Hacker News Reader

Comment by eutropia | Hacker News Reader

"Pushing a narrative" is a pretty hilarious way to put it when you also say "the media, all governments, and tech companies" were the ones doing it.

It implies a conspiracy to paint the picture differently than it was, which seems like an audaciously high bar of scrutiny to pass when it unfolded live.

Could it also be that everyone just reported what they saw?

And could it be that what everyone saw was the President of the US tell his fervent supporters to march to the Capitol and "not be weak"? And that such supporters posted videos of themselves committing crimes in the name of a conspiracy theory which is been more thoroughly debunked than any in modern history?

I'm almost afraid to ask what the competing narrative (the one being covered up or bulldozed by the popular one being 'pushed') could be.

View on HN

Every newsreader was speaking in very emotional terms about this "shameful attack on democracy." It's fine to express emotions - but these were people reading words that were written for them from a teleprompter.

It was a bunch of institutions that agree with each other and enjoy the status quo saying predictable things about things that threaten the routine. It was not a bunch of random people spontaneously agreeing with each other.

Is there a word for a not-conspiracy theory? A word for when supporters of powerful institutions insist that no one has ever coordinated with anyone else, that massive intelligence agencies with budgets in the billions don't do anything, and that if nobody openly talked about it in an email, it didn't happen?

That would be a Coincidence Theory I think.

It is weird how no one can notice that most journalists have essentially the same interpretation of this freak show, and the same forced tone of reverence, but as soon as you step outside of the formal narrative, interpretations are all over the map.

Would this be the Overton Window being projected perhaps? It's weird, whatever it is.

Why would it be weird? Is there an alternate perspective where the nation's capitol wasn't ransacked by a hostile mob?

What other interpretations are you imagining would be reported?

I guess, maybe it isn't that weird, maybe that's just how people are. There is very little diversity of thought or ability to see multiple dimensions in the general public, so why should I expect it in journalism (well, it's supposed to be their job, but that's obviously old fashioned).

> Why would it be weird? Is there an alternate perspective where the nation's capitol wasn't ransacked by a hostile mob? What other interpretations are you imagining would be reported?

This is an example of the above. You see this event as: "The nation's capitol was ransacked by a hostile mob."

There is so much more to this story, so many obvious (to me) questions, and even other details in the coordinated narrative running in the media. Yet here you are, rhetorically representing that a "mob" "ransacking the capital" is all there is to it. And it's not just you, this sort of obvious(?) distortion of reality is becoming extremely common in culture war threads. I point it out regularly, and I've never had a single person touch the topic. Either they will reply but completely dodge the question as if they didn't see it, or they will say asking such questions are absurd or inappropriate, or simply not reply. To me, this mass change in the ~"collective consciousness" of the population is completely fascinating.

I'm basing my statement on the fact that I see images and videos of the capitol building looted and vandalized by a group of like-minded people that appear to be outraged by the same thing. Does this activity not meet the threshold for ransacking? The source isn't some random headline, I watched in real time (as many others did) as people self-reported the vandalization as it happened on social media. So no, your notion that I am puppeting some kind of perspective fed to me by media is false.

> There is so much more to this story, so many obvious (to me) questions

OK, again, I'll ask: what's your alternate perspective that is so obvious to you? Can you answer this without deflecting in your response?

Did the question ever occur to you why security was so lax?

This highly visible debacle, who does it serve politically?

I can think of a number of ways it could have potentially served either side, actually, but I'm not really one to make the leap into conspiracy land until more facts are known.

I'm still not sure how MSM should have changed their initial reporting of this story. It was a riot, plain and simple, and that's how most outlets reported it.

It's scary that paying simple attention to the complexity of reality is now considered "leaping into conspiracy land", and that so many people are just fine with the media guessing at what is true, and asserting it as fact (which is then absorbed into people's minds, becoming the fabric of reality).

> It was a riot, plain and simple, and that's how most outlets reported it.

a) This is an incredibly simplistic description of what it really was (which is unknown in the entirety, and will remain that way).

b) That is but one small portion of how they reported it.

Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777278

> It's scary that paying simple attention to the complexity of reality is now considered "leaping into conspiracy land", and that so many people are just fine with the media guessing at what is true, and asserting it as fact (which is then absorbed into people's minds, becoming the fabric of reality).

We're now 5 responses deep into this post and you still haven't put to words what it is you're suggesting that is so obvious to you. Please, please explain what is so obvious that us sheep seem to simply be missing.

Reality is complex.

The media describes reality as if it is simple (and so too, does the public). Their descriptions also regularly include speculation stated as fact, if not assertions that are objectively false.

"Most" people seem to not only be unconcerned by this, but will passionately defend it - including smart people.

Or, perhaps they don't notice any of it. But what should one think when it is pointed out to them, and they still seem unwilling to even consider the idea?

You and I surely have differences in our political beliefs, but I doubt we differ much on desired outcomes. And yet, society seems to be in a state where we have become pitted against each other in some way, rather than being allies in finding a way out of this mess. This phenomenon is what I find interesting, among many other things. I have no enemies (from my side of the equation), only people who are not yet friends.

Why is the world the way it is? Maybe it's just me, but do things not seem "a bit off" right now? And in your estimation, does our collective response seem anywhere near optimal?

Does everyone saying "thoughts and prayers" after a mass shooting coordinate that all in advance as well?

You're not afraid to ask what the competing narrative is though, because you have all the institutions pushing the dominant narrative on your side. Enjoy this!

I'll just ask then: what's the other side? what is "my" side? why would "all the institutions" push one side versus the other?

You're essentially just insinuating a conspiracy without providing a valid alternative to consider. Be substantive.

I'm not insinuating anything lmao. You are adding a bunch of loaded terms like conspiracy because you can't just enjoy the position you are in. Again, enjoy it while you have it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com