5 ms·

I do agree that paying too much attention to the crazy that’s going on is not constructive or healthy. But you can definitely overcorrect. If you completely di

I do agree that paying too much attention to the crazy that’s going on is not constructive or healthy. But you can definitely overcorrect. If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. A lot of what’s happening in politics does affect you directly. Changes to tax code, the budget, deregulation of industries (e.g. net neutrality). And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appointment to the most powerful court of the land. If the accusations weren’t, wouldn’t that be important too? If you’re taking a break to maintain sanity I can understand that. But if you’re simply shrugging your shoulders at what’s happening simply because it doesn’t affect you right now—and trust me, some of the policies this administration is adopting are having a big impact on some—then I think that’s a pretty shitty, selfish attitude to have.

malvosenior 7y ago
> And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appointment to the most powerful court of the land. If the accusations weren’t, wouldn’t that be important too? This example is exactly why someone should ignore the news. This was pure partisan bickering and mud slinging. Not once during the whole episode were Kavanaugh's actual positions discussed. Just rumors, gossip, fighting and soundbites. No one came out ahead paying attention to this story.
- enumjorge 7y ago
  I understand your frustration, but I think this logic is easily exploited. Part of democracy is keeping our elected officials in check. If we mentally check out whenever they put on a circus show, we’re rewarding bad behavior.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I see it more as by paying attention to the circus you’re rewarding bad behavior (circus creation). Being immune to the histrionics makes it harder to be exploited.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    It works the other way too. No amount of leftist outrage managed to bring Trump to heel. Checking out of the news cycle and only getting involved when it seems to be particularly relevant seems like the saner strategy, particularly as our time and cognitive resources are the most precious ones we have. Why blow it all on generating outrage when it'll just get manipulated into a bottom third talking point?
megaremote 7y ago
> If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. Nothing has happened in the last 10 years to change who I vote for. And this is the same for the majority of people.
- icebraining 7y ago
  How do you know?
rayiner 7y ago
Do you really need to read the news to know who to vote for given your views on those issues?
- erikbye 7y ago
  News is the here and now presentation of events (and basically press releases/packages), which one absolutely does not need to consume daily in order to do informed voting. What you want to be reading is aggregate analysis, and quality articles of that kind are found on sites which mostly avoid feeding you the other bullshit. Publications like Economist, Atlantic, Politico, etc.
  - geargrinder 7y ago
    Publications like those you named are tuned to your particular brand of "bs" but they have just as much bias as publications you find distasteful. That is the state of our news these days. I can't think of a mainstream news org on that level that is without significant bias.
  - dragonsngoblins 7y ago
    I really disagree with the consume daily part. I consume news most days, but why can't I just spend some time doing research on the various candidates and what they did over the past several years that was newsworthy in the few weeks immediately before an election? If anything I'd think that would be better as they won't have to worry about having forgotten some dick move some candidate pulled three years ago
jiggunjer 7y ago
The Supreme Court example isn't very good, because you can't act on the outcome in a sensible democratic way. A better example would be news that brings X to attention, so you can voice concern to the government. Or in the case where politicians are the focus of attention, it can affect your voting choice. E.g. the internet filter law proposal in Europe. It's not practical for me to review every individual piece of legislation, so I rely on journalists/news platforms to highlight the important bits. As a consequence of the MEP vote I have now blacklisted one political party I considered moderate before. They will never get a vote or a good word from me again, ever. Other examples you could have mentioned are stuff like the Panama papers and Wikileaks. If I heard a local construction company was funneling money to tax havens, I'd email my municipality and/or IRS.
- weaklearner 7y ago
  I think you can act in democratic ways. Like 1. donating 20 dollars to susan collin's opponent for instance 2. voting against your senator I think the bigger thing is that it is a TORRENT that overwhelms.

malvosenior 7y ago

> And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appointment to the most powerful court of the land. If the accusations weren’t, wouldn’t that be important too? This example is exactly why someone should ignore the news. This was pure partisan bickering and mud slinging. Not once during the whole episode were Kavanaugh's actual positions discussed. Just rumors, gossip, fighting and soundbites. No one came out ahead paying attention to this story.

enumjorge 7y ago
I understand your frustration, but I think this logic is easily exploited. Part of democracy is keeping our elected officials in check. If we mentally check out whenever they put on a circus show, we’re rewarding bad behavior.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I see it more as by paying attention to the circus you’re rewarding bad behavior (circus creation). Being immune to the histrionics makes it harder to be exploited.
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  It works the other way too. No amount of leftist outrage managed to bring Trump to heel. Checking out of the news cycle and only getting involved when it seems to be particularly relevant seems like the saner strategy, particularly as our time and cognitive resources are the most precious ones we have. Why blow it all on generating outrage when it'll just get manipulated into a bottom third talking point?

megaremote 7y ago

> If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. Nothing has happened in the last 10 years to change who I vote for. And this is the same for the majority of people.

icebraining 7y ago
How do you know?

rayiner 7y ago

Do you really need to read the news to know who to vote for given your views on those issues?

erikbye 7y ago
News is the here and now presentation of events (and basically press releases/packages), which one absolutely does not need to consume daily in order to do informed voting. What you want to be reading is aggregate analysis, and quality articles of that kind are found on sites which mostly avoid feeding you the other bullshit. Publications like Economist, Atlantic, Politico, etc.
- geargrinder 7y ago
  Publications like those you named are tuned to your particular brand of "bs" but they have just as much bias as publications you find distasteful. That is the state of our news these days. I can't think of a mainstream news org on that level that is without significant bias.
- dragonsngoblins 7y ago
  I really disagree with the consume daily part. I consume news most days, but why can't I just spend some time doing research on the various candidates and what they did over the past several years that was newsworthy in the few weeks immediately before an election? If anything I'd think that would be better as they won't have to worry about having forgotten some dick move some candidate pulled three years ago

jiggunjer 7y ago

The Supreme Court example isn't very good, because you can't act on the outcome in a sensible democratic way. A better example would be news that brings X to attention, so you can voice concern to the government. Or in the case where politicians are the focus of attention, it can affect your voting choice. E.g. the internet filter law proposal in Europe. It's not practical for me to review every individual piece of legislation, so I rely on journalists/news platforms to highlight the important bits. As a consequence of the MEP vote I have now blacklisted one political party I considered moderate before. They will never get a vote or a good word from me again, ever. Other examples you could have mentioned are stuff like the Panama papers and Wikileaks. If I heard a local construction company was funneling money to tax havens, I'd email my municipality and/or IRS.

weaklearner 7y ago
I think you can act in democratic ways. Like 1. donating 20 dollars to susan collin's opponent for instance 2. voting against your senator I think the bigger thing is that it is a TORRENT that overwhelms.