4 ms·

I love this model, but I'm confused by this article since it keeps saying "the media’s preferred policies" as if there is one singular policy that the entire me

• tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  This site has it's own agenda as well which is easy to spot in the article if you look.
  • ViktorV 9y ago
    Indeed. But it doesn't mix moral judgement with policies.
    • quotemstr 9y ago
      If you don't think SV tech (which HN generally represents) has a moralizing utopian political bent, you haven't been paying attention. It's a massive problem.
      • phkahler 9y ago
        While correct, your comment is IMHO misplaced here.
• psergeant 9y ago
  This should be seriously spiking your cynicism levels about the rest of the article.
  • phkahler 9y ago
    >> This should be seriously spiking your cynicism levels about the rest of the article. Nice attempt to apply the media tactics to the model itself.
• mseebach 9y ago
  Yes, I think you need to bound off specific subsets of policy initiatives and "the media" for this model to make sense. It seems to me that Fox News and MSNBC do this symmetrically to each other over the same policies - Fox: Liberals promote affirmative action because they hate white people, MSNBC: Conservatives oppose affirmative action because they hate black people. Informed people should be absolutely allergic to the suggestion that someone promoting or opposing a given policy does do because they have malicious intent (and frankly, be suspicious of suggestions that someone are doing it because they have particularly pure intent).
  • jfaucett 9y ago
    > Informed people should be absolutely allergic to the suggestion that someone promoting or opposing a given policy does do because they have malicious intent This. Once you dig into the research, or just have a lot of conversations with people who have opposing viewpoints, you realize that the vast majority i.e. 99% of people have the same goals and well-meaning intentions. For example, conservatives and democrats both want to maximize human flourishing, they both want people to be happy, they want to prevent poverty and provide people with an environment that maximizes well being for everyone. All sides come from this same starting place morally. Its on the best pathway to achieve our common goals that people differ in opinions. This is why I always advocate for more scientific method in politics and governmental processes, we need better data and models and we need to test those models so we can better discern which paths are best towards reaching our common goals.
    • laretluval 9y ago
      > Once you dig into the research, or just have a lot of conversations with people who have opposing viewpoints, you realize that the vast majority i.e. 99% of people have the same goals and well-meaning intentions. Suppose counterfactually that one side or both sides are in fact motivated by malice. Do you think you would be able to detect this by examining their officially stated desires and morality? Nearly all people want to think of themselves as morally good and are good at telling stories (often to themselves) about why they are good. This doesn't provide strong evidence that they are in fact good.