SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This story might be helpful to those tearing their hair out about the news lately:
I grew up believing that following the news makes you a better citizen. Eight years after having quit, that idea now seems ridiculous—that consuming a particularly unimaginative information product on a daily basis somehow makes you thoughtful and informed in a way that benefits society.
But I still encounter people who balk at the possibility of a smart, engaged adult quitting the daily news.
...
A few things you might notice, if you take a break:1) You feel better
A common symptom of quitting the news is an improvement in mood. News junkies will say it's because you've stuck your head in the sand.
But that assumes the news is the equivalent of having your head out in the fresh, clear air. They don't realize that what you can glean about the world from the news isn't even close to a representative sample of what is happening in the world.
...
2) You were never actually accomplishing anything by watching the newsIf you ask someone what they accomplish by watching the news, you'll hear vague notions like, "It's our civic duty to stay informed!" or "I need to know what's going on in the world," or "We can't just ignore these issues," none of which answer the question.
...
A month after you've quit the news, it's hard to name anything useful that's been lost. It becomes clear that those years of news-watching amounted to virtually nothing in terms of improvement to your quality of life, lasting knowledge, or your ability to help others. And that's to say nothing of the opportunity cost. Imagine if you spent that time learning a language, or reading books and essays about some of the issues they mention on the news.
Read on for the rest of the list.
(Score: 4, Funny) by BsAtHome on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:18PM
This is a news-site. So, I must quit reading this site to feel better?
That is some paradoxical information to digest. I guess I'd feel better when I can resolve this paradox, but that leaves me ambivalent as to be a supporter of this site and equally ignorant of the news.
Hm, head explodes (solves reading the news too, but does not feel as good as advertised).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:35PM
It's about watching TV news - a type of journalism so low that only clickbait can compete in terribleness. Reading news - which is what you are doing here on soylentnews.org - is fine. The article itself doesn't mention anything about newspaper, which are a far better source IMO, and may be available online. A commenter does mention that getting your news only from social media is as bad (actually probably worse) as getting it from TV.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:48PM
username does not check out
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:44PM
In our current post-factual reality, nothing needs to check out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:01AM
Yeah, I stopped watching tv news regularly after the 9/11 news cycle (which was months long). It's just too much of "we start with the 5 worst things that have happened on this planet".
When news started, it was similar, just "these are the 5 worst things that happened in this city/town", then it expanded to "in this state", then "in this country" and now "anywhere". And every day, somewhere, a bunch of people are having a really bad day.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:30PM
Considering the number of users here lately whose primary purpose in posting seems to be calling each other rude names and/or starting fights, I'm pushed in this direction as well.
The news these days is all about twats in power and mass shootings and various other things I can do nothing about, so why keep up with it at all? :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:50PM
> Considering the number of users here lately whose primary purpose in posting seems to be calling each other rude names and/or starting fights,
Versus the number of users here whose primary purpose is the banal rationalization of policies that do violence to and put deprivation on the weak and downtrodden. Calling a spade a spade is so much more horrifying. Gotta stay politically correct!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:12PM
I make a distinction between disagreeing with someone and starting a fight. You can disagree without calling someone names and insulting their character.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:14PM
There does seem to be a dearth of civil disagreement here.
Or even factual disagreement.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:38PM
> You can disagree without calling someone names and insulting their character.
And when they've shown zero interest in honest disagreement? What then?
Because what I'm hearing from you is that people selling repugnant ideas deserve a safe-space.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:42PM
Because what I'm hearing from you is that people selling repugnant ideas deserve a safe-space.
I think I've just isolated where much of the bile is coming from.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:47PM
And when they've shown zero interest in honest disagreement? What then?
You probably start getting loud and angry.
Because what I'm hearing from you is that people selling repugnant ideas deserve a safe-space.
Nobody is forcing you to read the comments. Instead of screaming at them, you could, y'know, just skip over it.
I'd rather have a "safe space" where people are allowed to speak their minds and if we don't like them we can mod them down, than the normal definition of "safe space" where anybody who disagrees with the Approved Viewpoint aren't even allowed to speak.
If you hate SoylentNews so much "because we're all morons over here," why don't you just leave?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:49PM
and if we don't like them we can mod them down
Er, you know what I mean. -1 Troll and -0 Disagree aren't the same thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:07PM
> Nobody is forcing you to read the comments.
You seem to have written that without even the slightest bit of intentional irony.
> than the normal definition of "safe space"
Sorry, what? You mean the definition used by people intending to denigrate the idea of being respectful? I think you are in danger of a fatal irony overdose.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:19PM
You seem to have written that without even the slightest bit of intentional irony.
If a particular post annoys you, you can skip over it. If our comment sections as a whole fall into the abyss of shit fits, stopping reading the entire site is somewhat less effective.
You mean the definition used by people intending to denigrate the idea of being respectful?
Well excuse the hell out of me for using the definition that you appeared to be using. How silly of me to argue you on your own terms.
If one spends too much effort being respectful to everyone all the time, one never ends up expressing unpopular opinions, and we become an echo chamber of politically correct viewpoints. Dissent is the lifeblood of democratic society.
And anticipating that you'll claim something else I'm saying is inconsistent,
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think you are in danger of a fatal irony overdose.
And I think you're a bit obsessed with fallacies and demonstrating you're smarter than everyone else.
P.S: Yeah, so I quoted a dead philosopher. I never said I wasn't occasionally pretentious.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:29PM
> If a particular post annoys you, you can skip over it.
Lol. My god you really have zero sense of irony, don't you? All you did was repeat your same point without realizing that you are contradicting your own position that there are too many posts here that offend you.
> Well excuse the hell out of me for using the definition that you appeared to be using. How silly of me to argue you on your own terms.
Holy crap! Maybe the reason your posts are so full of unintentional irony is because your irony detector is completely out of commission. You can't detect when someone is being ironic nor are you able to detect the irony levels in your own words.
Hey man, thanks for responding though. I mean it is disappointing as fuck when someone lives down to a stereotype, but at least you did it unabashedly!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:33PM
The most ironic thing: you proved their point.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:35AM
Tango, it's OK for you to say you don't know what a safe space is around here. Nobody's going to beat the shit out of you or even firebomb your locker for admitting it.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:12PM
How do I know whether I know what it is? :)
The first 2 google results
Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation, or in which a shared political or social viewpoint is required to participate in the space.
In educational institutions, safe-space (or safe space), safer-space, and positive space originally were terms used to indicate that a teacher, educational institution or student body does not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.[2] The term safe space has been extended to refer to a space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with their perceived marginalization, typically on a university campus.[3] It has been widely criticized for being contrary to freedom of speech.[4][5][6][7]
If I've got the terminology wrong, I guess tell me what I'm wrong about, specifically and civilly of course.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by https on Wednesday December 14 2016, @10:51PM
Because you seem to not have the time to do the research yourself, I'll summarize it for you: the first definition is mostly bullshit, promoted by those who want oppression to continue as usual and not be seen as antisocial conduct. The first part of the second one is close to the mark.
It's impossible to have a civil or academic discussion of feminism, for example, if you've got one fucker who insists, every class, that because his mom was happy to be a homemaker, any woman who doesn't submit to a husband is clinically insane. Or that other asshat who insists that homosexuals must be put to death because bible, but lesbian porn is awesome according to their browser history. Or that really polite and modern lady that insists niggers have it coming when cops shoot them in the back.
If you're not actually a member of an oppressed or marginalized group, it can be hard to appreciate just how fucking constant the attacks against them are. The answer is, constant, and from every angle. If you can't see that that would be stressful, and that it would interfere with civil and academic discourse, and that some kind of relief from it would benefit civil and academic discourse, you're going to have a hard time understanding safe spaces.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 14 2016, @11:16PM
Not belonging to any oppressed minorities, I have to imagine what that's like. Fair enough.
Because you seem to not have the time to do the research yourself
Because doing research on such a hotly contested topic is so easy to find the conclusion you want me to, sure. For example,
Safe space is a term for an area or forum where either a marginalised group are not supposed to face standard mainstream stereotypes and marginalisation
the first definition is mostly bullshit
Er...I'm afraid I don't quite see what angers you about this definition. It doesn't go far enough in saying a safe space is a good thing? This must be one of those things in my "pragmatic blind spot" where people say "OF COURSE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE!" when I get confused.
If you can't see that that would be stressful, and that it would interfere with civil and academic discourse
In academia, sure, you want to get stuff done. As long as halfway-reasonable cutoff points are being used, people are there to learn, not fight. I mean, we're having this conversation on a random public forum tech nerd website that lets ACs post, so not exactly the same thing...
Having a safe place you can go to unwind is good. Trying to make everywhere "safe" can get a bit sticky.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:36PM
Come on now, this whole "safe space" thing is stupid and it needs to go away. The idea of civil discourse is not a new one, and people asking for a civil discussion shouldn't be mixed up with people who want "safe spaces" where people aren't allowed to disturb whatever bubble they've created.
I'm very tired of telling people to stop being assholes and having them come back with "oh sorry didn't mean to trigger you in your safe space". The irony is that the assholes are the ones who want safe spaces, they get SO bent out of shape when you challenge their worldview. This isn't a partisan problem either....
So again, civil discourse != safe space. Its called being a decent human. If you have to resort to name calling then the civil part is over and we're on to emotional rantings for the entertainment of others. The best thing that can happen at that point is some random people are swayed by one side or the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @06:11PM
"I prefer coffee over tea" is an opinion. "Transgendered and coloreds are subhuman scum" is a delusion, and should be treated as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:46PM
Personally, I tailor my RSS feeds to be much more in other realms than the major National and World feeds, which are generally filled with exactly the kind of drivel you're talking about. Thankfully, most news sites now separate their feeds, so you can, say, follow the tech feed but not the politics feed. Couple that with the ability to have your software scan for keywords (say, blacklist "shooting", "election", etc) and you can really give yourself a much more pleasant news reading experience these days. Just my 2 cents.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:07PM
This is a news-site. So, I must quit reading this site to feel better?
There's a difference between "news" and "new information" in general.
There are many things that typically part of MOST "news" that are problematic (e.g., sensationalism, "yellow journalism," dumbing down, oversimplification of positions, unnecessary polarization, repetition and focus on the same old stories -- sometimes which have no greater cultural relevance or meaning other than that the "news" keeps talking about them, etc.).
The critique is NOT of learning new information. One sentence from the opening paragraphs from TFA makes this clear:
There’s a big difference between watching a half hour of CNN’s refugee crisis coverage (not that they cover it anymore) versus spending that time reading a 5,000-word article on the same topic.
That's why it's important to do things here like cite and link the original study or documents being discussed, rather than just a 3-paragraph media summary. The criticism is that most "news" and reporting is superficial and doesn't actually lead to being "better informed." Already, we're ahead of the game here if we have actual discussion on a story or topic (and not just trolling or flaming or "talking past each other").
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:18PM
When I was growing up, in a place where TV's "news" were actually a continuous set of information, without the 15 commercial breaks that the US enjoys, it was known that the front page of the newspapers had more words than an hour of "news". They were also typically of higher quality, as the print journalist has to describe events, rather than loop a shiny explosion cloud.
A typical TV news story is at most a few paragraphs long, and cannot accommodate detailed nuances and viewpoints, as it needs to include the man-on-the-street segment and a bit of redundant background for those people who have never heard of the West Anterior Spoingers of Ptolemnistan.
Then it got worse.
These days, US "news" is a mix of Reducto at Idiotum and tribal propaganda.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:36PM
I should point out that one reason that changed is that back in the day, news was considered a service done at a loss to fulfill FCC requirements for getting broadcast spectrum, whereas now it is considered a source of profit for dedicated channels dedicated towards satisfying the desires of some target audience. That shift brought with it a bunch of problems:
1. Because news is now a revenue source, the news has to cater to advertisers just as much as, say, I Love Lucy had to.
2. Also because news is now a revenue source, the goal is to gain as large an audience of the right target demographics. Lying, stirring up fake controversies, and sensationalism are all effective for doing that.
3. News has gone from being 1 hour of broadcast a day to 24 hours of broadcast a day. If they were going to provide the same quality of coverage, the organizations in question would need to have a staff at least 24 times as large. They don't, because that would be expensive, and they're a profit-making business.
4. Actual investigative journalism is expensive, difficult, and likely to offend advertisers. Even something relatively simple, like How much money does the Miss America Foundation really give out in scholarships? [youtube.com] takes hours of an educated person's time getting and reading through documents. So news organizations do what they can to stop reporters from doing said actual investigative journalism.
5. What's cheap and easy, though, is inviting various talking heads on to shout at each other about some topic, without making any effort whatsoever to determine who was telling the truth. And, of course, it can generate those wonderful fake controversial moments, where "Pundit A DESTROYS Pundit B" which are always good for ratings. So news organizations like doing this.
And that's all without even factoring the political axes to grind and undisclosed affiliations, which (as we learned thanks to Guciffer 2.0 and Wikileaks, among other sources) are extremely common.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:16PM
I'd say that lays it bare, quite succinctly.
The author in TFA did make a good point: Read a good book on a subject and you'll have a vastly better grasp of it than years of watching the news will ever give you. It makes sense on many levels, not least of which is the time investment. Think of all the hours of news watching you save by reading a book that goes into a subject in depth.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:39PM
Easy, just wear a sand hat. You can keep your head in the sand as well as in a cloud.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:12PM
I still read this site but I consider myself to have "quit the news." I'm probably just lying to myself like a drug addict looking for a fix.
There's very little that I wouldn't rather read about here first than hear from some mainstream news source. And there's very little that I wouldn't rather see discussed here rather than by some mainstream talking heads.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:14AM
Same here. I don't consider this a news site. There is a big difference between an article accompanied by advertising followed by astroturfed comments, and some of the science articles around here with perhaps 10 comments, but well written and information dense comments.
I've noticed the only time the comment count hits 80+ or something is when it has been political (EU and US being the bulk of discussion). Of course it gets nasty, that's been the trend for the last 18 months. The last two months have been particularly hard for many. I disagree about the echo chamber comments I see elsewhere because this site has quite diverse views being expressed from many countries.
It seems the gist is getting away from negativity that is found in the news, and this will make you feel better. Well I'll not quit this site because the comments are worth more than the articles. There are some very smart and skilled people around here capable of explaining something complex like LIGO. Immerman and Tathra for example are more interesting to read along with the science article than without it. Many others around here have quite the command of history, and our Grammar Nazis are some of the best well dressed there are. It's the most positive aspect of this site; The high likelihood that there will be a scientific article accompanied by insightful and interesting commentary.
We just need a Hell's Kitchen rule to disallow the politics, and get back to enjoying the science and technology together. Which is getting harder and harder to distinguish from the politics as well. I keep trying to stay away from the acrimony, but then an Elite power toady has to say something that just simply demands a response from organized labor, and then here we go....... That's not representative of just the site, but an entire society at the moment. We are genuinely hurting.
In the end I think I get more positive out this site than negative, and at least the discussions are lively.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:39PM
I concur that would be preferable. We all have to work together to make it happen, though. We've arrived at a moment of epochal historical change. The post-WWII consensus that kept the peace in Europe and America and other select parts of the world is crumbling before our eyes. In America the social contract that held the country together since the Civil War is evaporating, and the bedrock legal principles cast in the Constitution mean nothing anymore. Against that backdrop it's tough to keep bobbing merrily around on the top like a cork.
Even on topics of science and technology the Manichaean struggle the media is engaged in with the incoming administration will invade, because science and technology require funding and so much of that funding comes from the government.
I believe there's another reality that can rise from the ashes of the old system. I see it in FOSS, in knowledge sharing, in the Maker Movement, in distributed energy production and additive manufacturing. It's a massively multipolar world built on consensus rather than centralization, concentration, and domination. We'll still need government to do the big things we can't do alone or as small hamlets, but if we recast it according to that different ethos it will be better in essence than the one constituted to enshrine the power of centralized wealth.
That's utopian, but it's good to keep your eyes fixed on a glimmer of hope to get you through all the ugliness that is and will be around us for the forseeable future. Else, we might as well lay down in the mud and die, right?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @06:15PM
Me either, not anymore. Its become little more than a fascist circlejerk, its painful to read anymore. I almost never post under my username anymore because its fucking embarrassing to be associated with this toxic place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday December 14 2016, @07:51PM
Yet here you are. We've enjoyed your company but you seem to think that it is time you left. Well, take care and good luck!
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 15 2016, @03:07AM
He will be missed. I was quite amused by the imagery of "fascists" in Nazi uniforms furiously masturbating in a circle to the Fuhrer's commands, whilst screaming, "Ya! Mein Fuhrer!".
It also reminds of me of:
He'll be back for more :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:21PM
That was always my attitude from the early days of Slashdot. I figured that if something non-technical that was really newsworthy found its way onto Slashdot, then it would be important and that the discussion around it would help me get to the heart of the issue much faster. So it was a screen that filtered out all the tabloid hyperventilating that is the main output of the media now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:59PM
I consider SoylentNews to be more a discussion site than a news site. Just like its predecessor was.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:43PM
I do as well.
Also, if the discussion veers into politics at least no one here does the usual stupid things like conflate socialism with fascism. Our fascists are true fascists, and our socialists are true socialists. The ideological consistency and intellectual rigor are refreshing.
Washington DC delenda est.