5 ms·

Why are these threads on HN always full of alt-right people crawling over themselves to spread cynicism and discord? Yes everything is opinion now... within the

by th0ma5 6y ago

Why are these threads on HN always full of alt-right people crawling over themselves to spread cynicism and discord? Yes everything is opinion now... within the opinion shows or opinion articles... Yes Murdoch spent a lot of time sowing this antagonism while using it to justify their claim to be above it somehow... Yes the US media fell in lock-step to justify the Iraq War. But what no one is talking about on this thread is how this headline is the message. The message that trust is gone. How can we get it back? You can't... or so they want you to believe. In reality there are many forces trying hard to keep you confused because your attention is the commodity that they trade in. The truth is out there, and it isn't hard to find. People who had RSS readers through the 2000s already went through a kind of grieving process for the flow of information and learned how to cultivate their network. They made a lot of mistakes too, and found themselves in conspiratorial suspicion networks that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and that's where the majority of people engaging with the news currently are, and the former majority, from the 2000s have moved on from this game. The eternal September will continue, and all of the current people bewildered by crank memes and "I'm just saying" types will be the ones in the future trying to talk about how all of this has been going on forever when in 5 years the amount of news consumers online makes another broad leap in size and complexity. We need a resurgence in the study of how we all come to know things, and we need to invest in why we decide to trust sources. This needs to be a public conversation and not just yet another kind of behavior where people can just argue and be like "well, if you believe the Associated Press" seriously screw that kind of thinking. Tell me why you don't believe that specific source and give me something more than just cynicism and doubt, show me something that has the same rigor from whatever you're trying to justify.

adolph 6y ago
The "study of how we all come to know things" is a well developed area of study in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology "Tell me why you don't believe that specific source" I don't believe Dan Rather's claims or excuses afterward for "unsubstantiated critical allegations about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73, allegedly typed in 1973." In the resulting controversy "[a] former vice president of CBS News, Jonathan Klein, dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the 'checks and balances' of a professional news organization were superior to those of individuals sitting at their home computers 'in their pajamas'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
- th0ma5 6y ago
  The document itself that they used was probably at best a recreation, the content of the document was not invalid and verified by several that such a document did exist at least at one point and time and said exactly what it said. I think it is a good example of how people hyper-focus on one thing to discredit someone or some thing and throw out the underlying truth because of it. Edit: what I specifically posted was that you just can't say I don't believe that source... but that's a great example of how "I don't believe that source" usurped the original point for sure.
  - adolph 6y ago
    You have made three claims: > The document itself that they used was probably at best a re-creation > the content of the document was not invalid and verified > several [verified] that such a document did exist at least at one point and time and said exactly what it said How did you come to believe these assertions to be true? I'd be inclined to believe them at the level that favoritism is often shown for the offspring of wealthy and politically connected folks. My assumption is that a claim of special privilege is likely true. I don't see any justification for any truth to the document. You claim that "several" verified such a document existed. Who are those people? When I was very young, Dan Rather took over for Walter Cronkite. Their evening TV program I would watch under strict orders of silence in respect for the seriousness my grandfather gave it. Their credibility came from the prestige of an organization with wondrous information processing and distribution capabilities with a multi-generational reputation for seriousness and veracity. Dan Rather and the CBS institutional response to the blatant and pointless forgery recklessly published before an election was an "emperor has no clothes" moment. In any possible interpretation their response to the revelation of the forgery destroyed their prestige derived authority. Were they incompetent, partisan, indifferent to facts? Whichever direction they demonstrated deep contempt for their audience and are at least part of the reason some are not likely to trust media organizations by default.
    - th0ma5 6y ago
      You're talking about the document, I'm talking about W.'s military history. Even the faked document was in line with all of the facts of that.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Tell me why you don't believe that specific source and give me something more than just cynicism and doubt, show me something that has the same rigor from whatever you're trying to justify. This is completely upside down. Necessary skepticism (not cynicism) should always be your default mindset, not blind trust. If a specific source makes a claim then the burden of proof is on that source to provide evidence for their assertion. It is in many ways analogous to science or mathematics. You should never simply believe an assertion that comes without the underlying data or proof that supports that assertion. Unfortunately legacy media (most newspapers, all corporate owned networks) have devolved into a toxic soup made up of opinions and evidence-free assertions from unnamed sources (assertions which often turn out later to be false). Well-sourced, well-written, fact-based journalism is practically non-existent. The critical role of the 4th estate is to be a watchdog over the government and other loci of power. Instead the 4th estate has been subsumed by the powerful, and effectively acts as another propaganda arm of the political parties and various powerful corporate interests.
- th0ma5 6y ago
  Edited: Re-reading what you posted here, I'm not saying blind trust, I'm saying if you're going to criticize something you just can't say I object, you have to provide as much rigor as the thing you're objecting to, which I think is actually in agreement with what you're saying.

by th0ma5 6y ago

adolph 6y ago

The "study of how we all come to know things" is a well developed area of study in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology "Tell me why you don't believe that specific source" I don't believe Dan Rather's claims or excuses afterward for "unsubstantiated critical allegations about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73, allegedly typed in 1973." In the resulting controversy "[a] former vice president of CBS News, Jonathan Klein, dismissed the allegations of bloggers, suggesting that the 'checks and balances' of a professional news organization were superior to those of individuals sitting at their home computers 'in their pajamas'." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

th0ma5 6y ago
The document itself that they used was probably at best a recreation, the content of the document was not invalid and verified by several that such a document did exist at least at one point and time and said exactly what it said. I think it is a good example of how people hyper-focus on one thing to discredit someone or some thing and throw out the underlying truth because of it. Edit: what I specifically posted was that you just can't say I don't believe that source... but that's a great example of how "I don't believe that source" usurped the original point for sure.
- adolph 6y ago
  You have made three claims: > The document itself that they used was probably at best a re-creation > the content of the document was not invalid and verified > several [verified] that such a document did exist at least at one point and time and said exactly what it said How did you come to believe these assertions to be true? I'd be inclined to believe them at the level that favoritism is often shown for the offspring of wealthy and politically connected folks. My assumption is that a claim of special privilege is likely true. I don't see any justification for any truth to the document. You claim that "several" verified such a document existed. Who are those people? When I was very young, Dan Rather took over for Walter Cronkite. Their evening TV program I would watch under strict orders of silence in respect for the seriousness my grandfather gave it. Their credibility came from the prestige of an organization with wondrous information processing and distribution capabilities with a multi-generational reputation for seriousness and veracity. Dan Rather and the CBS institutional response to the blatant and pointless forgery recklessly published before an election was an "emperor has no clothes" moment. In any possible interpretation their response to the revelation of the forgery destroyed their prestige derived authority. Were they incompetent, partisan, indifferent to facts? Whichever direction they demonstrated deep contempt for their audience and are at least part of the reason some are not likely to trust media organizations by default.
  - th0ma5 6y ago
    You're talking about the document, I'm talking about W.'s military history. Even the faked document was in line with all of the facts of that.

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

>Tell me why you don't believe that specific source and give me something more than just cynicism and doubt, show me something that has the same rigor from whatever you're trying to justify. This is completely upside down. Necessary skepticism (not cynicism) should always be your default mindset, not blind trust. If a specific source makes a claim then the burden of proof is on that source to provide evidence for their assertion. It is in many ways analogous to science or mathematics. You should never simply believe an assertion that comes without the underlying data or proof that supports that assertion. Unfortunately legacy media (most newspapers, all corporate owned networks) have devolved into a toxic soup made up of opinions and evidence-free assertions from unnamed sources (assertions which often turn out later to be false). Well-sourced, well-written, fact-based journalism is practically non-existent. The critical role of the 4th estate is to be a watchdog over the government and other loci of power. Instead the 4th estate has been subsumed by the powerful, and effectively acts as another propaganda arm of the political parties and various powerful corporate interests.

th0ma5 6y ago
Edited: Re-reading what you posted here, I'm not saying blind trust, I'm saying if you're going to criticize something you just can't say I object, you have to provide as much rigor as the thing you're objecting to, which I think is actually in agreement with what you're saying.