5 ms·

I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of.

I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them, that we have not yet realized that peace is in everyone's best interest - a new arms race is not. That said, if and when these viewpoints serve to minimize the Russian atrocities as it has on several of these alternate news sites that I follow then it crosses a red line.

happytoexplain 5y ago
There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, despite the author in this case explicitly stating that nothing here diminishes Putin's crime, the article's topic is inherently used as a tool for doing exactly that, in practice. E.g. I have already seen somebody use this article (not on HN) in an argument that Russia's actions are justified (I doubt they read the whole thing). Imagine how often writeups that are not so holistic are used this way. There are, very broadly, two closely related topics: 1. X, Y, and Z past events, vs the current attitude toward Russia, are specific examples of, more or less, hypocrisy in the West. More charitably, they are evidence of a cultural disconnect and inability to sympathize that has badly needed bridging for all of human history, but is especially relevant right now. 2. The West are hypocrites and therefore should not oppose, neither with words nor with actions, the idea of Putin attacking Ukraine's capital to coerce them into surrendering their land. I think if it's clear the article is not making the case for #2, we should really try not to bar them from rational discourse, despite their inevitable misuse in promotion of item #2.
lifthrasiir 5y ago
It seems to me that Media Lens is mostly known for the Assange trial in HN---the submitter has been very passionate about that if you look at the records. So my bet is slightly more positive. I agree to your last paragraph though. It helps that Media Lens does have a consistency; consistency matters in the modern society because other qualities are much harder to verify.
car_analogy 5y ago
> We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them Are we? My anecdotal media exposure tells me the many Middle East wars are seen as, at best, grey.
- everdrive 5y ago
  There needs to be a name for this phenomenon: a denial of reality as part of a possibly-reasonable argument. ie, I don’t think the argument being offered here is unfounded, and the “denial of reality” I’m noting here does not actually attack the argument itself. Lazier invocations of this same idea often invoke identity politics issues. Often the line is implied, and goes something like this: “Here’s a movie with a successful lead [woman/african-american/etc.] which really isn’t something we’re used to seeing.” Well it’s something I’m used to seeing, and I think it’s something everyone else is used to seeing. Despite the commonality of the event, people are very worried about how common a portrayal is, and often something which was common 40 years ago is felt as “common today,” even when the world has moved on.
- stareatgoats 5y ago
  > at best, grey If so then the premise of my argument would seem moot? and so people have already realized that peace is in everyone's best interest. Which doesn't really tally with what I see around me, but I could be wrong. I really hope that I am.
nineplay 5y ago
> I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. Do you seriously? You think that HN is the home of black-and-white thinking and mindless, uncritical acceptance of main-stream media? You may want to examine your own built-in biases if that is what you see on this site.
- stareatgoats 5y ago
  > You think that HN is the home of black-and-white thinking and mindless, uncritical acceptance of main-stream media? Not really. It wasn't so much a reflection on HN in general as "HN when a ruthless dictatorship invades a democratic country in a flagrant breach of international law". I'm happy that my apprehension was proven wrong, the post survived and at least some intelligent discussion ensued. Edit: It got flagged after all.
- guilhas 5y ago
  The article is now flagged... The HN content, community and moderation quality are away above average. But there is definitely some moderator that takes US criticism too personally I have seen this several times, as soon as the conversation turns too far away from the mainstream it gets flagged as too political It is always too political, but it is allowed, when it is against China, Russia, Trump... Kyle Rittenhouse case was posted several times, bashing left and right, as soon as he was acquitted no article was allowed anymore, flagged almost immediately
mdoms 5y ago
> I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. You must be joking. Hacker News is absolutely riddled with "other-side-ism" (whataboutism). To a ridiculous degree. Look at the comments on this recent submission, "Moscow police officers stop people, request their phones to read their messages"[0]. An incredible number of the comments are comparing the video to American policies like Stop and Frisk and TSA screening, or to London police searches. Even in the most absurd cases imaginable HN commenters love whataboutism because it's a way of signaling "I know a fact that's tangentially related to this". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30578125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30578125
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Sporktacular 5y ago
Should we always be hearing the other side though? Relitigating the obvious? Like the earth is round, invading a non-aggressive country is worse than inviting it into a defensive pact? We can't keep going in circles like this. Yes the West is hypocritical, self serving and needs to reassess. But right now, less so than Russia.

happytoexplain 5y ago

There is a fundamental problem that this kind of thing, while critical that it is heeded, is presented exactly for its relevance to current events, and so, despite the author in this case explicitly stating that nothing here diminishes Putin's crime, the article's topic is inherently used as a tool for doing exactly that, in practice. E.g. I have already seen somebody use this article (not on HN) in an argument that Russia's actions are justified (I doubt they read the whole thing). Imagine how often writeups that are not so holistic are used this way. There are, very broadly, two closely related topics: 1. X, Y, and Z past events, vs the current attitude toward Russia, are specific examples of, more or less, hypocrisy in the West. More charitably, they are evidence of a cultural disconnect and inability to sympathize that has badly needed bridging for all of human history, but is especially relevant right now. 2. The West are hypocrites and therefore should not oppose, neither with words nor with actions, the idea of Putin attacking Ukraine's capital to coerce them into surrendering their land. I think if it's clear the article is not making the case for #2, we should really try not to bar them from rational discourse, despite their inevitable misuse in promotion of item #2.

lifthrasiir 5y ago

It seems to me that Media Lens is mostly known for the Assange trial in HN---the submitter has been very passionate about that if you look at the records. So my bet is slightly more positive. I agree to your last paragraph though. It helps that Media Lens does have a consistency; consistency matters in the modern society because other qualities are much harder to verify.

car_analogy 5y ago

> We're so used to see the world in black and white, us against them Are we? My anecdotal media exposure tells me the many Middle East wars are seen as, at best, grey.

everdrive 5y ago
There needs to be a name for this phenomenon: a denial of reality as part of a possibly-reasonable argument. ie, I don’t think the argument being offered here is unfounded, and the “denial of reality” I’m noting here does not actually attack the argument itself. Lazier invocations of this same idea often invoke identity politics issues. Often the line is implied, and goes something like this: “Here’s a movie with a successful lead [woman/african-american/etc.] which really isn’t something we’re used to seeing.” Well it’s something I’m used to seeing, and I think it’s something everyone else is used to seeing. Despite the commonality of the event, people are very worried about how common a portrayal is, and often something which was common 40 years ago is felt as “common today,” even when the world has moved on.
stareatgoats 5y ago
> at best, grey If so then the premise of my argument would seem moot? and so people have already realized that peace is in everyone's best interest. Which doesn't really tally with what I see around me, but I could be wrong. I really hope that I am.

nineplay 5y ago

> I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. Do you seriously? You think that HN is the home of black-and-white thinking and mindless, uncritical acceptance of main-stream media? You may want to examine your own built-in biases if that is what you see on this site.

stareatgoats 5y ago
> You think that HN is the home of black-and-white thinking and mindless, uncritical acceptance of main-stream media? Not really. It wasn't so much a reflection on HN in general as "HN when a ruthless dictatorship invades a democratic country in a flagrant breach of international law". I'm happy that my apprehension was proven wrong, the post survived and at least some intelligent discussion ensued. Edit: It got flagged after all.
guilhas 5y ago
The article is now flagged... The HN content, community and moderation quality are away above average. But there is definitely some moderator that takes US criticism too personally I have seen this several times, as soon as the conversation turns too far away from the mainstream it gets flagged as too political It is always too political, but it is allowed, when it is against China, Russia, Trump... Kyle Rittenhouse case was posted several times, bashing left and right, as soon as he was acquitted no article was allowed anymore, flagged almost immediately

mdoms 5y ago

> I doubt an article like this will survive on HN. But I can't help hope that it will - it lays bare some of the "other side" that most people have no inkling of. You must be joking. Hacker News is absolutely riddled with "other-side-ism" (whataboutism). To a ridiculous degree. Look at the comments on this recent submission, "Moscow police officers stop people, request their phones to read their messages"[0]. An incredible number of the comments are comparing the video to American policies like Stop and Frisk and TSA screening, or to London police searches. Even in the most absurd cases imaginable HN commenters love whataboutism because it's a way of signaling "I know a fact that's tangentially related to this". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30578125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30578125

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Sporktacular 5y ago

Should we always be hearing the other side though? Relitigating the obvious? Like the earth is round, invading a non-aggressive country is worse than inviting it into a defensive pact? We can't keep going in circles like this. Yes the West is hypocritical, self serving and needs to reassess. But right now, less so than Russia.