3 ms·

I can only speak for myself, of course, and my primary motivation for ditching places like Slashdot (among others) in favor of HN was to get away from the blata

I can only speak for myself, of course, and my primary motivation for ditching places like Slashdot (among others) in favor of HN was to get away from the blatant, fervent, and persistent editorializing of their staff (which is a new phenomenon, from their relatively recent hires like BeauHD and msmash), and the ideological push I see from journalists everywhere. This can easily be explained by stoicism - both in the wish to remain clear and unbiased, and objectively reasoned. I don't mind bias from a source, if the source wears it on their sleeve. The best newspaper in my country is a radical one on the far end of a spectrum, and it's essentially one of 3 that still do any kind of investigative journalism. They advertise their bias in their header.

yesenadam 9y ago
Sorry, what can be explained? Why you came here, or why they got like that? Which ideology is being pushed? (I dont know /.) I don't really believe in that biased/unbiased thing. 'Unbiased' I think means you agree with them, with their 'bias' if you use that word. Same with 'objective'. In fields as unscientific as politics anyway. And any time anyone speaks, they speak with their own personal 'bias', don't they? Hopefully anyway.
- folknor 9y ago
  Why I came here can be explained easily by some of the principles of stoicism, is what I wanted to point out. I'm not sure why I've been downvoted for simply explaining one of the reasons why I joined HN. Perhaps that means the person who downvoted me doesn't want me here, or thinks that my reasons for joining HN are not worthy. The ideology being pushed by the editors I mentioned on /. is radical left-wing identitarian politics. Virtue-signaling and victimhood narratives. You might ask for examples - but I won't give you any. I've been on slashdot for decades, and it's over the past two years I noticed this trend. I've commented anonymously on at least 3 of their posts about this very thing - and calling them out explicitly and by name, and I've not gotten any response. If I used an account, I could have found those comments again. I realise the onus is still on me to prove something, if requested - but all I said was "this is what I feel, and this is the reason I joined HN". A biased journalist comes to the story with a predisposition and/or presupposition as to how their reporting on a matter will conclude, in a way that might lead to narrowing their field of vision such that they only pick up on things that confirm the narrative they're interested in subscribing to, or that fits in their view of the world. Newspapers are rank with it in war reports, for example. And like I said, it's fine if you wear it on your sleeve. You might be right that "unbiased means I agree" - that's certainly true more often than not. All I can say is I purposefully and actively work for that to not apply to me. Of course I fail often.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    Thanks, interesting. Well, I'm pretty new here too. Maybe you offended some /. people, ya think?! Why name names like that. You sounded very bitter. Anyway, you can edit a comment to ask the downvoters why they did so. I find it annoying sometimes not to know why. But I'd say that's why. No-one wants to read that kind of angry rant on here. Ohh, you mean, can be explained by your stoic principles. Gotcha. I'm always amused when I hear people in the US talk about "radical left-wing", and calling anything left of far-right, "communist". I guess I don't think they know what left or left-wing means. That stuff you decribe sounds more like "stupid" or "ignorant" than any particular left/right thing. Hmm well, using those bad-faith labels ("virtue-signaling", "victimhood narratives") might be satisfying, but no-one thinks they're doing that, (like people never think they're being unfair, unjust etc) so I imagine it would make further dialogue impossible. You don't win just by having a label for something. But yeah, I've seen appalling videos of the kind of thing you're talking about. I was once called 'sexist' (by a girlfriend! ha) for saying men and women are different - that men have penises, women have vaginas. It was confusion acquired from confused post-modern university arts lecturers, I think. But yeah, it has gotten pretty stupid. Well, there have always been stupid thought fads like that. HL Mencken is good on keeping perspective, not letting that bug you too much. Even scientists usually come to an experiment/survey with some hypothesis about how things will turn out, which is why they're doing it. Sure, we try to be more accurate, have better information, not let our baggage cloud our perception, but I think this 'unbiased' person is a myth and unattainable, and not very useful to aim for. To be 'expert' in anything, in the sense that is possible in our lives, is to be biased. (I see why I have a problem with the very word 'biased' - it takes for granted that 'unbiased' is a real thing.) “It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless.” - Oscar Wilde Actually that quote's worth giving in context. From The Critic as Artist: Ernest: Well, I should say that a critic should above all things be fair. Gilbert: Ah! not fair. A critic cannot be fair in the ordinary sense of the word. It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless. The man who sees both sides of a question, is a man who sees absolutely nothing at all. Art is a passion, and, in matters of art, Thought is inevitably coloured by emotion, and so is fluid rather than fixed, and, depending upon fine moods and exquisite moments, cannot be narrowed into the rigidity of a scientific formula or a theological dogma. It is to the soul that Art speaks, and the soul may be made the prisoner of the mind as well as of the body. One should, of course, have no prejudices; but, as a great Frenchman remarked a hundred years ago, it is one's business in such matters to have preferences, and when one has preferences one ceases to be fair. It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of Art.

yesenadam 9y ago

Sorry, what can be explained? Why you came here, or why they got like that? Which ideology is being pushed? (I dont know /.) I don't really believe in that biased/unbiased thing. 'Unbiased' I think means you agree with them, with their 'bias' if you use that word. Same with 'objective'. In fields as unscientific as politics anyway. And any time anyone speaks, they speak with their own personal 'bias', don't they? Hopefully anyway.

folknor 9y ago
Why I came here can be explained easily by some of the principles of stoicism, is what I wanted to point out. I'm not sure why I've been downvoted for simply explaining one of the reasons why I joined HN. Perhaps that means the person who downvoted me doesn't want me here, or thinks that my reasons for joining HN are not worthy. The ideology being pushed by the editors I mentioned on /. is radical left-wing identitarian politics. Virtue-signaling and victimhood narratives. You might ask for examples - but I won't give you any. I've been on slashdot for decades, and it's over the past two years I noticed this trend. I've commented anonymously on at least 3 of their posts about this very thing - and calling them out explicitly and by name, and I've not gotten any response. If I used an account, I could have found those comments again. I realise the onus is still on me to prove something, if requested - but all I said was "this is what I feel, and this is the reason I joined HN". A biased journalist comes to the story with a predisposition and/or presupposition as to how their reporting on a matter will conclude, in a way that might lead to narrowing their field of vision such that they only pick up on things that confirm the narrative they're interested in subscribing to, or that fits in their view of the world. Newspapers are rank with it in war reports, for example. And like I said, it's fine if you wear it on your sleeve. You might be right that "unbiased means I agree" - that's certainly true more often than not. All I can say is I purposefully and actively work for that to not apply to me. Of course I fail often.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  Thanks, interesting. Well, I'm pretty new here too. Maybe you offended some /. people, ya think?! Why name names like that. You sounded very bitter. Anyway, you can edit a comment to ask the downvoters why they did so. I find it annoying sometimes not to know why. But I'd say that's why. No-one wants to read that kind of angry rant on here. Ohh, you mean, can be explained by your stoic principles. Gotcha. I'm always amused when I hear people in the US talk about "radical left-wing", and calling anything left of far-right, "communist". I guess I don't think they know what left or left-wing means. That stuff you decribe sounds more like "stupid" or "ignorant" than any particular left/right thing. Hmm well, using those bad-faith labels ("virtue-signaling", "victimhood narratives") might be satisfying, but no-one thinks they're doing that, (like people never think they're being unfair, unjust etc) so I imagine it would make further dialogue impossible. You don't win just by having a label for something. But yeah, I've seen appalling videos of the kind of thing you're talking about. I was once called 'sexist' (by a girlfriend! ha) for saying men and women are different - that men have penises, women have vaginas. It was confusion acquired from confused post-modern university arts lecturers, I think. But yeah, it has gotten pretty stupid. Well, there have always been stupid thought fads like that. HL Mencken is good on keeping perspective, not letting that bug you too much. Even scientists usually come to an experiment/survey with some hypothesis about how things will turn out, which is why they're doing it. Sure, we try to be more accurate, have better information, not let our baggage cloud our perception, but I think this 'unbiased' person is a myth and unattainable, and not very useful to aim for. To be 'expert' in anything, in the sense that is possible in our lives, is to be biased. (I see why I have a problem with the very word 'biased' - it takes for granted that 'unbiased' is a real thing.) “It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless.” - Oscar Wilde Actually that quote's worth giving in context. From The Critic as Artist: Ernest: Well, I should say that a critic should above all things be fair. Gilbert: Ah! not fair. A critic cannot be fair in the ordinary sense of the word. It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless. The man who sees both sides of a question, is a man who sees absolutely nothing at all. Art is a passion, and, in matters of art, Thought is inevitably coloured by emotion, and so is fluid rather than fixed, and, depending upon fine moods and exquisite moments, cannot be narrowed into the rigidity of a scientific formula or a theological dogma. It is to the soul that Art speaks, and the soul may be made the prisoner of the mind as well as of the body. One should, of course, have no prejudices; but, as a great Frenchman remarked a hundred years ago, it is one's business in such matters to have preferences, and when one has preferences one ceases to be fair. It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of Art.