Denying where you've been ensures you repeat it. The alcoholic who cannot control himself when surrounded by alcohol is not truly cured of their alcoholism. The drink still controls them, because it directs them away from any cohabitance with alcohol.
It's not really weird, it's expected. What would be weird is if the HN crowd was able to think for themselves when the media, all governments, and tech companies are pushing the same narrative. Employees of tech companies aren't any different than employees of non-tech companies, their main trait is following orders.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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?
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'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!
I think a lot of posts on HN are purposefully contradictory or otherwise "not getting it" simply to generate discussion and make sure many sides of a topic are discussed.
Information used to be hard to reproduce and disseminate across geography. This is no longer the case, and now exploits in human psychology that weren't really feasible to exploit in the past are available.
The "problem" isn't facebook or any social media company, it is with humans as a whole, and it isn't really a problem, just an evolutionary bottleneck. Selection pressures have changed and certain traits that used to be a net positive are now net negatives. People will adjust generationally as those resistant to mass hysteria from information overload succeed and get rich while everybody else (most people on HN included) fail and get poorer. Until the adjustment to the new ecosystem is complete, expect instability and uncertainty.
Those who fail and get poor reproduce faster than the riches and within a few generations you put salt on your fields... Your comment reminded me of the movie Idiocracy
The elite need lots of slaves to work the fields and if you can keep them spending all their free time worried and emotionally exhausted about the news item du jour you never need to even whip them, they won't have any energy to cause you problems.
