4 ms·

What the article is about, is the history of Slavery in the North-American continent since the time of the English Colonies. The actual content is pretty intere

What the article is about, is the history of Slavery in the North-American continent since the time of the English Colonies. The actual content is pretty interesting, from a historical point of view. The headline was meant to highlight a crap shot the author takes at current American society; everybody claims that every perceived slight to their dignity is equivalent to an actual attempt at their freedom. However, that is not what this piece is about and you will do yourself a diservice if you skip it because it is 'click-baity'. Just trim down the first 2 paragraphs and the last one and you will filter out the noise without any lose of the actual signal.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
>Just trim down the first 2 paragraphs and the last one and you will filter out the noise without any lose of the actual signal. No. It's not the readers' responsibility to approach an article and then have explicitly filter out the casual outrage-baiting and thinly veiled, poorly informed political advocacy which is par for the course in most online media. If they want us to read their articles, they can damn well not insult our intelligence in the process. Until then, there's plenty of other things to read.
- rokoshan 10y ago
  We live in an age of abundant, easily vettable information. By your presence here on HN I would assume in fact that you are a rather well-educated person, which is why I figured I'd respond to something on the internet. Sadly the abundance of information out there, not to mention the seeming biological inability for humans to think in a purely rational way ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias ) means that it's very difficult not to encounter some noise in scholarship. If you cannot read past even open bias to engage with a reading critically and openly, you handicap your ability to gain new knowledge (even that which may disagree with a reading's thesis!) and to respond to the misconceptions and biases of those who do not read or think critically. This advances ignorance or apathy over knowledge and does a disservice to free-thinking citizens the world over, especially in a democracy if you're so fortunate to live in one. Now no one can force you to engage in a discussion or debate you'd rather not be a part of, and it's perfectly normal to not find interest in historical questions and essays. But to dismiss a scholarly reading on the basis of whether it has bias at all, rather than the more reasonable basis that said bias is not identified, not minimized or not properly segregated from the argument in question, is irrational.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    There's a difference between having the ability to tune out noise when you come across it, and deliberately seeking it out -- or not avoiding it if you are warned in advance. Furthermore, this type of noise in particular is generally an excellent hint that the actual "educational" content is going to be less educational and more propaganda.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

mzw_mzw 10y ago

>Just trim down the first 2 paragraphs and the last one and you will filter out the noise without any lose of the actual signal. No. It's not the readers' responsibility to approach an article and then have explicitly filter out the casual outrage-baiting and thinly veiled, poorly informed political advocacy which is par for the course in most online media. If they want us to read their articles, they can damn well not insult our intelligence in the process. Until then, there's plenty of other things to read.

rokoshan 10y ago
We live in an age of abundant, easily vettable information. By your presence here on HN I would assume in fact that you are a rather well-educated person, which is why I figured I'd respond to something on the internet. Sadly the abundance of information out there, not to mention the seeming biological inability for humans to think in a purely rational way ( https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias ) means that it's very difficult not to encounter some noise in scholarship. If you cannot read past even open bias to engage with a reading critically and openly, you handicap your ability to gain new knowledge (even that which may disagree with a reading's thesis!) and to respond to the misconceptions and biases of those who do not read or think critically. This advances ignorance or apathy over knowledge and does a disservice to free-thinking citizens the world over, especially in a democracy if you're so fortunate to live in one. Now no one can force you to engage in a discussion or debate you'd rather not be a part of, and it's perfectly normal to not find interest in historical questions and essays. But to dismiss a scholarly reading on the basis of whether it has bias at all, rather than the more reasonable basis that said bias is not identified, not minimized or not properly segregated from the argument in question, is irrational.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  There's a difference between having the ability to tune out noise when you come across it, and deliberately seeking it out -- or not avoiding it if you are warned in advance. Furthermore, this type of noise in particular is generally an excellent hint that the actual "educational" content is going to be less educational and more propaganda.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]