Hacker News Reader

> Side note, the Economist is a rag.

Many years ago, before there was so much news on the Internet, I used to subscribe to The Economist. It was kind of expensive for a magazine: it was about $150 a year if I remember correctly. I used to devour it every week, and considered it to be a highbrow, accurate and unbiased version of the news from a European perspective.

Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"

Is the reporting bad or just the columns?

The publication epitomizes the interests of those who they think are, "High brow." When I read the Economist, I often feel that they are citing past me to those who have Capital, those who legislate, those who might pull the strings of society.

> Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"

This mirrors my experience with Hacker News. I ask myself what changed -- me, or Hacker News? I suspect the former.

panta rei - everything flows

The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications

There are still biases of course. Friends from Asia used to joke that there are two kinds of news - American news and European news.

I'll agree that their headline stories are rarely insightful. They cover issues that have been talked about all over other media with a kind of snotty, holier-than-though attitude.

They had a recent headline on the 'illiberal left' which was the exact same pearl clutching that has appeared in every other media source about the intolerant leftist who shut down any voice that strays from the 'approved' story points.

I'm not even going to give an opinion on whether they are right or wrong, only that it is a tired story at this point. We hash it out once a week here on HN. There is nothing more to say.

> The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications

Pre-www this was a really valuable thing, but international outlets are on the internet now. If you read it in the Economist, it's because they've got some ideological axe to grind.

This is not the normal Economist, but their lifestyle rag "1843", which does tend towards more trivial cheeky long form articles

I mean isn't that kind of the same thing just a little bit more specific?

It seems to me that he basically clarifies why other people are hellish.

We absorb the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche and use them to forge our own identity.

Which by definition is limiting our own self-actualization and freedom and torturous if that person we're influenced by is dysfunctional.

Then you start to think of this in a modern mass media world where the scale of influence is global and things get even more insane.

So I largely agree, but it's not that "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell.

Satre is using the word hell to mean "the afterlife" i.e. we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not.

Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture, we are trapped in their minds (gaze?) no matter what.

exactly!

> "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell.

I think you may have been distracted by the semantics over the ideas. I'm talking about hellish people, not hellish relations. Hell is other people. People who are hellish. How I'm using hellish is correct.

> we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not.

I don't think Sartre really cared if we lived on in others minds at all. The issue is that the way in which our own minds were affected by 'the others' gaze.

The hellish part to Sarte is the affect other have on our own psyche.

> Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture

According to Sarte's clarification it looks like that was his intention, however, I still agree with you, just the presence of the other can be hell.

From Sartre: "I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell."-Sartre

yea agree, but further:

We absorb our own interpretation of the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche because how can we know other than through our own thoughts and feelings

many inquiries into an "eternal mirror" are possible from there..

Ha yes. That's even crazier. There's another level of interpretation to the message.

A person could interpret being called a nerdy programmer in a complimentary way, or they could interpret it in an insulting way.

That makes one wonder what portion of our interpretations, thoughts, and feelings are internal and what portion are external.

It is a nature vs nurture discussion at that point.

I have no idea what you are talking about The Economist is one the last few vestiges of decent journalism.

To what extent does he own the quip he coined? I don't find the message he intended very compelling. But the "wrong" interpretation I do agree with. In fact, I think the saying is popular precisely because of the "wrong" interpretation.

Us other people will keep using it however we want thank you. That's hell for ya.

That seems like an awfully verbose way of saying "I have social anxiety". Seems Sartre had it pretty bad, hence his intended meaning of the phrase, but most people don't feel that way, so they interpret it a bit differently.