whiteinge's recent activity
-
Comment on False posts about French riots spread online in ~tech
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentThe Twitter Files weren't one story, they were several stories spanning several weeks of releases. Up First is a daily show so they more than had the time to cover that news. I use the term...it's a 10-minute podcast. if they don't cover a particular story, I don't think it's accurate to call it a "blackout" of that story, because that has connotations of an intent or motivation to suppress the story, which we do not have any evidence of.
The Twitter Files weren't one story, they were several stories spanning several weeks of releases. Up First is a daily show so they more than had the time to cover that news. I use the term "blackout" very specifically here because right in the middle of those releases Elon Musk did something stupid and Up First did cover that. Up First was willfully choosing not to cover the Twitter Files.
that's a non-exhaustive list, just from searching 'Hunter Biden site:npr.org' on google.
I've enjoyed our conversation so far and I appreciate that you're willing to challenge my ideas, however this reply feels disingenuous to me. You asked for examples, I replied with an anecdote that I clearly said was from memory, then you replied with a Google site search. I never made claims on what the whole of the NPR news organization did or did not cover. Perhaps you read my use of the word "similar" to mean there was a blackout on Hunter Biden stories -- sorry if my statement was ambiguous -- Up First has indeed covered Hunter Biden but they consistently downplay those stories.
you can self-identify as being on the left all you want - it doesn't make you immune to right-wing misinformation. which is honestly what I think you've fallen into. one of the most consistent narratives in right-wing media is the "forbidden knowledge" - that the liberal media is hiding the truth from you, and you can only get "real" news from conservative sources.
I could reply that you've fallen into left-wing misinformation that pushes a consistent narrative that right-wing media is entirely bigotry and misinformation/disinformation but that doesn't push our conversation any farther downfield.
What I can say is: being from the left I've always been able to notice when a right-leaning news source is showing bias or leaving out relevant information, however I wasn't able to do that for left-leaning news sources until I started listening to both sources, in earnest. Listening to thoughtful, long-form left-leaning sources is good(!) and we should all do more of that, but it also isn't going to show us our blind spots. We need to actively listen to things we disagree with before that can happen.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentI appreciate the suggestions! I am on the left and have been my whole life so those programs look like they're speaking to my baseline. I've been seeking out sources on the other side to tell me...both of the examples of left-wing media I suggested have consistently nuanced, thoughtful discussion, and avoid the "if it bleeds, it leads" problem.
I appreciate the suggestions! I am on the left and have been my whole life so those programs look like they're speaking to my baseline. I've been seeking out sources on the other side to tell me what I don't already know. I love podcasts and any long-form discussion format. I hope the trend toward those sources and away from the old-guard media continues.
I would love to see the culture war de-escalated. but at the moment, the aggression in the "culture war" seems to be entirely one-sided.
Conservatives very much feel the opposite. That division is well-worth diving into and understanding as deeply as possible.
when you talk about how we shouldn't be fighting over culture war issues, and also recommend the Daily Wire as a news source, do you see any contradiction?
A liberal is unlikely to find a conservative news source they completely agree with. Not listening to each other will continue to deepen divisions. The goal of listening to news from the "other" side is to aid in understanding and not to agree. If we all did that for a couple years then we'd be a lot better able to find common ground. Right now both sides are entirely talking past each other and that will continue to make things worse. (Also, I mentioned in another thread the Morning Wire is more news-centric and while biased, doesn't step into the opinion-centric stuff to the degree the rest of the Daily Wire does.)
you might enjoy the most recent It Could Happen Here episode featuring Folding Ideas
Thanks. Added to my queue.
it's just not biased in the way you're thinking of. no one on the left thinks NPR or NYT is a far-left outlet. as I said, they're centrist. they reject left-wing ideas as much as they reject right-wing ideas.
That is a common view on the left, and I would have agreed with you 6-7 years ago, but that is no longer true. NPR, NYT, WaPo, CNN have all taken a hard turn left. I'm on the left and I didn't notice it until I knew what to look for. I'm glad you mentioned this because this is one of the hardest things for me to convince people of -- there's no good shortcut, you really just have to listen to right-wing media for an extended period to get a feel for it.
they're typically not exposed to any left-wing ideas and so it doesn't occur to them that centrist outlets are hostile to them.
This is a great follow-up to my previous point because the exact same argument can be levied against the left. There's no good shortcut, we all just have to do the work of listening to stuff we disagree with. :-P
can you give some concrete examples of important topics that NPR covered but the Daily Wire didn't, and likewise ones that the Daily Wire did and NPR didn't?
Sure! I'm no scholar, I'm just an idiot with a day-job who listens to podcasts while I commute so this is just off the top of my head: Up First had a complete blackout on the Twitter Files -- I don't skip episodes and I heard precisely zero mentions. Similar for the Hunter Biden scandals and IRS whistleblowers, which IIRC was only briefly mentioned and heavily downplayed. In contrast the Morning Wire covered the recent SCOTUS decision about the web designer but didn't mention the investigation into the incorrect/falsified customer list.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentFor some conservatives I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure that's not true for others that I've met IRL. I can't speak for all conservatives (mostly because I'm not one), but I can say the only...Which is an inherently disingenuous take
For some conservatives I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure that's not true for others that I've met IRL. I can't speak for all conservatives (mostly because I'm not one), but I can say the only way we're going to deescalate the culture war is by talking to each other (ideally in person), empathizing with each other, and finding common ground. There is common ground. <3
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentAnother great question. The short answer is that the right (definitively) thinks that they are. As I see it, the only way out of this mess is for each side to do the (hard and in good-faith) work...are the left really lying as often or about as major things? Especially in regards to the realities of LGBT people?
Another great question. The short answer is that the right (definitively) thinks that they are. As I see it, the only way out of this mess is for each side to do the (hard and in good-faith) work of figuring out why the other side thinks that. Not to agree or sympathize, but to understand and empathize.
-
Comment on False posts about French riots spread online in ~tech
whiteinge Link ParentI certainly didn't mean that as an "attack" and I sincerely hope we're engaging in a calm, good-faith discussion. I do think you're overly dismissive of Trump voters and the tone of your replies...I certainly didn't mean that as an "attack" and I sincerely hope we're engaging in a calm, good-faith discussion. I do think you're overly dismissive of Trump voters and the tone of your replies does make me wonder if you have anyone in your life that voted for him that you can engage with in deep conversation. I didn't vote for Tump but I know smart, articulate people that have thoughtful justifications for having done so. My primary concern is the political pendulum is swinging farther and farther to extremes every year. We need to start bringing things back toward the center.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentIt's a great question. I'm just an idiot on the internet but I strongly believe the answer is: we fight like hell to secure (and maintain!) the civil rights of our fellow citizens because that is...It's a great question. I'm just an idiot on the internet but I strongly believe the answer is: we fight like hell to secure (and maintain!) the civil rights of our fellow citizens because that is a core principle of our society, and after that we do our best to ignore each other and go about our lives. In a pluralistic society we'll never agree on everything and the solution to the right making stuff up cannot be the left making stuff up.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentAh, I totally agree! An anointed priesthood is no way to run a modern society. I'll try to clarify my position: The reason SCOTUS rulings are tough to unpack is they often involve tradeoffs....There is no reason whatsoever that the most fundamental law of the land should be unintelligible to the average citizen.
Ah, I totally agree! An anointed priesthood is no way to run a modern society. I'll try to clarify my position:
The reason SCOTUS rulings are tough to unpack is they often involve tradeoffs. People with different values will swing one direction or another on those values -- freedom vs safety is a classic one. Should we let the government spy on us to keep us safer, or should we constrain the government even though that will cost lives? It's tough because there's no right answer, only tradeoffs and people with different viewpoints and values. But that nuance isn't how the media covers SCOTUS rulings, and that's a big part of the problem.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentThe Morning Wire is more news-centered than the main opinion-centered content of the Daily Wire. Biased, obviously, but the news/opinion distinction matters here. (I'm not sure if it would help...Is there not something better? A conservative news source that at a bare minimum won't lie and fearmonger about LGBT people?
The Morning Wire is more news-centered than the main opinion-centered content of the Daily Wire. Biased, obviously, but the news/opinion distinction matters here.
(I'm not sure if it would help your mental health when consuming difficult media, but I'll type this up just in case.) I think I've identified three-ish levels in mainstream conservative viewpoints on LGBT issues, and I find that when listing to conservative media it's helpful to try and identify where a given speaker falls on that spectrum: On one side, they feel it's wrong, usually on religious grounds, but respect the dignity of the person as a human; the "Jesus loves everyone" people. Next to that is people that don't approve of the lifestyle but support civil rights for LGBT people; the libertarian-esque ,"I don't care what consenting adults do with each other" people. Next to that is the people that opposite it on culture-war grounds, such as the Drag Queen Story Hour and We're Coming For Your Children topics; people that would be more likely to ignore it if they didn't (also) feel under attack or that it was targeting children. (Anyone outside of that spectrum has very extreme views and represents a tiny fraction of the population.) Most conservative talking-heads that I follow fall squarely in the middle, sort of a "Yes, it's wrong but that's between them and God, and everyone should probably have civil rights I guess, but propagandizing to children is where I draw the line." The reason I think watching for that spectrum is helpful is because there's a good bit of overlap in the "Eh, we disagree but let's just ignore each other," middle. :-P
Feel free to suggest a different fact/bias checker if you disagree with Media Bias / Fact Check's methodology.
I'm not aware of any fact checkers that aren't also ideologically biased, unfortunately. :-( I think the sad truth is we all have to do the (hard) work of trying to find news sources that help us understand the positions and values of the "other" side.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentThe quick answer is the media by giving us exactly what we want to hear rather than nuanced, thoughtful discussion. The "if it bleeds, it leads" problem. A longer answer, with a more...can you elaborate on which agenda(s), and whose agenda(s), you think this is being done for?
The quick answer is the media by giving us exactly what we want to hear rather than nuanced, thoughtful discussion. The "if it bleeds, it leads" problem. A longer answer, with a more conspiratorial bent, is for as long as we're fighting each other over culture war issues, the people at the top are a lot more free to engage in corruption and war-mongering. Jon Stewart had an incredible rant years back when he exited the Daily Show where he talked about being blown away by how pervasive corruption is at every level of society. That should be a bipartisan issue, and we need dedicated journalists to investigate and expose that.
the Daliy Wire is owned by Ben Shapiro and is outwardly right-wing, while NPR is centrist/liberal and at least puts on a veneer of journalistic objectivity.
You're making a very important point here. Listen to conservative media (not the partisan Republican-party shill media, but media from principled conservatives) and you'll hear the "veneer" that you describe as exactly that, a veneer, a facade of respectability. NPR has been my primary news source for probably around 16 years -- I've been a sustainer for years and I still drink my morning coffee out of NPR "thank you" mugs. But NPR coverage is indeed selective, and a lot more biased than people on the left know. I learned that the hard way after I improved my media diet. (Also, as a side note: the Morning Wire is less ideologically pulled than the main Daily Wire content.) The reason I like contrasting the two shows is the format is so similar that it is very obvious when one of them omits coverage of an important topic.
-
Comment on ‘Diversity fatigue’? Hollywood loses four DEI leaders in less than two weeks in ~movies
whiteinge Link Parentlol, I'm not too far removed from your school :-D. People suck and give way too little thought to important issues (myself usually included). That said, I'll try to answer your question in two...lol, I'm not too far removed from your school :-D. People suck and give way too little thought to important issues (myself usually included). That said, I'll try to answer your question in two parts:
-
All of history, including some pretty dang recent history in the two World Wars, is horrendously brutal. Mind blowingly, unimaginably brutal. (See any episode of Hardcore History ever.) But at the core are individual people who generally don't want to hurt other people. Deviations from that are usually a form of corruption, greed, or uninformed people from the top-down. Whereas we've been (slowly) codifying the bottom-up desires of real people into constitutions, civil rights, cross-cultural exposure and understanding, and I expect that to continue (though back-sliding will of course happen). Everything from the Renaissance onward feels like it's headed in the (general) right direction to me. It's also possible I'm a deluded nerd who watched too much Star Trek as a kid!
-
The media is showing us what we want to hear and not necessarily what is true. The "if it bleeds, it leads" problem. Two good sources that demonstrate that I can recommend: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think (also a good audiobook). There's also 40-minute presentation on YouTube that is also data-heavy and covers some of the same ground called A Tale of Two Realities.
-
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentI routinely hear conservative commentators reference the Bork nomination from the 80s. Anger from the contentious hearings seem to run deep and have long legs -- on both sides. The point I'm...There's plenty to fault the Democratic Party for, but treating SCOTUS nominations as partisan battlegrounds is not really one of them.
I routinely hear conservative commentators reference the Bork nomination from the 80s. Anger from the contentious hearings seem to run deep and have long legs -- on both sides. The point I'm (badly) driving at is that keeping score isn't doing the country any favors. We need SCOTUS to be a respected institution and circus confirmation hearings make that soo much worse -- as does partisan media misrepresentation of SCOTUS rulings.
They had good reason to suspect that nominations from the GOP over the past 20 years or so would lead to the revocation of hard-won individual liberties–correctly, as it turns out.
SCOTUS rulings are a tough thing for lay-people to unpack -- myself included. The law is complicated and nuanced and has many, many tradeoffs. It's important to remember that GOP nominations are not mustache-twirling villains, but rather people with different values or different approaches to solving a problem.
I saw an amazing pair of dueling headlines after the Counterman v Colorado ruling last week (paraphrased slightly): "SCOTUS Guts Cyberstalking Laws Allowing Online Abusers" vs "SCOTUS Upholds First Amendment Protections and Burden of Proof Laws". Turns out both headlines are technically correct, and both headlines are deeply partisan and help to drive our country farther apart.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentI'd suggest giving their Morning Wire offering a chance anyway and listing to it for a week and form your own opinion. Their coverage will obviously skew right, and any listeners from the left...I'd suggest giving their Morning Wire offering a chance anyway and listing to it for a week and form your own opinion. Their coverage will obviously skew right, and any listeners from the left will notice (and be annoyed with) that perspective, but the goal of the exercise is to expose left-leaning listeners to right-leaning concerns, ideas, and coverage.
I'd recommend the exact same for any right-leaning people and NPR's Up First. And it's noteworthy that right-leaning people will have the same opinion of NPR that you expressed about the Daily Wire. :-)
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentThat quote is referring to the Kavanaugh hearing, which is still a sore-spot for conservatives. Of course the truth is that both sides have very dirty hands for quite a few years now (see the...It's odd that the author says that broad bipartisan support of SCOTUS nominees was ended "by the Democrats under Trump, and it's not coming back."
That quote is referring to the Kavanaugh hearing, which is still a sore-spot for conservatives. Of course the truth is that both sides have very dirty hands for quite a few years now (see the table at the bottom of for/against votes) and it's going to keep getting worse for as long as our country keeps getting stretched out to both extremes.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of July 3 in ~news
whiteinge Link ParentFWIW, the view from the other side is very much the opposite. They feel this court is "calling balls and strikes" and following law and precedent (except where precedent broke from the law), and...I see no reason to recognize a branch of government that shapes its interpretations to fit the convenience of its donors and rejects any notion of improving American lives, harm mitigation, or even judicial precedent.
FWIW, the view from the other side is very much the opposite. They feel this court is "calling balls and strikes" and following law and precedent (except where precedent broke from the law), and improving American lives and protecting them from harm. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle and our perceptions are being pushed to the extremes to suit someone's agenda (or agendas). The best solution, IMO, is all Americans need to broaden our media diet. It's our best chance to know when we're being lied to or manipulated-by-omission.
If you're into podcasts, a great low-effort way to sample narratives from both "sides" of the aisle is to listen to NPR's Up First and the Daily Wire's Morning Wire back-to-back. They're 10 minute news summary shows, and how each show covers a given topic (or doesn't cover a given topic!) is very illuminating.
-
Comment on False posts about French riots spread online in ~tech
whiteinge Link ParentRespectfully, the phrase "against their own interests" raises a red flag for me. It's often used as an easy way to dismiss a complex set of values that another human holds that the speaker may not...I know where they were coming from. [...] to make them vote for trump against their own interests
Respectfully, the phrase "against their own interests" raises a red flag for me. It's often used as an easy way to dismiss a complex set of values that another human holds that the speaker may not fully understand or appreciate (or obviously agree with). There are a lot of reasons to vote for either Trump or Bernie that are fully inline with a person's own interests, despite that the two are viewed on different "sides" of the political spectrum. (The concept of sides is itself at best inaccurate, anyway.) As a polite challenge: perhaps you don't know where they're coming from as much as you think and consuming more media from the "other" side will help in that understanding.
-
Comment on As humans, can we make way more ethical and utilitarian use of technology and internet than is currently happening? in ~tech
whiteinge LinkYour diagnosis is right but IMO your prognosis is somewhat missing the mark. Surveillance capitalism has indeed ruined the "world of opportunities" and "promising future" future that the early...The situation today is very gloomy in the sense that many of the digital freedoms that our predecessors fought for are on the verge of getting lost today at the hands of surveillance capitalism and we (as collective society of humans) are responsible for it.
Your diagnosis is right but IMO your prognosis is somewhat missing the mark. Surveillance capitalism has indeed ruined the "world of opportunities" and "promising future" future that the early internet promised but that's on us consumers and that's the part we have the most ability to change. We as consumers flocked to all the free, commercially-backed services from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, et al. In order to take back the web we need to stop using those services, and we need to our friends and family with us. Sure it's a lot of work, but important things usually are. There are many, excellent self-hosted options, and there are many privacy-centric paid services we can use instead. And we're going to have to choose how important our smartphones really are to us. I'm puzzling over that exact question myself. Maybe it's time to return to dumb phones, dedicated cameras and MP3 players, until there's a real privacy-first market alternative.
The real problem is the one we have even less control over and that's government action. We need to be much, much more civically engaged if we're going to preserve our internet freedoms. Here's three from recent months: Kids Online Safety Act , STOP CSAM Act, and the EARN IT Bill Is Back. Part of the whole Reddit blow-up over the last four weeks is Reddit responding to KOSA in advance of it becoming wide-spread law. That's where we need to spend the majority of our attention.
-
Comment on ‘Diversity fatigue’? Hollywood loses four DEI leaders in less than two weeks in ~movies
whiteinge Link ParentMy guess is both. For most non-Hollywood businesses diversity in hiring isn't going to affect revenue in directly obvious ways, yet those DEI salaries are noticeable. (I realize we're commenting...One has to wonder if it's because DEI isn't really paying off, or if it just looks like easy salaries to get rid of.
My guess is both. For most non-Hollywood businesses diversity in hiring isn't going to affect revenue in directly obvious ways, yet those DEI salaries are noticeable. (I realize we're commenting on a Hollywood story where success is often entirely about marketing an idea and getting consumers excited about this or that. That is a different game entirely so I'm just focusing on regular day-to-day businesses in this reply.)
I also think the DEI groups aren't accomplishing something that wasn't already naturally happening. I'm middle-aged and in my lifetime diversity and inclusion are self-evidently the best way to conduct a pluralistic society -- that's been the norm since I was watching TV as a kid (Star Trek, Captain Planet, etc), through programs and assemblies in high-school (exploring cultures, talking about forms of bullying, etc), and into adulthood where working alongside people of different races, cultures, accents is entirely the norm. Yes there's still work to be done, and yes things aren't moving as fast as I'd like them to, and yes there will always be nasty outliers that grab headlines, but the broad trend is clearly toward a more Star Trek-esque society.
I know several people that volunteered at unpaid DEI groups, like you described. Their hearts are decidedly in the right place and they want to make the world a better place -- I don't want to paint with too broad a brush but of the people I know, they also have a notably myopic view of how the world works -- consuming new media from only one side of the isle for example. That makes me worry about the DEI initiative as a whole because I know several people who have first-hand true horror stories of paid DEI groups with way too much power and influence over hiring/firing, and disciplinary hearings, to say nothing of the soft-social power that comes along with these initiatives. Suffice it to say, those workshops were not a place for open dialog, being wrong, and exploration.
Because I think the world is trending toward diversity and inclusion naturally, I fear the DEI groups are a potential step backward for both diversity and inclusion because for all the people doing cheerleading and raising awareness, like you described, there are many others that are taking a much more heavy-handed approach which will lead to backlash.
-
Comment on Tildes predictions (a time capsule for 10 years from now) in ~talk
whiteinge Link ParentThat description of the word sounds heavy and burdensome to say the very least. I can agree that most of what you said is entirely true -- but I might differ somewhat in interpretation and...That description of the word sounds heavy and burdensome to say the very least. I can agree that most of what you said is entirely true -- but I might differ somewhat in interpretation and severity. I think that point of view is very commonly held nowadays -- I once held it -- but that's a difficult burden to live under.
If you're interested in another perspective, there's a great book from a few years back that applies a great deal of data analysis to that perspective called Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think (also a good audiobook). If you're not up for a full book, there's a 40-minute presentation on YouTube that is also data-heavy and covers some of the same ground called A Tale of Two Realities.
There's a lot wrong with the world, no doubt, but the best way for us to tackle it is to avoid retreating to extremes and to meet and dialog on solutions.
-
Comment on Daedalic Entertainment ending internal development, work on new Lord of the Rings game halted in ~games
whiteinge Link ParentPoint-and-click games aren't my cup of tea (I often like the story but dislike the puzzles), but I really enjoyed Daedalic's writing and sense of humor. This is sad to see.Point-and-click games aren't my cup of tea (I often like the story but dislike the puzzles), but I really enjoyed Daedalic's writing and sense of humor. This is sad to see.
Good for you. I hope you made them feel heard as that's a truly effective way to change minds.