybe you could argue that this lumpenreligions are doing something analogous to what I just described, but this seems like a flaky comparison. Besides, secularism is a Christian heresy, so it's more like a heretical version of Christmas that's being practiced. The very idea of "secularism" is incomprehensible outside of Christianity (e.g., in Islam there is only Islam and the world of the infidels to be conquered and brought under the rule of Allah; the mosque is not an institution like the Church, just a building for prayer and thus no distinction, much less separation, between Church and State is thinkable).
[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/refuting-th...
[1] You can give this ultimate justification in "logos spermatikos".
> The fact that you incorrectly think that the "vast majority of people on the planet are also Christian" proves my point.
No, it means that I confused the terms "majority" and "plurality". If 75% of the world were Christian, it wouldn't make "being human" a Christian institution.
No, it means that I confused the terms "majority" and "plurality". If 75% of the world were Christian, it wouldn't make "being human" a Christian institution.
[deleted]
> I think that people have a tendency to underestimate the degree of Christian influence on their way of life
People are like fish, they often don't know what water is. They don't realize that their views are usually defections (of defections of...) from Christianity and therefore essentially Christian heresies. In similar fashion, Christmas is first and foremost a religious holiday. The secular version is neuters and changes the original to better conform with secular expectations while trading on the energy and raison d'etre of the original in some weird way. If you think about it, the secular version drained of the original religious content is ridiculously stupid, like all those Soviet attempts to create substitutes for the originals. Call it an idol that will one day fade because Christmas is not very sustainable when cut from its life giving root for very long.
People are like fish, they often don't know what water is. They don't realize that their views are usually defections (of defections of...) from Christianity and therefore essentially Christian heresies. In similar fashion, Christmas is first and foremost a religious holiday. The secular version is neuters and changes the original to better conform with secular expectations while trading on the energy and raison d'etre of the original in some weird way. If you think about it, the secular version drained of the original religious content is ridiculously stupid, like all those Soviet attempts to create substitutes for the originals. Call it an idol that will one day fade because Christmas is not very sustainable when cut from its life giving root for very long.
> Most Christmas movies don't even mention Christ.
Like "Die Hard" ;).
Like "Die Hard" ;).
I grew up going to a school maybe 20% practicing Christian. Everyone celebrated christmas, got and gave gifts, had family dinners around then, etc.
If by practicing, you mean "going to church weekly" then sure, but that is not the necessary condition for christmas to be a religious thing.
It is extremely common in religions to have a large majority of people only doing the most visible festivals, not the daily/weekly things, that doesn't mean that the festivals are no longer religious.
It is extremely common in religions to have a large majority of people only doing the most visible festivals, not the daily/weekly things, that doesn't mean that the festivals are no longer religious.
Probably 70% of the student body was hindu, muslim, or jewish. But they still participated as an american cultural thing, they just didn't do anything church related with it.
Interesting. Where exactly was this?
I grew up in a major Jewish population center in the United States, most jews did not celebrate christmas outside of the ceremonial going out for chinese food.
Muslim students also did not celebrate xmas.
This is an urban center on the east coast.
I grew up in a major Jewish population center in the United States, most jews did not celebrate christmas outside of the ceremonial going out for chinese food.
Muslim students also did not celebrate xmas.
This is an urban center on the east coast.
> I grew up in a major Jewish population center in the United States, most jews did not celebrate christmas outside of the ceremonial going out for chinese food.
Going out for Chinese food is literally a tradition of said holiday. It's as much as celebration, as having a family gathering for atheists "for Christmas".
Going out for Chinese food is literally a tradition of said holiday. It's as much as celebration, as having a family gathering for atheists "for Christmas".
> ceremonial going out for chinese food
Wait, what, this is a thing? I'd never heard of that. Like, only the Jews would do it? Or more generally it's common for everyone to go out for Chinese food on Christmas? That has to be regional, if it's true. Kinda funny either way.
Wait, what, this is a thing? I'd never heard of that. Like, only the Jews would do it? Or more generally it's common for everyone to go out for Chinese food on Christmas? That has to be regional, if it's true. Kinda funny either way.
Oh yes, it is definitely a thing - and really only a jewish thing that I know of. I grew up in the mid-atlantic, but it is definitely also a thing in NYC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American_Chinese_restau...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American_Chinese_restau...
That is fascinating, thanks for sharing it. I hadn't heard of it, but then again, I don't have any interaction (that I am aware of, at least) with Jews -- everyone in my circle is a Christian or impersonates one.
In the US most restaurants close on Christmas, with Chinese and other Asian restaurants often being the only ones open. So if you want to go out to a restaurant to celebrate there usually isn't much choice.
I'm sure if more restaurants were open people would be celebrating at all sorts of other restaurants as well.
I'm sure if more restaurants were open people would be celebrating at all sorts of other restaurants as well.
At least where I grew up, it was more than just "these are the restaurants that are open." Perhaps it started as that but it is now a cultural tradition.
Eastern queens NYC. A good 70% of the teens with me were south asian.
Yeah, dude, that’s what it means to have a defacto state religion: it becomes the default thing. A classic characteristic of state religions is that even those who do not believe will institutionally practise. So, for instance, even Buddhists in Jordan must not eat in public during Ramadan.
Considering everything I was told about America, I was surprised to see that it is a Christian nation (I expected it to not be because of nominal separation of church and state). Instead, many laws are based on Christianity, leaders invoke the Christian god for justification for actions, and the state has official holidays for Christian events.
Modeling America as a Christian nation led to a more accurate prediction of reality.
This has led to less surprise on my part than most to see that local governments were amenable to bending to Christianity a lot more than others. SF has recently made specific parking laws for churches that close the streets. No such policy exists for synagogues, in comparison. Some were surprised. But I wasn’t. I expect governments at all levels in America to act to privilege Christianity.
After all, in action, America is a Christian nation. In practice, it is indistinguishable from the UK which has a de-jure (and de-facto) state religion.
Considering everything I was told about America, I was surprised to see that it is a Christian nation (I expected it to not be because of nominal separation of church and state). Instead, many laws are based on Christianity, leaders invoke the Christian god for justification for actions, and the state has official holidays for Christian events.
Modeling America as a Christian nation led to a more accurate prediction of reality.
This has led to less surprise on my part than most to see that local governments were amenable to bending to Christianity a lot more than others. SF has recently made specific parking laws for churches that close the streets. No such policy exists for synagogues, in comparison. Some were surprised. But I wasn’t. I expect governments at all levels in America to act to privilege Christianity.
After all, in action, America is a Christian nation. In practice, it is indistinguishable from the UK which has a de-jure (and de-facto) state religion.
> Buddhists in Jordan must not eat in public during Ramadan
That is very different! Buddhists in Jordan a legally barred from doing so, whereas there's no law demanding that you actually celebrate Christmas.
That is very different! Buddhists in Jordan a legally barred from doing so, whereas there's no law demanding that you actually celebrate Christmas.
There is a law that Federal government workers must not work during Christmas, however. You are legally barred from having employees who report in to you come in on Christmas. If you’re a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist you will be given Christmas to celebrate. Come on, this is blatantly non-separation-of-church-and-state.
It’s not anything that upsets me but observationally it is so obvious. M
It’s not anything that upsets me but observationally it is so obvious. M
But this is a vestige, and presumably one that would go away if challenged in court. It’s not strong proof that America is a Christian nation (de jure or de facto) or any such thing.
> SF has recently made specific parking laws for churches
Context matters.
This is not a general xtian supremacy thing. It is a unique historical thing with SF AA Baptist churches whose populations were gentrified out of their neighborhoods. Their churches remained and they commute from all over the Bay Area to attend Sunday mass.
Cops and neighborhoods accomodated this practice, but the latest generation of gentrifiers whined and complained as they are wont to do so the Supervisors got involved.
Context matters.
This is not a general xtian supremacy thing. It is a unique historical thing with SF AA Baptist churches whose populations were gentrified out of their neighborhoods. Their churches remained and they commute from all over the Bay Area to attend Sunday mass.
Cops and neighborhoods accomodated this practice, but the latest generation of gentrifiers whined and complained as they are wont to do so the Supervisors got involved.
To be clear, I do not live in that neighbourhood and I don't really mind the America-as-moderate-theocracy system in place. You won't see me whining about the Christian median parking. I have a motorcycle. SF's traffic doesn't bother me and the numerous curb cuts advantage me (cars can't park, but I can).
However, the fact that this stuff happens repeatedly for Christian institutions and rarely (almost never, in fact) for others is not something that escapes me. The state does privilege Christianity. That makes sense since America is a Christian nation.
However, the fact that this stuff happens repeatedly for Christian institutions and rarely (almost never, in fact) for others is not something that escapes me. The state does privilege Christianity. That makes sense since America is a Christian nation.
> However, the fact that this stuff happens repeatedly for Christian institutions and rarely (almost never, in fact) for others is not something that escapes me.
Probably just because there are a lot of Christian institutions.
Probably just because there are a lot of Christian institutions.
This is transparently not the case when exceptions are made for a Christian institution but not a Jewish one as frequently occurred during COVID-19 restrictions.
Where did this happen? Are you perhaps observing that Jews are disproportionately located in municipalities that were stricter on religious communities in general while Christians are all over (including the places that were very lax on COVID restrictions)?
I'm not familiar with this, care to cite?
> the state has official holidays for Christian events.
If that alarms you, definitely do not go to Europe!
That America has some unimportant vestiges of Christianity doesn't make it "a Christian nation" for any useful purposes. Yes, Trump did a bit of pandering to Christians which fooled precisely no one, but in any matter of substance America is resolvedly secular.
If you want an accurate and useful model, think of secularism as the religion of the elite minority and the law of the land while Christianity is simply the most popular plebeian religion. Yes, in rare occasions members of the elite need support from the lower classes and will pay some vapid lip service to Christianity (consider Trump's comical appeal to Christians: "the Bible is the best book ever, probably even better than the Art of The Deal"), but beyond that secularism is absolutely the law of the land legally and culturally.
If that alarms you, definitely do not go to Europe!
That America has some unimportant vestiges of Christianity doesn't make it "a Christian nation" for any useful purposes. Yes, Trump did a bit of pandering to Christians which fooled precisely no one, but in any matter of substance America is resolvedly secular.
If you want an accurate and useful model, think of secularism as the religion of the elite minority and the law of the land while Christianity is simply the most popular plebeian religion. Yes, in rare occasions members of the elite need support from the lower classes and will pay some vapid lip service to Christianity (consider Trump's comical appeal to Christians: "the Bible is the best book ever, probably even better than the Art of The Deal"), but beyond that secularism is absolutely the law of the land legally and culturally.
Trump is far from the only politician pandering to religious (especially Christian) interests, nor is he very representative.
If Christianity wasn't a major force in America there would be no controversy over Roe vs Wade (which everyone expects to be overridden soon, thanks to Christian activism) nor over gay marriage.
If Christianity wasn't a major force in America there would be no controversy over Roe vs Wade (which everyone expects to be overridden soon, thanks to Christian activism) nor over gay marriage.
I lived in Europe in de-jure religious nations. The fact that you find these comparable is exactly my point.
For other readers, you can model America as parent comment or you can model America as I have described it. I think you will get more accurate predictions from my model but if you don’t believe that, ask other outsiders who have moved to America (and made it their home, as I have). Or come here yourself.
Unfortunately, American identity is tied up in these things. The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ignored or considered a threat. But come here and see for yourself.
For other readers, you can model America as parent comment or you can model America as I have described it. I think you will get more accurate predictions from my model but if you don’t believe that, ask other outsiders who have moved to America (and made it their home, as I have). Or come here yourself.
Unfortunately, American identity is tied up in these things. The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ignored or considered a threat. But come here and see for yourself.
> I lived in Europe in de-jure religious nations. The fact that you find these comparable is exactly my point.
You're extrapolating an awful lot from a joke, but in any case if Europe fails your test for secularism then what countries are more secular? China?
> The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ignored or considered a threat.
The principle of separation of church and state is the foundation for American secularism. It's strange to me that you're appealing to it as evidence that America is particularly religious. Do you reserve "secularism" only for polities that forbid religious practice?
You're extrapolating an awful lot from a joke, but in any case if Europe fails your test for secularism then what countries are more secular? China?
> The so-called separation of church and state is held up on as much of a pedestal as “freedom” with predictable effects: evidence contra these principles is ignored or considered a threat.
The principle of separation of church and state is the foundation for American secularism. It's strange to me that you're appealing to it as evidence that America is particularly religious. Do you reserve "secularism" only for polities that forbid religious practice?
> Do you reserve "secularism" only for polities that forbid
> religious practice?
Having at least o couple of irreligious people in the legislative would be a good start :)
https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/12/...
Having at least o couple of irreligious people in the legislative would be a good start :)
https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/12/...
It does, as much as talking about Sunday as a day off denotes Christianity.
Did you know that Sunday is a day off in China as well?
Did you know that Sunday is a day off in China as well?
Certainly not in 60+% of films. And since when is Christmas only celebrated by Christians in the West? It became fully commercialized and secularized decades ago. Its even a major holiday in Japan these days, where less than 1% of the population is Christian.
> How often do you see Christmas used as a plot device? Or a church used as a setting? Or a priest character?
Far less than 60% of the time. And you can celebrate Christmas without being a Christian.
Far less than 60% of the time. And you can celebrate Christmas without being a Christian.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27503656.
Christmas isn't Christian
Gary Gygax on Christmas not being Christian:
https://i1.wp.com/craphound.com/images/gygax-xmas-s.jpg?w=97...
https://i1.wp.com/craphound.com/images/gygax-xmas-s.jpg?w=97...
Actually, I would flip this and say that going to church weekly is not a necessary condition for being within Christian sphere of influence.
Xmas is most certainly Christian.
Xmas is most certainly Christian.
Christian Christmas is Christian, but it is very different from Secular Christmas, which is practiced by Americans of all faiths as well as atheists and agnostics.
Beyond that different denominations celebrate very different Christmases. Compare midnight Mass of the nativity at a local catholic parish to the service at a local evangelical church to a mainline protestant church and they're very different.
What is depicted on film is clearly secular Christmas.
What is depicted on film is clearly secular Christmas.
> Xmas is most certainly Christian.
... didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion.
I didn’t grow up believing in Jesus, but I definitely believed in Santa Claus.
... didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion.
I didn’t grow up believing in Jesus, but I definitely believed in Santa Claus.
> didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion.
No, its a Christian abvreviation originating from the ancient use of the greek Chi (visually identical to Latin X), sometimes along with Rho (Latin P) — the first two letters of Christ in Greek — as an abbreviation for Christ. Itsl dates back to, IIRC, the 16th C with similar forms back to the medieval period.
Its been railed about as originating in a modern attempt to de-Christianize (or even explicitly paganize) Christmas more recently, but that is completely ahistorical.
No, its a Christian abvreviation originating from the ancient use of the greek Chi (visually identical to Latin X), sometimes along with Rho (Latin P) — the first two letters of Christ in Greek — as an abbreviation for Christ. Itsl dates back to, IIRC, the 16th C with similar forms back to the medieval period.
Its been railed about as originating in a modern attempt to de-Christianize (or even explicitly paganize) Christmas more recently, but that is completely ahistorical.
Whatever its origins, I have the distinct impression that, in addition to being a shorthand, it is used commonly to disambiguate Secular Christmas from Christian Christmas. I agree that Fox News blows this out of proportion and isn't correct on minutia about its origins, but that doesn't mean it isn't commonly used to distinguish between secular and religious variants which is IMHO the more substantial point.
There was even a joke back in the aughties about Windows XP being "Jesus Christ Edition".
> ... didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion.
No lol, that's just what Fox news said when they were talking about the "War on Christmas". It's a historical typographical thing where X was used as an abbreviation for Christ, you can look it up. Nothing about trying to separate it from religion.
No lol, that's just what Fox news said when they were talking about the "War on Christmas". It's a historical typographical thing where X was used as an abbreviation for Christ, you can look it up. Nothing about trying to separate it from religion.
Interesting. I don’t know about Fox news, but I do know some secular non-Christians that were using it that way.
Edit: Oh, and the Futurama episode. Does that count as Fox?
Edit: Oh, and the Futurama episode. Does that count as Fox?
> Xmas is most certainly Christian.
The modern American form is a consumerist orgy owing more to Macy’s, Coca-Cola, and greeting card industry than Christianity, that has less in common with the Christian holiday some of whose elements it adapted than the Christian holiday has to do with Saturnalia.
The modern American form is a consumerist orgy owing more to Macy’s, Coca-Cola, and greeting card industry than Christianity, that has less in common with the Christian holiday some of whose elements it adapted than the Christian holiday has to do with Saturnalia.
There are Christian (and particularly protestant) cultural influences and vestiges all around us, in many of our attitudes towards things.
The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity is only possible because of the way in which our culture has become naturalized to you.
The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity is only possible because of the way in which our culture has become naturalized to you.
> There are Christian (and particularly protestant) cultural influences and vestiges all around us, in many of our attitudes towards things.
Sure, that doesn't contradict anything I said, which was restricted to a particular response about the modern American commercial festival of “Christmas".
> The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity
...is not one I’ve expressed, so if you want to argue against it, go respond to someone actually making that argument.
Sure, that doesn't contradict anything I said, which was restricted to a particular response about the modern American commercial festival of “Christmas".
> The idea that the modern American lifestyle is completely divorced from Christianity
...is not one I’ve expressed, so if you want to argue against it, go respond to someone actually making that argument.
If you want to counteract the narrative bubbles that you're operating in, you need to work hardest to counteract the one that is the default. If you're like most Americans, you're probably immersed in left-leaning thought. The Left owns the culture. They own the major institutions that are shaping society through Hollywood, academia, sports entertainment, the music industry, social media, etc. They own the bureaucracy that has pretty much eaten up the US government. Even longtime bastions of the Right like the military, FBI, etc. have been taken over by the Left.
If you just consume random media, you're getting the left-leaning perspective. It's the right-leaning perspective that you probably have a deficiency of unless you make a great deal of effort to swim against the current.
Take, for example, Haidt's work on analyzing how well different political ideologies understood each other.
The bottom line: Moderates and Conservatives understood the Liberal perspective better than Liberals understand other perspectives.
https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conserva...
[edit: fixed a typo]
If you just consume random media, you're getting the left-leaning perspective. It's the right-leaning perspective that you probably have a deficiency of unless you make a great deal of effort to swim against the current.
Take, for example, Haidt's work on analyzing how well different political ideologies understood each other.
The bottom line: Moderates and Conservatives understood the Liberal perspective better than Liberals understand other perspectives.
https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conserva...
[edit: fixed a typo]
Good point but even if you get the perspective from the right, you’re still in the Overton window that was decided for you by the media.
Most of this is because the cultural tastemakers have long been college educated cosmopolitans, and the modern right has taken an extreme turn that has alienated them. Orange County votes Democrat on the presidential level now!
> Even longtime bastions of the Right like the military, FBI, etc. have been taken over by the Left.
What? What does this even mean?
The idea that the right understands the left better than the right is silly - how many Fox News profiles are there of Whole Foods shopping Democrats in Arlington? Of Black voters in Gwinnett county? Meanwhile, NYTimes did countless stories for four years about rural voters in diners that still like Trump despite the scandal of the week.
> Even longtime bastions of the Right like the military, FBI, etc. have been taken over by the Left.
What? What does this even mean?
The idea that the right understands the left better than the right is silly - how many Fox News profiles are there of Whole Foods shopping Democrats in Arlington? Of Black voters in Gwinnett county? Meanwhile, NYTimes did countless stories for four years about rural voters in diners that still like Trump despite the scandal of the week.
>The idea that the right understands the left better than the right is silly - how many Fox News profiles are there of Whole Foods shopping Democrats in Arlington? Of Black voters in Gwinnett county? Meanwhile, NYTimes did countless stories for four years about rural voters in diners that still like Trump despite the scandal of the week.
myfavoritedog's point is that the default position in the Times is of Whole Foods-shopping Democrats in NoVa. You couldn't read a book review, or sports column, without anti-Trump snark suddenly appearing in there regardless of the subject matter (seriously, it was like there was a quota to meet),
The pieces you mention invariably
* treat the subjects like they're a new, just-discovered animal species
* frame their fears and hopes, needs and concerns, in very patronizing ways. Example: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/trump-macho-a...>, which a) attributed Latin male support for Trump to their desire for the same kind of authoritarian machismo that ruined their home countries (as opposed to the same reasons that other blue-collar workers, Latino or not, voted for Trump) and b) made wanting to provide for one's family sound like a bad thing. Outcome: Trump in 2024 didn't just again outperform expectations with Latinos in 2024 (<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/trump-latino-...>), but also increased his Latin support.
(Needless to say, there's never, ever any Times article discussing how Latinos' support for a large welfare state hearkens back to their home countries' social models.)
* dismiss those being profiled as aberrations. Example: In 2016 the Clinton-friendly media backfired on Clinton by missing the facts on the ground. If in Ohio—for the past 150 years perhaps the quintessential swing state—and Iowa Trump was 10 points up in the polls, the right conclusion was that the rest of the Midwest was swinging to him too. The wrong conclusion was to come up with imaginary reasons why Ohio is suddenly no longer representative of the region or country (<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/ohio-campaign...>). One guess on which the press and the Clinton campaign chose.
myfavoritedog's point is that the default position in the Times is of Whole Foods-shopping Democrats in NoVa. You couldn't read a book review, or sports column, without anti-Trump snark suddenly appearing in there regardless of the subject matter (seriously, it was like there was a quota to meet),
The pieces you mention invariably
* treat the subjects like they're a new, just-discovered animal species
* frame their fears and hopes, needs and concerns, in very patronizing ways. Example: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/trump-macho-a...>, which a) attributed Latin male support for Trump to their desire for the same kind of authoritarian machismo that ruined their home countries (as opposed to the same reasons that other blue-collar workers, Latino or not, voted for Trump) and b) made wanting to provide for one's family sound like a bad thing. Outcome: Trump in 2024 didn't just again outperform expectations with Latinos in 2024 (<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/trump-latino-...>), but also increased his Latin support.
(Needless to say, there's never, ever any Times article discussing how Latinos' support for a large welfare state hearkens back to their home countries' social models.)
* dismiss those being profiled as aberrations. Example: In 2016 the Clinton-friendly media backfired on Clinton by missing the facts on the ground. If in Ohio—for the past 150 years perhaps the quintessential swing state—and Iowa Trump was 10 points up in the polls, the right conclusion was that the rest of the Midwest was swinging to him too. The wrong conclusion was to come up with imaginary reasons why Ohio is suddenly no longer representative of the region or country (<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/ohio-campaign...>). One guess on which the press and the Clinton campaign chose.
> without anti-Trump snark suddenly appearing in there regardless of the subject matter (seriously, it was like there was a quota to meet),
This sounds like some sort of victimhood complex. I think you should understand that 54% of the country did not like that man, ever, and we gave outsized influence to the 46% that did at the expense of the otherwise silent majority. Joe Biden blew the doors off turnout in history despite never having blockbuster rallies like Donald Trump or his Democratic rivals.
> frame their fears and hopes, needs and concerns, in very patronizing ways
I don't really disagree, which should mean they would do the same for working class black folk in the same cities, yes? But no, they don't.
> If in Ohio—for the past 150 years perhaps the quintessential swing state—and Iowa Trump was 10 points up in the polls, the right conclusion was that the rest of the Midwest was swinging to him too
This is not a good example - when a state stops being within 2-3 points of the national margin (~+0 R in '04, +3 R in '08, +1 R in '12) and starts becoming +10 R and then +12 R in '16 and '20 it does stop being a bellwether.
This sounds like some sort of victimhood complex. I think you should understand that 54% of the country did not like that man, ever, and we gave outsized influence to the 46% that did at the expense of the otherwise silent majority. Joe Biden blew the doors off turnout in history despite never having blockbuster rallies like Donald Trump or his Democratic rivals.
> frame their fears and hopes, needs and concerns, in very patronizing ways
I don't really disagree, which should mean they would do the same for working class black folk in the same cities, yes? But no, they don't.
> If in Ohio—for the past 150 years perhaps the quintessential swing state—and Iowa Trump was 10 points up in the polls, the right conclusion was that the rest of the Midwest was swinging to him too
This is not a good example - when a state stops being within 2-3 points of the national margin (~+0 R in '04, +3 R in '08, +1 R in '12) and starts becoming +10 R and then +12 R in '16 and '20 it does stop being a bellwether.
I sense that in a lot of these posts, "objective news source" = "they agree with me".
No news source is "unbiased" as in "not guided by what the newspaper things is valuable". It's a ridiculous notion. Even when full honesty is assumed (not sure why anyone would; all newspapers publish what they want you to think for all sorts of reasons), even putting aside external factors that constrain or compel what is said, there is a selection process informed by what is held as important. I am not dismissing the objectivity of value (no fact-value dichotomy in my world), but in practice, you will see a variation in what people hold that to be or want to hold that to be.
No news source is "unbiased" as in "not guided by what the newspaper things is valuable". It's a ridiculous notion. Even when full honesty is assumed (not sure why anyone would; all newspapers publish what they want you to think for all sorts of reasons), even putting aside external factors that constrain or compel what is said, there is a selection process informed by what is held as important. I am not dismissing the objectivity of value (no fact-value dichotomy in my world), but in practice, you will see a variation in what people hold that to be or want to hold that to be.
I thought that Dang said that posts with more comments then points were getting automatically down-ranked yet this post has 188 points and 463 comments and it is number 4 on the front page.
Also, this post has only one top level comment on the first page of comments.
Also, this post has only one top level comment on the first page of comments.
This article mentions Blindspotter, which is a great way to explore the bubbles around Twitter accounts (https://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter) and also Subreddits (https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/). For example, try:
John Oliver - https://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter/iamjohnoliver
Tucker Carlson - https://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter/TuckerCarlson
r/politics - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/politics
r/moderatepolitics - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/moderatepolitics
r/conservative - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/conservative
BTW Blindspotter is built by Ground News (https://ground.news/). They're like All Sides (https://www.allsides.com/) in that they provide displays that let you see articles from across the spectrum on a given story. But they also measure how much of a blindspot there is for the left or right based on how heavy or sparse the coverage of a story is from news sources of various biases, since much of the time we're not dealing with biased articles as much as selective coverage.
John Oliver - https://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter/iamjohnoliver
Tucker Carlson - https://ground.news/blindspotter/twitter/TuckerCarlson
r/politics - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/politics
r/moderatepolitics - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/moderatepolitics
r/conservative - https://ground.news/blindspotter/reddit/conservative
BTW Blindspotter is built by Ground News (https://ground.news/). They're like All Sides (https://www.allsides.com/) in that they provide displays that let you see articles from across the spectrum on a given story. But they also measure how much of a blindspot there is for the left or right based on how heavy or sparse the coverage of a story is from news sources of various biases, since much of the time we're not dealing with biased articles as much as selective coverage.
This is fantastic! Thank you for sharing.
Surprised to see you downvoted when so much complaining in this thread is already covered by Ground News. I suppose Hacker News itself is unable to escape its own echo chamber.
No they're not.
Impassionata(3)
Long ago, before the rise of Fox News but after discovering my political identity as being on the left, I listened to a lot of AM talk radio (particularly Michael Savage) both to get out of my bubble and in a "know your enemy" sort of way.
I learned nothing except that this guy was a tremendous asshole, saying things like "I want the US to nuke a country in the Middle East, I don't even care which one". Hearing shit like that, and his arrogant, bigoted, hate-filled bashing of everything to the left of Hitler diatribes just pissed me off, and I decided I really didn't need to hear more right-wing garbage.
While I was there, though, I did listen to others, like Rush Limbaugh and various other right wing "luminaries" (including going back to William F Buckley), and while Michael Savage was the most extreme of the ones I listened to, they were all just different shades of crap.
The same goes for listening, reading, or watching mainstream media like CNN or MSNBC, which I consider way too conservative for me. When I heard them defending the Iraq war, endlessly interviewing generals and other pro-war figures without interviewing any serious anti-war opposition (like, say, Noam Chomsky, or any of the other leaders of the antiwar movement), when they give trite, superficial coverage of protests and focus on sensationalism rather than issues the protests are about, when they (say) crap all over Obama for not wearing a lapel pin (instead of something serious like him enabling the surveillance state), when they give endless air time to Trump or can't stop talking about him (pre-election.. it's harder to ignore him when he's President), when they have an unquestioning support of capitalism, then I wonder why the fuck am I listening to this?
Yes, I'm out of my echo chamber when I listen to right-wing and mainstream news, but what's the point? They're really not telling me anything new... I already know how pro-war, pro-capitalist, right wing, anti-left they are.
Even consuming left-wing media mostly just upsets me because all they do is talk about the injustices of the right and quote right-wing media back at me, which just pisses me off more.
If I was politically active maybe this would be more bearable, as I'd have an outlet for my frustration, but as I'm not I really try to limit my consumption of news, left-or-right.
In theory it would be nice if there was more real communication between the left and the right, mutual understanding, and cooperation on issues we do agree on.. but I just don't see it happening. Both sides see each other as super biased, unfair, and close-minded, and it's hard to see how that's going to change... just getting out of one's echo chamber is not enough.
I learned nothing except that this guy was a tremendous asshole, saying things like "I want the US to nuke a country in the Middle East, I don't even care which one". Hearing shit like that, and his arrogant, bigoted, hate-filled bashing of everything to the left of Hitler diatribes just pissed me off, and I decided I really didn't need to hear more right-wing garbage.
While I was there, though, I did listen to others, like Rush Limbaugh and various other right wing "luminaries" (including going back to William F Buckley), and while Michael Savage was the most extreme of the ones I listened to, they were all just different shades of crap.
The same goes for listening, reading, or watching mainstream media like CNN or MSNBC, which I consider way too conservative for me. When I heard them defending the Iraq war, endlessly interviewing generals and other pro-war figures without interviewing any serious anti-war opposition (like, say, Noam Chomsky, or any of the other leaders of the antiwar movement), when they give trite, superficial coverage of protests and focus on sensationalism rather than issues the protests are about, when they (say) crap all over Obama for not wearing a lapel pin (instead of something serious like him enabling the surveillance state), when they give endless air time to Trump or can't stop talking about him (pre-election.. it's harder to ignore him when he's President), when they have an unquestioning support of capitalism, then I wonder why the fuck am I listening to this?
Yes, I'm out of my echo chamber when I listen to right-wing and mainstream news, but what's the point? They're really not telling me anything new... I already know how pro-war, pro-capitalist, right wing, anti-left they are.
Even consuming left-wing media mostly just upsets me because all they do is talk about the injustices of the right and quote right-wing media back at me, which just pisses me off more.
If I was politically active maybe this would be more bearable, as I'd have an outlet for my frustration, but as I'm not I really try to limit my consumption of news, left-or-right.
In theory it would be nice if there was more real communication between the left and the right, mutual understanding, and cooperation on issues we do agree on.. but I just don't see it happening. Both sides see each other as super biased, unfair, and close-minded, and it's hard to see how that's going to change... just getting out of one's echo chamber is not enough.
AllSides buys wholesale into right-wing framing. By what measure is CNN's news coverage on the leftmost side of the spectrum? Is MSNBC really the equivalent of Jacobin or Mother Jones, especially when it devotes 3 hours each morning to center-right Morning Joe?
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. It doesn't make sense to put a socialist website like Jacobin in the same category as liberal sites. It's two very different and opposing political philosophies.
> By what measure is CNN's news coverage on the leftmost side
"The latest Trump scandal shows how much we must still discover about his presidency's assault on democracy"
"Trump's DOJ continued to pursue a CNN reporter's records even after a federal judge called the reasoning 'unanchored in any facts'"
"A senate report reveals new details about the stunning security breakdowns ahead of the January 6 attack but omits Trump's role"
"Ex-president Obama says he never thought the darkness that rose in the GOP during his tenure would reach the party's epicenter"
"Exclusive audio of a 2019 phone call shows how Rudy Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless conspiracies about Biden"
These are CNN headlines from just the past week.
"The latest Trump scandal shows how much we must still discover about his presidency's assault on democracy"
"Trump's DOJ continued to pursue a CNN reporter's records even after a federal judge called the reasoning 'unanchored in any facts'"
"A senate report reveals new details about the stunning security breakdowns ahead of the January 6 attack but omits Trump's role"
"Ex-president Obama says he never thought the darkness that rose in the GOP during his tenure would reach the party's epicenter"
"Exclusive audio of a 2019 phone call shows how Rudy Giuliani pressured Ukraine to investigate baseless conspiracies about Biden"
These are CNN headlines from just the past week.
Impassionata(1)
This is straightforward reporting. Are CNNs many headlines quoting Trump, Republicans or right-leaning judges examples of right-wing bias? Are news outlets not allow to accurately describe a conspiracy theory as baseless? To do otherwise is to implicitly give credence to it. Reporting is not mindless stenography.
Here's the problem with your framing: It's not "left-wing" if it's true.
The first. Sure, that's an opinionated take on the facts of the matter. But the facts aren't great either.
The second. Did a federal judge call the reasoning "unanchored in any facts"? If so, then they're just telling you what the judge said. Did the Trump DOJ then continue to pursue those records? If so, then they're just telling you what happened. That headline is devoid of any opinion. And let's not ignore, it's about CNN being the target of the Trump DOJ. If this is indicative of bias, it's bias towards CNN themselves, not any "left-wing agenda".
The third. Did Trump have a role in the security of the D.C. and the Capitol? The headline implies he did. And from what we know, he did have some role. He was responsible for certain things. Now the word "stunning" is a smell. But it's not really forcing you to care about one side or the other. It's just saying that the security breakdown was extremely unexpected. That all being said, did the Senate make a report? Did it reveal new details? Did it not say anything about what the President could have done but didn't?
The fourth. Obama is an former President. His words will be reported on. Did he say those things? It's not bias to say someone said something. It's not bias to report on a former President.
The fifth. Once again. Did that happen? Is that audio of Giuliani calling Ukraine to convince them to investigate Biden? Is the investigation he wants based on anything meaningful?
So of the five headlines you've chosen to demonstrate liberal bias by CNN only the top can be said to be actually biased. And that's mostly in presentation. Being critical of Trump, the Republican party, or "the right" in general isn't "left-wing" by default. Republicans themselves should have been critical of Trump. And they were, right up until he won the nomination.
Fairness isn't tit-for-tat. Not every "right-wing" impropriety must be balanced with a "left-wing" one. That's not fairness. That's sports team mentality.
Fairness is everyone being measured against the same standard.
The first. Sure, that's an opinionated take on the facts of the matter. But the facts aren't great either.
The second. Did a federal judge call the reasoning "unanchored in any facts"? If so, then they're just telling you what the judge said. Did the Trump DOJ then continue to pursue those records? If so, then they're just telling you what happened. That headline is devoid of any opinion. And let's not ignore, it's about CNN being the target of the Trump DOJ. If this is indicative of bias, it's bias towards CNN themselves, not any "left-wing agenda".
The third. Did Trump have a role in the security of the D.C. and the Capitol? The headline implies he did. And from what we know, he did have some role. He was responsible for certain things. Now the word "stunning" is a smell. But it's not really forcing you to care about one side or the other. It's just saying that the security breakdown was extremely unexpected. That all being said, did the Senate make a report? Did it reveal new details? Did it not say anything about what the President could have done but didn't?
The fourth. Obama is an former President. His words will be reported on. Did he say those things? It's not bias to say someone said something. It's not bias to report on a former President.
The fifth. Once again. Did that happen? Is that audio of Giuliani calling Ukraine to convince them to investigate Biden? Is the investigation he wants based on anything meaningful?
So of the five headlines you've chosen to demonstrate liberal bias by CNN only the top can be said to be actually biased. And that's mostly in presentation. Being critical of Trump, the Republican party, or "the right" in general isn't "left-wing" by default. Republicans themselves should have been critical of Trump. And they were, right up until he won the nomination.
Fairness isn't tit-for-tat. Not every "right-wing" impropriety must be balanced with a "left-wing" one. That's not fairness. That's sports team mentality.
Fairness is everyone being measured against the same standard.
> It's not "left-wing" if it's true.
Then Fox News is also not right-wing.
Then Fox News is also not right-wing.
I notice how you give Fox News the benefit of the doubt but don't post examples from them.
My main issue with American news and commentary is the complete lack of skepticism of those on 'their side' of an issue.
On the right, when Trump hadn't yet gotten control of the party, there was some persistent reaction against him from established conservative media. Once he got control, it was almost complete silence.
On the left, evidence of how much of the investigation into Russian collusion with Trump's election team was completely made up and water carrying by the media of Clinton's team's planted story has never been owned by the participants.
There are near infinite examples of this on both sides. I just want media that is skeptical of those in power and those seeking power. All of them, not those on another team.
On the right, when Trump hadn't yet gotten control of the party, there was some persistent reaction against him from established conservative media. Once he got control, it was almost complete silence.
On the left, evidence of how much of the investigation into Russian collusion with Trump's election team was completely made up and water carrying by the media of Clinton's team's planted story has never been owned by the participants.
There are near infinite examples of this on both sides. I just want media that is skeptical of those in power and those seeking power. All of them, not those on another team.
> On the left, evidence of how much of the investigation into Russian collusion with Trump's election team was completely made up and water carrying by the media of Clinton's team's planted story has never been owned by the participants.
This is bizarre. No such thing happened.
This is bizarre. No such thing happened.
What I don’t like about articles like this is that they never ask the obvious question, why?. So people from rural areas are more likely to be conservative. Why? Because in a lot of places, like most of Latin America, the opposite is true. So what are the cultural and material reasons for that?
The most obvious reason here, is that when you go to college it tends to make you more liberal. Because you learn about the world, which makes you more tolerant and less religious.
But I think there are some psychosocial forces beyond that going on too. America was founded on the idea of going out and getting a bunch of free land and being self sufficient, so being godly and being self sufficient and being American all got tangled together. And if you’re wealthy and live in the country, you probably have a lot of property, which makes you conservative too.
Anyways there’s a lot more going on here and nobody ever talks about it, everything gets blamed on whatever the new explanation for every problem is, the internet currently. The internet exaggerates and intensifies these tendencies but it’s not where they come from.
The most obvious reason here, is that when you go to college it tends to make you more liberal. Because you learn about the world, which makes you more tolerant and less religious.
But I think there are some psychosocial forces beyond that going on too. America was founded on the idea of going out and getting a bunch of free land and being self sufficient, so being godly and being self sufficient and being American all got tangled together. And if you’re wealthy and live in the country, you probably have a lot of property, which makes you conservative too.
Anyways there’s a lot more going on here and nobody ever talks about it, everything gets blamed on whatever the new explanation for every problem is, the internet currently. The internet exaggerates and intensifies these tendencies but it’s not where they come from.
Nah, the echo chambers are tightening into dominant and submissive; it seems like people are because they are reacting to patently extreme behavior, but in reality modern culture is very much a leftist dominant narrative with a submissive conservative boogeyman narrative.
The issue to me is more that the extremes are so extreme as to be unworkable; you have people being unironic nazis, monarchists, and marxist-communists, so anything else will seem sane and balanced. But it's definitely not being out of an echo chamber.
The issue to me is more that the extremes are so extreme as to be unworkable; you have people being unironic nazis, monarchists, and marxist-communists, so anything else will seem sane and balanced. But it's definitely not being out of an echo chamber.
Echo chambers are fine. It’s okay to have firm beliefs that you aren’t interested in changing.
This isn’t appropriate for every belief, but for some, it is.
This isn’t appropriate for every belief, but for some, it is.
Nothing wrong with reading biased news sources. I think the difference is one should read sources that: 1) are upfront with their bias and 2) argue from a more neutral perspective.
You’ll learn something reading a liberal or conservative argue why their position is correct versus then other side. You can usually distinguish these article because they fairly state the other side’s position.
You won’t learn much reading something whose basic premise is “of course our side is right, let me tell you about all the bad things the other side is up to”.
You’ll learn something reading a liberal or conservative argue why their position is correct versus then other side. You can usually distinguish these article because they fairly state the other side’s position.
You won’t learn much reading something whose basic premise is “of course our side is right, let me tell you about all the bad things the other side is up to”.
It's not just how biased they are, I'm having issues with how little they're about news and how much about pure clickbait. I used to think up until recently, that CNN was a legitimate (left leaning) news source but it's all "watch this person react to that person saying something" and amazon product recommendations for stuff no one needs.
It has been going on for a while. Many of them have gone to the hot take reaction style opinion pieces. CNN copied the Fox 'formula' to try to get ratings. The 3 panel yell at each other format with maybe some news possibly scrolling at the bottom. It is not news. It is opinions presented as 'facts' when they are usually curated opinions to hit market share. The stuff before about 2010 was better disguised but it was still very similar to what you observe. Little news, lots of opinions. After that point I think they just stopped bothering to disguise it much.
It is kind of 'interesting' to watch but you are not going to get much out of it. I cut a bunch of that sort of 'news' out of my life. It was not giving me news but curated opinions to have. I found my stress levels were so much nicer.
It is kind of 'interesting' to watch but you are not going to get much out of it. I cut a bunch of that sort of 'news' out of my life. It was not giving me news but curated opinions to have. I found my stress levels were so much nicer.
It sounds hopelessly naive in 2021, when suggesting that the press can even attempt to be objective marks you as a rube. Yet it seems like enforcing some expectation of fairness would be an improvement over having none at all. It may not be possible to actually be objective, but in the same way that we can't stop people from killing or robbing each other, we still insist on asking them very nicely not to, and holding them to account when we catch them at it. Most would say it's better to have some pretense of civilization than to just give up trying: why have we given up trying?
I'd even suggest that removing the standard of fairness allowed a different set of ethics to fill the vacuum: good journalism is attention-grabbing and serves the ideological base that forms your revenue stream. You could see this happening with the cable news explosion in the 80s, but it went supernova with the internet, and the changing economics of the post-Facebook era.
Clearly, the FCC can't control the global internet, and broadcast television and radio is not much of a factor anymore. So, any modern equivalent to the fairness doctrine would likely have to come from aggregators like Facebook, Google, Reddit, etc., which may seem impossible because it's at odds with their business model. But, I'm hopeful because there is a history of industries adopting their own standards before they have more restrictive ones imposed on them by regulation.