3 ms·

Any time you have an emotional response to a headline, it’s a good indicator that you might be being manipulated. Neutral facts don’t need to enrage us or make

Any time you have an emotional response to a headline, it’s a good indicator that you might be being manipulated. Neutral facts don’t need to enrage us or make us fear for our lives. Remember, there is no “news” in modern day, everything is media.

CharlesW 3y ago
> Neutral facts don’t need to enrage us… Not if you're numb, but it's healthy and normal to have positive emotional responses to the factually delightful, and negative emotional responses to the factually horrific.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I disagree, I think it’s unhealthy for every bit of bad climate news to “upset” you. Same with people claiming ‘climate anxiety’ is good for children because it encourages action: constant negative emotions encourage pointless reflexive behaviour like gluing yourself to a road. Bee colonies in the US have had lots of problems for a long time. Linking bee survival to climate change is an effective way to make heatwave story more exciting. The fear is needed to make it interesting. But the fear isn’t really helpful.
  - mythrwy 3y ago
    It's also bullshit in my estimation. See my top level comment about bees. I've been watching them at my house for years. And this is one of the issues with trumpeting every phenomenon and claiming it means we are immediately doomed (as top level poster does here). When the phenomenon turn out to not be real or not as portrayed then it is assumed there is no real issue. Sort of a boy who cried wolf scenario.
ed_westin 3y ago
This runs parallel to the objectivity-subjectivity paradigm. What makes facts neutral to us, if we are interested in the subject in the first place? When is emotion appropriate? I think we are all susceptible to both inuring ourselves as well as being prompted for a reaction.

3 ms·

Any time you have an emotional response to a headline, it’s a good indicator that you might be being manipulated. Neutral facts don’t need to enrage us or make

by zarathustreal 3y ago

CharlesW 3y ago
> Neutral facts don’t need to enrage us… Not if you're numb, but it's healthy and normal to have positive emotional responses to the factually delightful, and negative emotional responses to the factually horrific.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I disagree, I think it’s unhealthy for every bit of bad climate news to “upset” you. Same with people claiming ‘climate anxiety’ is good for children because it encourages action: constant negative emotions encourage pointless reflexive behaviour like gluing yourself to a road. Bee colonies in the US have had lots of problems for a long time. Linking bee survival to climate change is an effective way to make heatwave story more exciting. The fear is needed to make it interesting. But the fear isn’t really helpful.
  - mythrwy 3y ago
    It's also bullshit in my estimation. See my top level comment about bees. I've been watching them at my house for years. And this is one of the issues with trumpeting every phenomenon and claiming it means we are immediately doomed (as top level poster does here). When the phenomenon turn out to not be real or not as portrayed then it is assumed there is no real issue. Sort of a boy who cried wolf scenario.
ed_westin 3y ago
This runs parallel to the objectivity-subjectivity paradigm. What makes facts neutral to us, if we are interested in the subject in the first place? When is emotion appropriate? I think we are all susceptible to both inuring ourselves as well as being prompted for a reaction.