3 ms·

To be fair to anyone that denies something, if they don't directly observe it, why should they believe it? Especially if they have to alter their day to day liv

To be fair to anyone that denies something, if they don't directly observe it, why should they believe it? Especially if they have to alter their day to day lives around that statement? The media makes contradictory sweeping claims time and time again over small bits of data. Why should anyone believe "the science" they pose? With the media being the leaders of dialogue, why should people believe in something that alter's their day-to-day practice? I'm not even getting into the fossil-fuel fueled propaganda. Just a human nature perspective. Not being able to observe an action/event is meant to be suspect rather than held as doctrine. Again, I'm not saying global warming is a lie. I know it's real. Not a belief or held in faith. Just knowing. But part of the discourse as to why people don't believe it, I see from articles like the NYT article. It's just a realistic stance on the issue. Articles like these give zero benefit. Even those who believe in global warming are arguing against this article in HN. It definitely won't bring the deniers into the light.

jmcqk6 7y ago
If you're looking to the media to provide a unified narrative on anything, you're on a fools errand. Fundamentally, the ability to understand the world involved critical thinking. The types of things we see from global warming deniers tends to be a kind of faux critical thought. Find some nugget of information that supports your cause, cling to it, and definitely do not attempt to gain some sort of comprehensive understanding of the subject. This is understandable in one sense - the world is extremely complicated, and one cannot form a deep understanding of all the things they need to interact with. The problem is people compensate for this by bullshitting themselves into believing they have some sort of understanding of said complex topic without putting in any of the work required to actually understand it. I don't know what the real name for it, but talking about 'the media' has become sort of like a code smell to me. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified thing, and that's almost certainly a good thing. Instead of being a useful phrase, it becomes a wild card for assigning responsibility for whatever the source thinks is wrong with the world.

jmcqk6 7y ago

If you're looking to the media to provide a unified narrative on anything, you're on a fools errand. Fundamentally, the ability to understand the world involved critical thinking. The types of things we see from global warming deniers tends to be a kind of faux critical thought. Find some nugget of information that supports your cause, cling to it, and definitely do not attempt to gain some sort of comprehensive understanding of the subject. This is understandable in one sense - the world is extremely complicated, and one cannot form a deep understanding of all the things they need to interact with. The problem is people compensate for this by bullshitting themselves into believing they have some sort of understanding of said complex topic without putting in any of the work required to actually understand it. I don't know what the real name for it, but talking about 'the media' has become sort of like a code smell to me. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified thing, and that's almost certainly a good thing. Instead of being a useful phrase, it becomes a wild card for assigning responsibility for whatever the source thinks is wrong with the world.