Hacker News Reader

Comment by hueving | Hacker News Reader

>nobody does an ounce of research anymore

This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was.

Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact same thing as another app. "sure, I'll do that and post to Facebook about it to show how forward thinking I am"

View on HN

> almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was.

Protests are rarely about setting policy. They're about voicing their disagreement. Even if people at Occupy Wallstreet (and many other protests) can't agree on the solution, they do tend to agree on the problem.

That may or may not be the case now, but it certainly isn't true historically. There's a reason why "What do we want? Something! When do we want it? Now!" is a protest cliche.

Grassroots activism used to be better organised. Trade unions and other working-class organisations provided structure and institutional expertise. Discontent could be directed as part of a broader strategic campaign. The atomization of society has diminished the influence of these organisations. Most activism today is disorganised and strategically inept, simply because the instigators are inexperienced and lack the support of a wider network.

It seems our means of communication have grown beyond our ability to organize through those means. This seems to be a trend with the Internet in general where arguments like gamer gate etc. are fractured into two sides, but even on each side you won't find a coherent set of ideals that unifies.

I believe cases like these are just spotlights on how different we as humans tend to think while assuming those grouped around us tend to be more similar than in actuality.

Well that and the systematic destruction of unions in the US that started in earnest under Reagan.

Organizations tend to be organized and have specific goals. But mass protests rarely come from a single organization. They come from an angry populace.

We seem to have largely moved passed the concept of nuance, knee jerk reactions and virtual signalling in place of reasoned responses.

Its dangerous when all sides don't consider the others viewpoints at all.

It's lonely to consider the other side these days. Dare to consider Trump's side? You're a fascist. Dare to consider the progressive side? You're a communist. It's no wonder nobody does it anymore.

You think that's lonely? Try not choosing a side. I'm both a fascist and a dirty commie because I choose focusing on actions, policies, and outcomes over labels and ideologies. And you can't even talk about actions, policies, or outcomes, because if you get it 'wrong' (regardless of whether you're actually wrong) out come the labels and closed go the ears.

Both sides are so busy trying to force their ideologies on all Americans through a tyranny of the majority that they are simply incapable of reason.

I got into a discussion on Reddit the other day on the topic of gun control and mentioned that I'm a gun owner who is in favor of some restrictions (like assault weapons bans). The responses were:

"how can you exercise this right if you support its infringement?"

"you should just give up your guns"

"don't expect anyone to stick up for you"

"you're a hypocrite who thinks 'screw everyone else because I already got mine.'"

That's a microcosm of what discourse is like if you have a moderate opinion these days. There is no middle ground.

Indeed, also considering someones viewpoint doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

Its quite reasonable to find it abhorrent, just don't take it as abhorrent because other people to you that it is.

I like statistics and politics, I dig into the numbers and the actual reports behind news stories and the agendas are so obvious, I get the reasons why, in the UK newspapers are sold on outrage and worldview confirmation first and second and facts about sixth.

I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.

A bit off topic, but I honestly think Retro Report (sponsored by NYT) is wonderful in that it highlights how often the media misses the mark. Especially in the age of the 24 hour news cycle. Sure, they'll issue retractions and such, but the damage to someone is usually done. Richard Jewell is a case in point.

Anyway, it is indeed disheartening that if we consider some other viewpoint or perhaps even sympathise with it how easy it is to be branded an enemy to the other. It's a 'you're with us or against us' mentality that is becoming more and more ingrained.

>I don't believe there was ever a golden age of media but I do think they had more integrity in the past.

I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle.

Media's job isn't to educate people. It's to educate people to see things "their" way which is where media bias, however major or slight, comes into play.

"I disagree. The bullshit was just harder to discover in the past - without internet and 10,000 independent sources stating contrary to whatever the media was trying to peddle."

I think it's the opposite. The headlines, style, and bias made the bullshit more obvious in the past. Now, there can be 10,000 "independent" sources peddling the same person's bullshit. Media consolidation means many of the news sources all come from the same few dozen companies that consistently bullshit. False information also travels fast in waves across social media but debunks don't per Facebook. There are also firms specializing in doing this with propaganda teams.

It's golden age of media disinformation. Also, with so many sources of low integrity, it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true. Smart people can pull it off for many things but it's a lot of work. More work than many will spend vs turning to favorite channel, station, or friend feed.

>it's harder than ever for the average person to figure out what's true.

It's so much easier to find truth backed arguments with the internet, the average person can easily check sources. People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true.

"People are just mostly lazy and willing to let their biases inform what they will accept as true."

Exactly. Combined with easier spread of misinformation, it makes things worse than it was before where easily-misinformed population in voting or demand side has massive influence on our lives.

I'm curious how far we can go in terms of inducing economic anxiety. Are the people willing to go for a general strike?

How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal

When so many horrible things are happening, it's difficult for thoughtful people to agree on exactly which one is the most important.

> what the goal of the group was

That implies there was a group, in a formal sense, at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

Do you have something substantive to add besides posting the Wikipedia link? One could uncharitably interpret your comment as virtue signaling in and of itself.

I found it useful, I forgot what the term was and wanted to look it up.

Meta-virtue signalling: signalling that you are smarter and better informed by everyone else by dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling.

dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling

Indeed. I think you've underscored exactly why calling out virtue signaling is so unhelpful for productive discourse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com