5 ms·

Your assertion that fake news can't matter is absurd. Fake news has always been a part of American society (Remember the Maine!) and has always affected politi

by megalox 10y ago

Your assertion that fake news can't matter is absurd. Fake news has always been a part of American society (Remember the Maine!) and has always affected politics. The degree has varied over time, but this type of manipulation has happened, repeatedly, with great effect. It is dishonest to pretend that the dems are claiming fake news is the only reason they lost. Conversations list it as one of a host of contributing factors, not a whole explanation. We all know this, and you should be ashamed of having pretended otherwise. It's also absurd to claim that the response is mere sour grapes. People have a tendency to ignore problems and hope they go away until they are too big to ignore. This is such a case. Filter bubbles and fake news seemed troubling, but when Trump managed to beat a number of well qualified Republican candidates, it became clear that fake news had more power than was believed. It's beyond belief that fake news has now become a political issue. On the one hand we have people who want it to be easier for an individual to know if they're being lied to; and on the other hand we have the Trump-loving wing of the GOP. (this is not the entire or even a majority of the GOP). It's wholly reasonable to care about truth, and to want more truth. Your post has no value. You are just attacking the character of people with a valid concern, and you're backing up that attack with mischaracterizations and lies. Thus, I suppose, it is unsurprising that you oppose truth in media.

rdtsc 10y ago
> Your assertion that fake news can't matter is absurd. I didn't say it can't matter. I said I don't believe it is the reason for an electoral landslide. Do you? > It is dishonest to pretend that the dems are claiming fake news is the only reason they lost. So we agree there. It is a matter of degree. It seems you think it has a stronger degree and I think it didn't. Hopefully we'll see some impartial well done studies about it. So far I just have an opinion and it's ok disagree with it. > People have a tendency to ignore problems and hope they go away until they are too big to ignore. This is such a case. That's a good explanation. I like it, I can agree with that. > You are just attacking the character of people with a valid concern, But isn't "attacking the character of people" the theme here. The idea that people who haven't picked a candidate I liked are idiots / racists / homophobic? I've heard that quite often in mass media and I find it too dismissive and simple. I didn't say you said that but I've heard it enough time to form an opinion. > Your post has no value. Sorry. I didn't mean to waste your time. It was my opinion. Yes it probably has no value.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  There was not an electoral landslide. 2 or 3 states could flip the election, 6 states had very close races. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi... A landslide is like Ike got. 60% of the popular vote, 457 electoral college votes, 41 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
  - gozur88 10y ago
    This. The election was decisive enough that recounts aren't going to change the result, but it wasn't decisive enough to indicate one of those tectonic political shifts that occur occasionally.
mc32 10y ago
>It is dishonest to pretend that the dems are claiming fake news is the only reason they lost So rather than introspection and analyzing why they lost working class voters (black, white, _women_, etc.), for example we saw party reg changes in the primaries favor Repubs, why are so many people mesmerized on this one theme? I think it's to feel better by believing the result is not "legitimate". If Dems continue this line of thought, they will lose the rust belt next time again. Where are the discussion on the main causes? Most discussion is about this tempest in a tea-cup. Not much time is dedicated to how the primaries were run and how one candidate felt they were entitled to the candidacy and how that candidate failed to seriously address working class issues in a way working class people can identify with. Nor do we see a discussion on how the candidate's flaws undercut their ability to effectively counter the opposition candidate. Do you think a strong candidate would not have won by 5% percentage point versus the ultimate winner, given the winner's weaknesses and lack of experience. That alone should send alarm bells up the Dem hierarchy as well as constituency.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  It is interesting you got downvoted. I didn't see any insulting or obscene words in your comment (unlike in other posts). I think it is rather indicative of the process you mention. "I am so angry, so I'll just downvote and run" > So rather then introspection and analyzing why they lost working class voters (black, white, etc.) why are so many people mesmerized on this one theme? Yes, you said it better than me. > I think it's to feel better by believing the result is not "legitimate". Interestingly someone was asking the other day how come the right has all these conspiracy theory, where are the left conspiracy theories? (And I am being generous here painting Hillary as the "left", but that's for another comment). And I couldn't think of any right away. Maybe the idea is the minority resorts to dismissive conspiratorial thinking. It is used as an explanation for why things don't work the way they hope. Perhaps we are seeing an inkling of that happening.
- maratd 10y ago
  > If Dems continue this line of thought, they will lose the rust belt next time again. It is always far easier to shift blame. Forget politics, on anything really. When you do that, that's the end of the discussion. When you point the finger at yourself, it's the beginning, because now you have work to do. People almost always point somewhere else. Actual change is hard and almost nobody wants to do it.
dang 10y ago
This looks like the latest account of a serial troll who specializes in breaking HN's civility rule, so we've banned the account. Personal attacks and aggressive rhetoric are not allowed on Hacker News. It's possible that we're reading the data wrong. If so, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com to clear things up. Either way, though, please don't post like this.

by megalox 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

> Your assertion that fake news can't matter is absurd. I didn't say it can't matter. I said I don't believe it is the reason for an electoral landslide. Do you? > It is dishonest to pretend that the dems are claiming fake news is the only reason they lost. So we agree there. It is a matter of degree. It seems you think it has a stronger degree and I think it didn't. Hopefully we'll see some impartial well done studies about it. So far I just have an opinion and it's ok disagree with it. > People have a tendency to ignore problems and hope they go away until they are too big to ignore. This is such a case. That's a good explanation. I like it, I can agree with that. > You are just attacking the character of people with a valid concern, But isn't "attacking the character of people" the theme here. The idea that people who haven't picked a candidate I liked are idiots / racists / homophobic? I've heard that quite often in mass media and I find it too dismissive and simple. I didn't say you said that but I've heard it enough time to form an opinion. > Your post has no value. Sorry. I didn't mean to waste your time. It was my opinion. Yes it probably has no value.

maxerickson 10y ago
There was not an electoral landslide. 2 or 3 states could flip the election, 6 states had very close races. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi... A landslide is like Ike got. 60% of the popular vote, 457 electoral college votes, 41 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- gozur88 10y ago
  This. The election was decisive enough that recounts aren't going to change the result, but it wasn't decisive enough to indicate one of those tectonic political shifts that occur occasionally.

mc32 10y ago

>It is dishonest to pretend that the dems are claiming fake news is the only reason they lost So rather than introspection and analyzing why they lost working class voters (black, white, _women_, etc.), for example we saw party reg changes in the primaries favor Repubs, why are so many people mesmerized on this one theme? I think it's to feel better by believing the result is not "legitimate". If Dems continue this line of thought, they will lose the rust belt next time again. Where are the discussion on the main causes? Most discussion is about this tempest in a tea-cup. Not much time is dedicated to how the primaries were run and how one candidate felt they were entitled to the candidacy and how that candidate failed to seriously address working class issues in a way working class people can identify with. Nor do we see a discussion on how the candidate's flaws undercut their ability to effectively counter the opposition candidate. Do you think a strong candidate would not have won by 5% percentage point versus the ultimate winner, given the winner's weaknesses and lack of experience. That alone should send alarm bells up the Dem hierarchy as well as constituency.

rdtsc 10y ago
It is interesting you got downvoted. I didn't see any insulting or obscene words in your comment (unlike in other posts). I think it is rather indicative of the process you mention. "I am so angry, so I'll just downvote and run" > So rather then introspection and analyzing why they lost working class voters (black, white, etc.) why are so many people mesmerized on this one theme? Yes, you said it better than me. > I think it's to feel better by believing the result is not "legitimate". Interestingly someone was asking the other day how come the right has all these conspiracy theory, where are the left conspiracy theories? (And I am being generous here painting Hillary as the "left", but that's for another comment). And I couldn't think of any right away. Maybe the idea is the minority resorts to dismissive conspiratorial thinking. It is used as an explanation for why things don't work the way they hope. Perhaps we are seeing an inkling of that happening.
maratd 10y ago
> If Dems continue this line of thought, they will lose the rust belt next time again. It is always far easier to shift blame. Forget politics, on anything really. When you do that, that's the end of the discussion. When you point the finger at yourself, it's the beginning, because now you have work to do. People almost always point somewhere else. Actual change is hard and almost nobody wants to do it.

dang 10y ago

This looks like the latest account of a serial troll who specializes in breaking HN's civility rule, so we've banned the account. Personal attacks and aggressive rhetoric are not allowed on Hacker News. It's possible that we're reading the data wrong. If so, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com to clear things up. Either way, though, please don't post like this.