Hacker News Reader

Comment by nugget | Hacker News Reader

Keep in mind that the media can demonize anyone and turn any hero into a villain. If Bill Gates ran for national office you'd soon hear stories about how he is an evil monopolist who used Microsoft to enrich himself at the expense of hundreds of small, independently owned software companies, who were crushed in the 80s and early 90s, with thousands of unfortunate people out of work as a result. Etc. Etc. Not to mention whatever skeletons would fall out of his (or anyone's) personal closet. (Personally I am a fan of Gates' life and career and do think he'd serve competently in almost any position he occupied; just using this example to make a point.)

View on HN

Especially when the videos from past interviews come out like this one! https://youtu.be/8TCxE0bWQeQ

He was quite the devil when he was younger if you followed him back then. Most younger people are not aware of the Gates early on.

But all candidates get demonized, and then you choose between the least of both evils. In practice, it results in a similar outcome. Media could paint all candidates as the greatest hero, and you'd pick the bigger Saint of them all.

One style is the complement of the other, so I don't think you make a good point.

> But all candidates get demonized, and then you choose between the least of both evils. In practice, it results in a similar outcome. Media could paint all candidates as the greatest hero, and you'd pick the bigger Saint of them all.

> One style is the complement of the other, so I don't think you make a good point.

I am not a psychology student or a professional and I am unaware if studies have been done on the topic. Also, I am speaking in general, not just with respect to the US elections.

I disagree. Demonizing and providing the option to select the lesser evil is much more effective psychologically than saintifying and providing the option to choose the better saint. It is reasonable to expect people to be extra cautions in choosing the lesser evil as it troubles their morality if they wrongly choose the bigger evil. In the latter case however, people could afford to be more complacent, and could even fail to perceive any difference at all. And we can all see that demonizing is never done equally, some parties get targeted more than others, for whatever reasons, So it seems one could steer the result by choosing to demonize. I don't think or know that this is intentionally used as a strategy (by whom?) but if it were its clever.

Am I really supposed to believe he eats a Big Mac everyday?

And if he does what does that say about his stance on climate change?

If he really eats Bic Mac everyday, I'm personally willing to trust him more on this than popular opinion about how McDonalds is evil and processed food gives cancer.

(The article says he eats it every chance he gets when he's on the road because his wife doesn't let him eat it when she's around)

Your scientific view is that McDonald's is a foundation of a healthy diet?

"Doesn't cause cancer" doesn't mean "is the foundation of a healthy, balanced diet".

Personally, hashbrowns are hashbrowns. Doesn't matter if I cook them or McDonalds cooks them. Coffee is also, at least to me, coffee. Doesn't matter if I brew it or McDonalds brews it.

If my breakfast is going to be hashbrowns and coffee - I can buy that at McDonalds. Some people are not okay with buying it from McDonalds because it is McDonalds, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com