20 ms·

Whenever I read this trash I wonder who is pushing the narrative. Is this writer even an American? What does he have to gain by fomenting a narrative that Ame

Whenever I read this trash I wonder who is pushing the narrative. Is this writer even an American? What does he have to gain by fomenting a narrative that Americans want to go to war? Who's in his back pocket? Americans need to wisen the fuck up that so much of this "America divisive, we disagree so much, civil war coming" is manufactured. Especially in the age of GPT-3 where it can be as simple as telling an AI bot to "make an article that Americans are divided" and then spreading it on various social channels. Even HN falls for this shit without any sort of discernment. Even if this article is genuine, ask yourself what benefit does it bring you or America to believe that we are more divided and want to go to war? Absolutely none. Time to start pushing back: [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/29/america-partisan-divide-political-violence/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/29/america-pa... [2] https://thecorrespondent.com/197/more-divided-than-ever-the-truth-is-we-agree-much-more-than-we-think-we-do/10680887294-bebcbac1 https://thecorrespondent.com/197/more-divided-than-ever-the-...

t_mann 4y ago
Take off your tinfoil hat, Science is one of the most respected academic journals in the world, and it is a US-based publication (its twin is the British journal Nature, together they form the pinnacle of academic achievement). This specific article is about a preprint, not a Science publication yet, but do be aware that the organization behind that website has a lot of reputation to lose if they were to engage in the weird sort of propaganda that you are alleging.
- akira2501 4y ago
  I'm not particularly clear.. was this article published in one of their journals? What is the relationship of "Science Insider" to these other publications?
  - dmarchand90 4y ago
    Yes it's just by "some guy", the journalism section is not the cream of the crop that we expect from the scientific articles. Frankly, I think they will spoil their reputations going into the newspaper game too far rather than sticking to science.
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y ago
  > Take off your tinfoil hat If questioning why certain people + orgs want to push/parrot a self-fulfilling narrative is "wearing a tinfoil hat", I'll gladly buy the whole tin foil aisle in the local grocery store. You don't even know which came first, the facts or the belief. Stop pretending like this is "science" when the only thing that matters is whether or not we choose to believe we can find common ground.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    > questioning why certain people + orgs want to push/parrot a self-fulfilling narrative > Stop pretending like this is "science" The organization in question is literally called the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It doesn't really get more science-y than that in America. And surveys in general are very much science (without quotes) indeed. Even if this one isn't peer-reviewed yet, which would be a criticism that I'd accept, but that doesn't seem to be what bothers you.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Is there any point where you think we can question Science, Nature, etc? If so, what point would that be? I think trying to reproduce studies or questioning logical fallacies, inaccuracies; quite easily justify criticism of established journals. Especially important when criticism comes from similar experts with high academic achievements.
  - soco 4y ago
    But please do question it! Just calling it, I quote, "crock of shite" does not deserve the name "questioning" by any measure.
    - giardini 4y ago
      My statement was: "What a total utter crock of shite the posts on this topic are! YC needs to pay better attention to nutball posting on their website." I was clearly referring to YC posts on this topic. But now that you mention it, the entire source of this discussion is/are also an utter crock(s) of shite. And I assure you, the term "crock of shite" indicates a serious questioning of the referred item(s). So, FTFY!8-))
  - dmarchand90 4y ago
    Again, it's just the journalism section. No science of any value ever happened there. Treat that section like it was some independent newspaper that happens to have the same name.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is systematically biased, I'd have a look. Or if you show me that a particular study is flawed. I'm well aware of the massive replication crises in multiple disciplines, and of the fact that this news section is separate from their journals. But the poster was only questioning the publisher's motives (which I think can't be done without looking at who the publisher is and what their incentives are, which the poster didn't do), without discussing the evidence at hand at all, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that their own reaction to this news might also be driven by what they want to be true.
- dmarchand90 4y ago
  Both nature and science have sections written by journalists and they are not prestigious. Only the actual research articles carry any weight. To be honest I see these journals as getting to full of themselves and are turning into any other member of the American media.
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  "Reputation" is the single biggest problem with academic journals. Arguably the biggest problem within the entire discipline of science.
klyrs 4y ago
As an American citizen who listens to talk radio on roadtrips, I've thought that we were headed towards a civil war as early as Obama's presidency. I largely kept that prediction to myself, but it turns out that a lot of Americans feel that way or even want it to happen. My prediction was largely based on the language that radio hosts and call-ins were using to describe their elected leadership and their fellow citizens. It's gotten worse. Elected politicians are openly talking about civil war. Candidates are talking about hunting their opposition. If you think this narrative is being "pushed" you need to expand your sources of information.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  After 9/11, when mass violence happened on American soil and the cultural atmosphere became one that was paranoid for safety and ready to fight, exacerbated by the divisive War in Iraq, all bets were off. Not to mention 2000 was also the presidential election that would throw all future elections into doubt.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    To be fair 9/11 was when the government really kicked in its war against the populace in overdrive. TSA, 4th amendment violations, harder to travel across the border, mass expansion of DHS, the patriot act.

t_mann 4y ago

Take off your tinfoil hat, Science is one of the most respected academic journals in the world, and it is a US-based publication (its twin is the British journal Nature, together they form the pinnacle of academic achievement). This specific article is about a preprint, not a Science publication yet, but do be aware that the organization behind that website has a lot of reputation to lose if they were to engage in the weird sort of propaganda that you are alleging.

akira2501 4y ago
I'm not particularly clear.. was this article published in one of their journals? What is the relationship of "Science Insider" to these other publications?
- dmarchand90 4y ago
  Yes it's just by "some guy", the journalism section is not the cream of the crop that we expect from the scientific articles. Frankly, I think they will spoil their reputations going into the newspaper game too far rather than sticking to science.
dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y ago
> Take off your tinfoil hat If questioning why certain people + orgs want to push/parrot a self-fulfilling narrative is "wearing a tinfoil hat", I'll gladly buy the whole tin foil aisle in the local grocery store. You don't even know which came first, the facts or the belief. Stop pretending like this is "science" when the only thing that matters is whether or not we choose to believe we can find common ground.
- t_mann 4y ago
  > questioning why certain people + orgs want to push/parrot a self-fulfilling narrative > Stop pretending like this is "science" The organization in question is literally called the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It doesn't really get more science-y than that in America. And surveys in general are very much science (without quotes) indeed. Even if this one isn't peer-reviewed yet, which would be a criticism that I'd accept, but that doesn't seem to be what bothers you.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Is there any point where you think we can question Science, Nature, etc? If so, what point would that be? I think trying to reproduce studies or questioning logical fallacies, inaccuracies; quite easily justify criticism of established journals. Especially important when criticism comes from similar experts with high academic achievements.
- soco 4y ago
  But please do question it! Just calling it, I quote, "crock of shite" does not deserve the name "questioning" by any measure.
  - giardini 4y ago
    My statement was: "What a total utter crock of shite the posts on this topic are! YC needs to pay better attention to nutball posting on their website." I was clearly referring to YC posts on this topic. But now that you mention it, the entire source of this discussion is/are also an utter crock(s) of shite. And I assure you, the term "crock of shite" indicates a serious questioning of the referred item(s). So, FTFY!8-))
- dmarchand90 4y ago
  Again, it's just the journalism section. No science of any value ever happened there. Treat that section like it was some independent newspaper that happens to have the same name.
- t_mann 4y ago
  Yes, anything is always up for critical inspection (pretty much), as far as I'm concerned. If you show me a thorough analysis showing that their content is systematically biased, I'd have a look. Or if you show me that a particular study is flawed. I'm well aware of the massive replication crises in multiple disciplines, and of the fact that this news section is separate from their journals. But the poster was only questioning the publisher's motives (which I think can't be done without looking at who the publisher is and what their incentives are, which the poster didn't do), without discussing the evidence at hand at all, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that their own reaction to this news might also be driven by what they want to be true.
dmarchand90 4y ago
Both nature and science have sections written by journalists and they are not prestigious. Only the actual research articles carry any weight. To be honest I see these journals as getting to full of themselves and are turning into any other member of the American media.
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
"Reputation" is the single biggest problem with academic journals. Arguably the biggest problem within the entire discipline of science.

klyrs 4y ago

As an American citizen who listens to talk radio on roadtrips, I've thought that we were headed towards a civil war as early as Obama's presidency. I largely kept that prediction to myself, but it turns out that a lot of Americans feel that way or even want it to happen. My prediction was largely based on the language that radio hosts and call-ins were using to describe their elected leadership and their fellow citizens. It's gotten worse. Elected politicians are openly talking about civil war. Candidates are talking about hunting their opposition. If you think this narrative is being "pushed" you need to expand your sources of information.

Apocryphon 4y ago
After 9/11, when mass violence happened on American soil and the cultural atmosphere became one that was paranoid for safety and ready to fight, exacerbated by the divisive War in Iraq, all bets were off. Not to mention 2000 was also the presidential election that would throw all future elections into doubt.
- notch656a 4y ago
  To be fair 9/11 was when the government really kicked in its war against the populace in overdrive. TSA, 4th amendment violations, harder to travel across the border, mass expansion of DHS, the patriot act.