Hacker News Reader

What practical use do you get out of reading "news" such as:

>Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines...

If you are feeling such crippling despair from consuming this information, why are you consuming it (Assuming you're not a sadist.)? Especially when you said yourself you know it's not true.

"News" is often like fast food -- it's made as quickly and cheaply as possible, is highly lacking in nutritional value, and is detrimental to health.

If you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, you can't discuss it with those that agree with it. You're reduced to "no, you're wrong", which is the same viewpoint they have.

Sticking to places that are skewed towards a similar bias as yourself doesn't help you understand those that have differing views to you. It can be especially important to be able to do this when those people are in your family, in order to keep your family together, rather than letting those viewpoints tear you apart.

Do you enjoy discussing these things with others? If not, I'd suggest stopping. Any good done is probably a drop lost in a rainstorm, and it's not worth any significant amount of harm to your personal happiness, IMO.

Now, local politics, where you can really make a difference, may be another matter. But again, if you're not enjoying it or making a fairly serious commitment to changing things for the better, you'll likely be happier just ignoring it.

Realizing that following national politics and policy is basically no more valuable to myself or to humanity than keeping up with soap operas was liberating. I'd suggest embracing that view if it's affecting your quality of life. It'll let you dip into it when it's interesting to you, without taking it too seriously or getting stressed out by it. Treat outcomes at anything above the county level like the weather, since it may as well be as far as you're personally concerned, unless you're rich or have the right combo of time+talent+will to make a real difference.

I'm inclined to agree with sib comment by ashark. While I agree with everything you say here, none of that points to an actual underlying need to engage with opposition politics (except in the case you point to, when it creates familial conflict, which by the way must be the absolute worst, and my sympathies to all those struggling with pro-Trump relatives). Unless you yourself are a politician or political operative, you're not likely to get much satisfaction arguing politics with strangers.

>rather than letting those viewpoints tear you apart.

Is that not what you're already doing?

How can you bring light into your family's life when you're full of darkness?

It's okay to let people be wrong and biased, because haven't we all been?

>Would you like to save the world from the degradation and destruction it seems destined for? Then step away from shallow mass movements and quietly go to work on your own self-awareness. If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself. If you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation.

-Lao Tzu

Sorry to be pedantic, but I googled the quote because it didn't sound like Lao Tzu to me. It's a nice quote, but it sounds vaguely Buddhist. It looks like it was written in a Taoist book called the Hua Hu Ching several hundred years after Lao Tzu's death, as a Taoist response to Buddhism.

The Huahujing (Hua Hu Ching) is traditionally attributed to Lao Tzu (Laozi), though there is no real use in being pedantic about the identity or timeline of Lao Tzu -- no one knows.

Moreover, English translations of the Tao Te Ching vary immensely and are highly subjective, as ancient Chinese hardly translates onto English. The quote is but one of many different translations.

>If you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, you can't discuss it with those that agree with it. You're reduced to "no, you're wrong", which is the same viewpoint they have.

who cares? what is the purpose of exposing yourself to things that will annoy you that you have no control over, just so you can argue with people?

Your attitude is what leads to echo chambers that cause the arguments to be so awful and polarizing. Your comment would make me laugh if I weren't so sad knowing it's how most people feel.

I think you're missing the point which is that "the arguments" don't matter to begin with.

For many ideas, you can't really understand what your own viewpoint until you see an opposing idea and reject it. And you can't really consider why you believe what you believe until you have to defend it against criticism.

That being said, this kind of argument is only really useful in the right kind of environment, academia for example. Certainly not the vast majority of the Internet. And once you've thought about these things for a bit, there's not much value in continually exposing yourself to a toxic cesspool just to remind yourself that it's not for you.

> If you are feeling such crippling despair from consuming this information, why are you consuming it (Assuming you're not a sadist.)?

This! I stopped reading mainstream news years ago and I'm a LOT better off feeling. I'm less stressed, less angry, less fearful. I don't know "that funny/offensive thing that Trump said" and I don't know about the latest celebrity breakups but I can still form opinions about people and politics without sensational bullcrap being shoved down my throat on a daily basis!

It's like chewing gum for the mind: a sudden burst of flavour, no nutrients, followed by a rapidly diminishing return, and an overwrought jaw.

Burn your TV.

> "News" is often like fast food

And don't forget, engineered for addictiveness, not for utility.

> But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia.

Mirror, is that you?

> My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create

Can you share this list? I struggle to find myself content that isn't inside my echo chamber, and would appreciate a bigger selection of sources!

Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them.

I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc.

Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...

I really like memeorandum.com for this. Like Techmeme, its sister site, it groups news stories by topic. You can read all sides. It gives you an excellent overview of how easy it is to put bias into what appears to be objective coverage.

What is important I think how we manage our bias, do you have any tips or sources how to enhanced our bias.

I came to the conclusion that the impact I can have on the world is dwarfed by the suffering that keeping up with news causes me; thus, I crafted the opposite type of echo chamber, excluding most news sources. I am much happier now, and can focus on where I feel I can have real positive impact, like our industry.

Can you also share the sources you use, to share that alternative approach?

sounds like his alternative approach is not having sources at all

My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information

Well there's your problem. My suggestion would be to tune out. Get in to some life threatening sport like parachuting or rock climbing or dirt bike riding. We (men especially?) love fear, especially overcoming the real kind. Helps put the pathetic "news" in to perspective, I find anyway. Running and sweating in general help to.

Also, don't worry. Our generation isn't the first to live in fear. Our parents lived through The Cold War, and their parents through the very hot wars of WWI & WWII, and before that no modern medice, and the marauding hordes of barbarians, and so on.

I'd be hard-pressed to find one that didn't live in fear. Perhaps we can except the ( us - I are a late, nearly cusp) Baby Boomers and the only fear then ( nuclear war ) wasn't a fear any more , once you'd read enough game theory.

My folks were silent generation, and images of Detroit and Watts burning, campus unrest and cops bustin' heads at the Chicago convention unnerved them. Not even growing up in WWII prepared them for that.

All news have to emphazise fear. It doesn't really matter what part of the spectrum they are on, what they fear is different, sure, but it is the same emotion. Thus you read only the bad thing in the world, and while it is commendable that you want to see all sides, shouldn't that include the good news too? For example how many of your blogs included the fact that the world reduced the number of people living in poverty, a feat that seemed impossible, 3 years ahead of the deadline? That, based on this, we are actively planing to remove the last half, BEFORE 2030?

Let me guess, nobody? It is arguably one of the top 3 best humanitarian news ever, but almost nobody knows, because it isn't fear and so doesn't sell.

That and also consider getting yourself checked for depression.

> I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks.

It has become obvious to me that the reason for humankind's problems is the fact that we refuse our spiritual nature (i.e. as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation"). I believe our future suffering which seems more and more obvious will force us to reconnect with our spiritual nature. And when that finally happens, on a societal level, then our way of "thinking" and acting will profoundly change and we will manage to turn around. But not before, I'm afraid.

Edit: Psychedelic substances allow for short-lived breakthroughs on that level, which is probably one of the reasons they were banned by governments from even being researched. And it's also why they are so important.

>as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation"

The other side of what? (Serious question - I don't understand what you're talking about.)

Of our material nature. We all have a spiritual nature as well, but mostly don't venture to discover it. It adds a very special dimension to an otherwise life with a "meh" appearance.

Basically, we are not alone. We can connect with our spiritual guides, get help, etc.

I'm the same, but don't have quite an RSS feed. Are you able to share a list of your subscriptions?

Currently offline until the satellite bidirectional dish arrives - yes, that remotely ;) - but once I'm back, I'll gladly share. Gonna comment here again then.