7 ms·
Escaping the internet on a luxury trip doesn’t disprove political conflict… it just shows how privilege can opt out of reality and sell the experience as clickb
by sallveburrpi 9mo ago
Escaping the internet on a luxury trip doesn’t disprove political conflict… it just shows how privilege can opt out of reality and sell the experience as clickbaity insight.
- black_13 9mo ago[dead]
- lapcat 9mo agoIt's definitely privileged to take a trip to the Galapagos, but I don't think it's privileged to ignore the news. A lot of poor people ignore the news. They may be too busy, or they may feel powerless to change anything. I think the real question is what exactly this entirely content-free statement means: "I’ll be focusing more on stories that actually matter instead of chasing the flash-in-the-pan ephemera that nobody remembers the next week."
- truculent 9mo agoPrivilege isn't just about wealth. The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them!
- lapcat 9mo ago> Privilege isn't just about wealth. Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why? > The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them! What can they do about the news, though? I specifically said, "they may feel powerless to change anything".
- XorNot 9mo agoWe live in democracies. The price of entry is a citizenry informed enough to choose how they want many issues of state handled. The alternative is worse, and the result of an uninformed citizenry can be disasterous and a regression towards non-democracy.
- its_ethan 9mo agoThe price of entry is actually just being born in the country (or at least that's all that's required in most democracies). You personally might have the expectation that when you vote, you should be informed about what you're voting on/for - but that is entirely optional. edit: I'd love to hear about some of your proposed solutions to solving this problem ;)
- XorNot 9mo agoIncrease education funding, mandate a couple of levels of free choice liberal arts/philosophy type courses to ensure people have to expand their thinking a little, focus on critical thinking and media analysis skills in primary and secondary education - not as the main focus but certainly as important, civic building classes. News media gets harsh anti-monopoly rules: no more billionaires owning every station in every jurisdiction, in fact no more conglomerates whatsoever. More independent funding for local news: I'm content for a bunch of these to go bankrupt on a regular basis but we'll sponsor more people putting out independent journalism. At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism, with a mission charter the citizenry must have accurate reporting to understand how they will choose leaders to guide international politics. This one would be tricky to get right, I suspect you'd probably end up tying resource allocation to government funding alotments and the like via some automatic mechanisms. The first and last are probably pie in the sky: really let's start by shredding a couple of media empires into 50 different fiefdoms and let them battle it out for views, but there'll be no more mergers or cross-media ownership that's for sure.
- elcritch 9mo agoPersonally I'm all for breaking up the media conglomerates. Especially the news. There is a tremendous amount of group-think from professional elites who all goto the same universities and then go work in the same newsrooms. When combined with endless M&A it creates insular monoculture with low tolerance for opposing views in most of these news outlets. > At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism That sounds great in theory, but given the recent scandals at the BBC and uncovering of systematic bias there we can see how fragile such institutions can be. Even without M&A driving it the BBC has become a primarily leftist monoculture. > Increase education funding, mandate a couple of levels of free choice liberal arts/philosophy type courses to ensure people have to expand their thinking a little Sounds great, but also prone to systemic bias. Universities in general have become echo chambers in liberal arts departments. Perhaps combine that with options for doing national service of some sort that would balance out education. Afterall, classroom learning only gives one aspect of life and experience. Often just exposing people to new places and environments broadens their outlooks.
- resize2996 9mo ago> Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why? those with insulation from genocide and displacement despite poverty. their point is that, say, a german peasant in 17th century couldn't avoid the Thirty Years War.
- josephg 9mo agoGerman peasants in the 17th century seemed to manage just fine without 24/7 news coverage. Almost all news that's actually important - that might actually affect your life - will find you one way or another. Most news isn't important (eg sports drama). Or it isn't urgent (eg tariff news). Or both, like celebrity gossip. Only a vanishingly small percentage of news is both urgent and important. And there's plenty of people in my life who would tell me if - for example - we needed to evacuate the city due to a fire. Really. You can switch off. It'll be ok. Try it, and you'll see.
- ffuxlpff 9mo agoHe referred to the Thirty Years War where instead of doomscrolling the peasant especially living in southwestern Germany would get his war news by getting killed or starved and his home burned down.
- dasil003 9mo agoThat's just it though, the "news" is not providing valuable information to the majority of people, it's mostly a series of takes designed to fit into easily digestible narratives so they can attract enough viewers to survive as a business.
- slyall 9mo agoThe point is that 90% of the news is unimportant. Often you can read a weekly and that is enough A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it. Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant A crime happened nearby. Unimportant A celeb did something. Unimportant Something happened to random person. Unimportant Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important. Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.
- ryandrake 9mo agoI think OP's point is that if your life is so blessed that "90% of the news is unimportant to you" then that itself is a great, fortunate privilege. For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
- slyall 9mo agoand the ICE news would be that 10% that is important.
- hypeatei 9mo ago> ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you. Maybe the first few stories are, but what past masked goons throwing up Nazi salutes and sending people to foreign labor camps do you need to keep up on? If you're into politics, then sure, but your average Joe probably doesn't need to know that they're, yet again, terrorizing people and acting like a secret police force.
- mslt 9mo agoApparently more people need to see more information about those things because they’re still happening
- rockskon 9mo agoAlmost all news ignores just about everyone unless someone else actively tries to inject the news into their life. Being relentlessly informed of all the miseries of the world is a choice for most people in developed countries not in the middle of a war.
- wolvoleo 9mo agoI ignore the news a lot too. For the reasons you mention, I can't change anything and it only makes me angry seeing all the far right nonsense happening. There's no point anymore. I just follow the tech news now. It does lead to me being out of touch with some local stuff though but who cares. I'm in some pretty niche communities anyway so what goes on in the mainstream isn't that relevant to me.
- kadir1234 9mo agoNot "privilege" per se, I think that's the wrong word. Republican or Democrat, left or right, rich or very very rich - there is a lot of self-selection bias in judging the world from a pool of people who decided to go on vacation to the Galapagos...
- Eisenstein 9mo agoIs it beneficial to be imposing a purity test before taking the meaning of any lesson?
- MrJohz 9mo agoIsn't that exactly what privilege is though? A measure of a person's ability to be part of that self-selected pool, and to shield yourself from issues that affect other people?
- godelski 9mo agoGoogling it, looks like the trip costs around $6.5k for 2 people for a week. Expensive, but not out of reach for most Americans. I mean we're on HN... if anything we're more likely to be in a wealthy bubble here. On average. There's plenty outside Silicon Valley but this place is a bubble too.
- MrJohz 9mo agoI would suggest most Americans and most people on HN have a tremendous amount of privilege, do they not?
- Arainach 9mo agoThe US doesn't mandate any vacation or sick leave days, so a huge chunk of the population can't even get a week off work, much less afford $4k per person.
- sokoloff 9mo agoI would imagine the set of people who would spend $4K per person on a week in the Galapagos does not contain very many people who don’t have 3 weeks of vacation per year (or are retired).
- MangoToupe 9mo ago"The news" is hardly reality either, and nor does it record most of the political conflict in the world.
- unethical_ban 9mo agoIt's important to have principles and to speak up for them around others, and to get your information from sources of truth. But it is not important for most people to be plugged into a news mainline every day to read about the latest absurdity of our flailing country. Until or unless there is mass unrest and sustained protests or a general strike, the only thing we can do is vote and boycott, and if you live in a swing district or state, write a politician. I think "escaping the internet" by stopping news consumption most of the week would benefit most of us, rich and poor, all races, unless you need realtime updates for your safety.
- godelski 9mo agoFinishing my PhD I kinda did this same disconnect. Only really getting news by word of mouth or maybe weekly checking Reuters front page. Effectively quit Twitter and BlueSky. It's about a year since I started and I don't regret it for a second. I rarely feel like I've missed something important. Honestly, if it it's important then people will be talking about it. I'm on HN more now and honestly a bit disappointed with myself for that but even here is less baity than social media and news. It's easier to select topics as well. I just feel myself get angry when I get on those platforms and it reminds me to get off.
- notepad0x90 9mo agocan a poor person not disconnect in the same way? I think plenty already do without meaning too, lots of tech-illiterate truck drivers and construction workers with flip phones.
- aucisson_masque 9mo agoTechnically you don't even need a flip phone to disconnect from the media and the news. Plenty of people have smartphone but choose not to care about what happens in the world, at least what we have no say in it. Although if I was American, I think I'd be pretty interested (worried) in what my country is becoming under Trump presidency. But then, until the elections there is not much one can do.
- thrance 9mo agoPoor people suffer from political conflict more directly, enduring the abysmal policies coming from the top in a very concrete way.
- dijit 9mo agoeven if they suffer societal consequences; its also still easy not to put it to mind and suffer anxiety from it. This makes you susceptible to populism though. I know this because I am from an impoverished family.
- potato3732842 9mo agoExactly. People who are stupid enough to afford dysfunction peddle stupid policy that makes everyone's lives worse. They don't care because they're not affected and when they are it's not bad enough to make them question the beliefs that got there. All the stuff the "rich but not nobility" people did to pour gas on the fire in the lead up to the french revolution is a good comparison point IMO.
- notepad0x90 9mo agoI don't disagree one bit, but how is that related to my comment or the thread?
- 9mo ago
- energy123 9mo agoIt's lame how a timeless Buddhist principle is derided as "privilege" by contemporary leftists. So closed minded and presumptuous towards something so effective and universally applicable. My personal observation is that those with the least engage in this practice the most, partly because they don't have the bandwidth to bother. It's the middle and upper-middle class who are the terminally online cynics.
- potato3732842 9mo ago>My personal observation is that those with the least engage in this practice the most, partly because they don't have the bandwidth to bother. It's the middle and upper-middle class who are the terminally online cynics. Look at what the people who were living high on the hog due to tax/graft/dysfunction before losing their heads in the french revolution got up to. Look at the rabbit holes minor British nobility went down. The current american upper-ish middle class is just another cover of the same stupid bad for everyone song.
- _heimdall 9mo agoYou really should give specific examples of what the French elites or British nobility did if you want to use those as examples to write off an entire category of people today based solely on their economic position.
- potato3732842 9mo agoI didn't choose the comparison point because it is nonsensical, I chose it specifically because it is relevant. The french first and second estates convinced the government to debt spend to high heaven in the proceeding years. And much of this spending benefitted them, the .gov going to war with the english and buying warships made with timber and nails they made money off of for example. They also were exempt from the bulk of the taxation and they in turn got to levy their own taxes to a degree. So a lot of them got quite rich over that time as the normal people got hungrier and hungrier. It's a very good parallel to how the white collar class in the US peddled all sorts of changes to policy and the economy to their relative benefit at the detriment of the industrial and skilled services economy which either got sold overseas or consolidated and financialized to the benefit of the the professional managerial types and white collar workers (and of course the CEOs and whatnot too) and to the detriment of the common man who winds up driving for uber because the factory that employed him went poof.
- larodi 9mo agoYes, exactly. Op escaped because he can allow himself to. He is wealthy and well educated also - knows what a disconnect means and is able to pay for a pricey trip to end of the world why his affairs cater to themselves. It’s perhaps less than 0.001% of the population that can allow themselves to do it.
- troyvit 9mo agoWhy does it take a trip to the Galapagos to disconnect though? We could just as easily block access to all our socials (including HN) for a week and probably still do fine at our jobs.
- _heimdall 9mo agoThis really gets to the question of what reality is though. Is reality really defined by living in a tech-driven world and living on screens all day?