5 ms·

> There was no need to follow the result of every individual rocket volley in the Ukraine or each individual comment from a politician. This is really it. Who

> There was no need to follow the result of every individual rocket volley in the Ukraine or each individual comment from a politician. This is really it. Who has the time or the emotional bandwidth to spare for following all of this? I was talking to somebody about the overturning of affirmative action, and their response to me was basically "if you haven't read the Supreme Court opinions on this matter, we can't have a real conversation about this." That opinions pdf on supremecourt.gov is 237 pages long. I need to read multiple news articles and then a novel just to have an opinion on something now? That's cool, I just won't then.

barbazoo 3y ago
I wonder if they meant that you need a deeper understanding to have a meaningful conversation. Talking about what "the news" presents to you only scratches the surface and only covers what "the news" wants you to pay attention to. In that sense, only consuming "the news" could be considered a waste of time.
tekla 3y ago
> That opinions pdf on supremecourt.gov is 237 pages long. I need to read multiple news articles and then a novel just to have an opinion on something now? That's cool, I just won't then. It's incredibly hard to have a conversation on a complex legal document if you do not read the legal document.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  "It's incredibly hard to have a conversation on a complex legal document if you do not read the legal document." On HN, not only is it easy, it's standard operating procedure... /s, but not really...
  - gnarlynarwhal42 3y ago
    "nuance" and "exactness" may be decreased, but the ideas remain true
- starttoaster 3y ago
  You're absolutely right. However, we're not lawyers discussing law. We're random people that play video games discussing personal opinions in an informal setting. The point is we're getting hose fed "news stories" and I'm one mere person with a wife who I give much of my attention to, a job that I probably work more than my 40 hour share of a week at, hobbies that take more of my time, etc. Do you think it's reasonable to expect everyone with an opinion to have read a 237 page opinion piece on supremecourt.gov? Much more likely we're reading some editor's cut to speed along the process of absorbing enough information to be dangerous. I think it's fair to point out I might be missing some nuance of a judge's opinion because I didn't read their individual 45 page opinion, but in about 10 minutes I'm going to be reading a news story about China launching a real Death Star into orbit, and I need to get my brain ready to consume knowledge on that one, and then in about 25 minutes I'll be reading about covid-23.
- koube 3y ago
  Lawmakers don't even read the bills the vote on, they have legal experts explain the implications to them. Would you have a better understanding of a system if you skimmed the source code or if you watched a presentation from the author? 237 pages of legalese is way beyond what most people can handle, this is why lawyers exist. If you're saying people shouldn't have an opinion unless they read complex legal documents you're just saying you don't think people should have opinions.
  - MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    My favorite is when the same lawmaker who voted on a 300 page bill that they needed to pass RIGHT NOW will complain that they didn't have enough time to review a 10 page bill after a change of majority party.
  - bcoates 3y ago
    It's not at all legalese. Part of the reason the whole publication is so long is that each of the justices was fully aware that it'd be read by law students, interested citizens, etc. for decades to come and wrote out in longhand what legal scholars could just assume as background knowledge. Each section was written to persuade the reader that the author's position is correct, and nobody gets appointed to the US Supreme Court without being really damn good at putting together a clear persuasive essay. These are extremely smart people with a small staff of very smart editors trying to convince you their position is the only right one; it's not like an insurance contract or EULA designed to "baffle 'em with bullshit". If you've got a few hours to spare and even a modest level of background knowledge about American history and the current controversy involving racial quotas it's very readable. If it leaves you more ambivalent than before you started it's probably because they're arguing over a genuine public controversy where intelligent people operating in good faith can come to very different conclusions.
    - koube 3y ago
      I did some decision reading in college for my GEs. They were all incredibly dry, difficult to get through, and I don't remember a single thing about any of them. Depending on how old your kids are you might have an hour per day of free time. At an average of 40 pages per hour, this could take 6 days. Or I can find a legally versed content creator on youtube that will explain this to me and be done with it on the bus. This is a topic that everyone has already moved on about. The fact that it's totally doable to spend 6 days on it does not make it a good idea to do. I would go as far as to say that for such a niche topic, for the vast majority of people this is a bad idea to do, and they shouldn't do it.
- boveus 3y ago
  People on HN have conversations about things they didn't read every day.
- staticman2 3y ago
  If the topic is the correct interpetation of the constitution someone who has only read the most recent Supreme Court court opinion isn't particularly well read or knowledgable on the subject either, you need to read what the Supreme Court has historically said about the constitution, not just what the most recent group of judges is saying.
chmod600 3y ago
"That opinions pdf on supremecourt.gov is 237 pages long." That's not comparable to a book. The organization of an opinion is quite good and you can get a quick sense of what the arguments are even if you skip a bunch of stuff. When you find a claim that you don't agree with, dig into that a bit more and see why they say that.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Moreover, the PDF of an opinion usually includes the actual opinion, and all the concurring and dissenting opinions, in a single document, so the actual opinion is usually much smaller than the whole PDF. (While reading the concurring and dissenting opinions may be useful, they are, in effect, other important people’s opinions on the opinion, and not necessary to have an basic informed opinion on the opinion.)
digging 3y ago
> I need to read multiple news articles and then a novel just to have an opinion on something now? Yes. Why do you want to have opinions on things you don't understand?
- twelve40 3y ago
  well, this is how real life works. This is how popular vote works. 99% of voters will never read any of that crap (maaaybe just the tldr from the news) but will happily opine, and popular vote is based on that. so not exactly uncommon.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Osho had some deep thoughts about this, best summarized in these 30 seconds: https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE
    - twelve40 3y ago
      he's not wrong, what can i say
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > 99% of voters will never read any of that crap Yes, and they are entitled to a vote that gets aggregated with others on the issues and candidates subject to public elections. That’s different from them having an opinion that is worth listening to individually.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

barbazoo 3y ago

I wonder if they meant that you need a deeper understanding to have a meaningful conversation. Talking about what "the news" presents to you only scratches the surface and only covers what "the news" wants you to pay attention to. In that sense, only consuming "the news" could be considered a waste of time.

tekla 3y ago

> That opinions pdf on supremecourt.gov is 237 pages long. I need to read multiple news articles and then a novel just to have an opinion on something now? That's cool, I just won't then. It's incredibly hard to have a conversation on a complex legal document if you do not read the legal document.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
"It's incredibly hard to have a conversation on a complex legal document if you do not read the legal document." On HN, not only is it easy, it's standard operating procedure... /s, but not really...
- gnarlynarwhal42 3y ago
  "nuance" and "exactness" may be decreased, but the ideas remain true
starttoaster 3y ago
You're absolutely right. However, we're not lawyers discussing law. We're random people that play video games discussing personal opinions in an informal setting. The point is we're getting hose fed "news stories" and I'm one mere person with a wife who I give much of my attention to, a job that I probably work more than my 40 hour share of a week at, hobbies that take more of my time, etc. Do you think it's reasonable to expect everyone with an opinion to have read a 237 page opinion piece on supremecourt.gov? Much more likely we're reading some editor's cut to speed along the process of absorbing enough information to be dangerous. I think it's fair to point out I might be missing some nuance of a judge's opinion because I didn't read their individual 45 page opinion, but in about 10 minutes I'm going to be reading a news story about China launching a real Death Star into orbit, and I need to get my brain ready to consume knowledge on that one, and then in about 25 minutes I'll be reading about covid-23.
koube 3y ago
Lawmakers don't even read the bills the vote on, they have legal experts explain the implications to them. Would you have a better understanding of a system if you skimmed the source code or if you watched a presentation from the author? 237 pages of legalese is way beyond what most people can handle, this is why lawyers exist. If you're saying people shouldn't have an opinion unless they read complex legal documents you're just saying you don't think people should have opinions.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  My favorite is when the same lawmaker who voted on a 300 page bill that they needed to pass RIGHT NOW will complain that they didn't have enough time to review a 10 page bill after a change of majority party.
- bcoates 3y ago
  It's not at all legalese. Part of the reason the whole publication is so long is that each of the justices was fully aware that it'd be read by law students, interested citizens, etc. for decades to come and wrote out in longhand what legal scholars could just assume as background knowledge. Each section was written to persuade the reader that the author's position is correct, and nobody gets appointed to the US Supreme Court without being really damn good at putting together a clear persuasive essay. These are extremely smart people with a small staff of very smart editors trying to convince you their position is the only right one; it's not like an insurance contract or EULA designed to "baffle 'em with bullshit". If you've got a few hours to spare and even a modest level of background knowledge about American history and the current controversy involving racial quotas it's very readable. If it leaves you more ambivalent than before you started it's probably because they're arguing over a genuine public controversy where intelligent people operating in good faith can come to very different conclusions.
  - koube 3y ago
    I did some decision reading in college for my GEs. They were all incredibly dry, difficult to get through, and I don't remember a single thing about any of them. Depending on how old your kids are you might have an hour per day of free time. At an average of 40 pages per hour, this could take 6 days. Or I can find a legally versed content creator on youtube that will explain this to me and be done with it on the bus. This is a topic that everyone has already moved on about. The fact that it's totally doable to spend 6 days on it does not make it a good idea to do. I would go as far as to say that for such a niche topic, for the vast majority of people this is a bad idea to do, and they shouldn't do it.
boveus 3y ago
People on HN have conversations about things they didn't read every day.
staticman2 3y ago
If the topic is the correct interpetation of the constitution someone who has only read the most recent Supreme Court court opinion isn't particularly well read or knowledgable on the subject either, you need to read what the Supreme Court has historically said about the constitution, not just what the most recent group of judges is saying.

chmod600 3y ago

"That opinions pdf on supremecourt.gov is 237 pages long." That's not comparable to a book. The organization of an opinion is quite good and you can get a quick sense of what the arguments are even if you skip a bunch of stuff. When you find a claim that you don't agree with, dig into that a bit more and see why they say that.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Moreover, the PDF of an opinion usually includes the actual opinion, and all the concurring and dissenting opinions, in a single document, so the actual opinion is usually much smaller than the whole PDF. (While reading the concurring and dissenting opinions may be useful, they are, in effect, other important people’s opinions on the opinion, and not necessary to have an basic informed opinion on the opinion.)

digging 3y ago

> I need to read multiple news articles and then a novel just to have an opinion on something now? Yes. Why do you want to have opinions on things you don't understand?

twelve40 3y ago
well, this is how real life works. This is how popular vote works. 99% of voters will never read any of that crap (maaaybe just the tldr from the news) but will happily opine, and popular vote is based on that. so not exactly uncommon.
- vasco 3y ago
  Osho had some deep thoughts about this, best summarized in these 30 seconds: https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE
  - twelve40 3y ago
    he's not wrong, what can i say
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 99% of voters will never read any of that crap Yes, and they are entitled to a vote that gets aggregated with others on the issues and candidates subject to public elections. That’s different from them having an opinion that is worth listening to individually.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]