this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
81 points (96.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
2432 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

  • John Stuart Mill
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bear@lemmynsfw.com 27 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Everything. My default position is disagreement.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they're wrong ;)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I sometimes skim Breitbart just to see what the current talking points and bugbears are. Calling it news is a stretch, though - I find that it better fits the definition of a blog.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good definition.

And you're a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.

I just gotta believe there's something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump's immigration strategy or something, I'd love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I'm missing.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness.

Let me know if you find it. At this point I sincerely believe I'm not missing anything, and that's a sad thought.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I love your John Stuart Mill quote. I've just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent's position should be understood; and no comprehension of the point this quote puts across really well.

[–] infinite_ass@leminal.space 4 points 3 weeks ago

The membership of Lemmy is overly-emotional, flibbertigibbety infants, as a rule. It's disheartening. It's the mainstream. Bobbleheads as far as the eye can see.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Glad you liked it, It's one of my favourites.

Sorry about the barrage of unfun comments. The internet is so wonderful and so goddamn annoying at the same time eh?

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Thanks. Comments don't really bother me. It would be a hard life trying to use social media without thick skin.

But your quote came at a good time to make the point I was looking to make.

For your question about news, I would highly recommend using an RSS app. Whichever news source you use, its much better when you get your news in time order instead of their stupidly curated website front pages.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I’ve just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent’s position should be understood

Ironically, I've never understood the mindset of those commenters. How can you argue against something, or even know if you should argue against it, without knowing what "it" even is?

I generally go a step further than believing that every argument should be understood, and say that every argument should be considered as well. You shouldn't reject an argument purely because it gives you bad vibes. If it's obviously wrong, it should be obvious why it's wrong. In practice you don't always have time to engage with someone promoting obviously dumb ideas, but you should at least yourself know why you consider them to be wrong. I call this "radical possibilism" because you always consider the possibility that an argument is correct.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Ha, fair. I generally go about 60/40 on the agree disagree ratio with them but I really respect the way they articulate their views.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

NYT. I wouldn't say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I read the Financial Times despite being on the left but I find that useful because they don’t cover DC drama unless it legitimately matters. I’m not at all interested in broadening my horizons by reading American conservative bullshit. I already know what they’re going to say. I prefer to read new perspectives. To give an example, I’d rather read a novel by an African woman than learn what propaganda Fox News is pushing. I just don’t care anymore.

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

— G.K. Chesterton

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 10 points 3 weeks ago

I don't really follow right-wing news sources, as much as I follow right-wing commentators. I already know what the news on the right says, but what I'm interested in is how the people on the right actually interpret that news; which points they choose to regurgitate, and which points the average person on the right will latch onto. FOX News can say 30 different things about one particular news story, but generally the audience will only focus on one or two.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Breaking Points. I disagree with the conservatives on there, but respect them. They are smart and rational, and often make good points.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Glad I helped, hope you find it engaging!

[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The only news site I follow is my country’s equivalent of the BBC, which leans left. Lemmy also skews heavily to the left, but the podcasts I listen to tend to be more centrist or center-right from my perspective - though some might argue that someone like Joe Rogan is far-right, which I disagree with.

I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of "my side" - whatever that may be - as a package deal. I’ve been on the right, and I’ve been on the left, but I’ve since settled somewhere in the middle. I feel like I have a fairly accurate understanding of both perspectives and can often argue for most hot topics from either side’s point of view.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of “my side” - whatever that may be - as a package deal.

I'd like to think that most people do this, but unfortunately I know better. I would like to say, however, that it's possible to make your own independent decisions about each issue, have them align with one party more than the other, and then identify with the party that your views align with. As long as your views define your party, rather than your party defining your views, there is nothing wrong with identifying with the party that you're closest to.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

In the US and I read mountains of business and economic news,much of most of it assumes the reader supports and agrees with the underlying premises of cronie capitalism. It's a really helpful way to understand how businesses operate, think and where economy and society will be driven.

WSJ. The news stuff is usually okay but the opinion section is a bit wild sometimes. I get the subscription for free and the business/financial news is generally good.

[–] No_Money_Just_Change@feddit.org 7 points 3 weeks ago
[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

My day one bottom bitch, as Butters would call it, for news source I don't always agree with but love: Jon Stewart. I lean right, especially back when The Daily Show was airing with Jon Stewart. Never mattered tho, always loved his perspective and wish I could list the amount of shit he's brought to my attention or changed my stance on.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I used to read the National Review and disagree with 9/10 articles but after Krauthammer died, they went crazy on the trump train.

Foreign Affairs sort of counts? A lot of people with whom I disagree publish essays there...

The Economist, I go 50/50.

I dunno. I'd like the most plausible and persuasive form of the Conservative argument, I've got Conservative friends but I don't think that's really enough.

load more comments (2 replies)

Distrowatch

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I follow russian official media and look for trend in z-bloggers spaces via a compilatory channel at https://t.me/s/ve4niyvoy In one way or another they prove whatever breakthrough is announced in western media, like killing of generals or using new munition or attacking X place. But I don't dive into these too much because my mental health can take only a brief amount of that. Russian media are too fucking dense, intense, and it's no wonder people who casually watch them without a stellar opinion on stuff got zombified and soothed into z-thoughts.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What is this z- prefix you're using?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] josefo@leminal.space 5 points 3 weeks ago

I have a group of friends that are essentially the opposite of what I think, keeping them as friends is a challenge. Without reaching the point of being actual Nazis, they are as far right as they get, and also ancaps. They expose me to the internals of how they think, is very interesting.

[–] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

National Review, The Economist, Drudge

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not an ad, but this is why I like Ground News. It aggregates that stuff so I don't need to be continually checking a specific publication.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I really need to check them out, I like their mission and I hope their implementation is good and unbiased (as in applying the same standard to all sources, not as in granting the same legitimacy to all sources).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Some local/regional news sites that are owned by MediaNews Group, because they’re often the only source for breaking events.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't generally follow news I disagree with because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong... BUT... I do poke my nose in on "beforeitsnews.com" every now and then to see what the batshit crazy fringe is up to.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong...

Honestly, that sounds fairly healthy. I have a weird obsession with being well informed and being able to articulate arguments from all sides (which has occasionally made me very unpopular both in real life and online) and while it's a fine intellectual exercise, it's probably not the most conducive to feeling great.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

What if what I consider to be the most plausible and persuasive expression of an idea is not the one that most believers in that idea would express or even be aware of? For example, if I read the work of an economist who presents strong evidence that Trump's tariffs would benefit the American economy, have I actually engaged with the beliefs of most Trump supporters or Trump himself?

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!

My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.

I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don't give it much credence other than the basic "I generally think it's good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others." But even if their reason is religion, if there's actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.

Not sure if I'm making sense, it's been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

(UK) I read the Daily Mail and the Guardian and have issues with both of them. Daily Mail because of language used around immigrants and benefit recipients. The Guardian I find panders to its audience presenting news from Palestinian a certain way. But I want to read both these points of view as there's always elements of truth in what's being said that opposite news sources leave out for their own reasons.

load more comments (2 replies)

Where I live the commercial TV evening news shows are completely Murdoc level conservative trash. I still watch them I guess.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Reason magazine and ReasonTV. I can't defend or totally justify it and I often wonder whether they are more propaganda than journalism or news but they have some very plausible positions on many controversial topics that I surprisingly find myself actually sympathetic to or at least I can hold their ideas in my mind at the same time as my own that I organically developed from before I knew about them so I dunno

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh interesting, I've never really taken libertarian positions seriously but that might be worth a look.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm on Lemmy obviously, and generally I agree with all the leftist takes here, but sometimes I think they stray too far from reality. Not in their extremism (I'm fine with that) but literally just that they're based off of unreal facts or logic (insert Ben Shapiro joke here).

I don't follow any right-wing news sources directly, but whenever I see articles posted around, there are topics that I generally take issue with the coverage of by "normal" newspapers, especially the Israel situation (horribly misrepresented in Israel's favor by most western media).

Since I try to align my beliefs with reality, and I don't tend to follow news sources that don't accurately portray reality, ideally I wouldn't follow any news source that I regularly disagree with. Opinion articles are fair game though.

[–] infinite_ass@leminal.space 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Since I try to align my beliefs with reality, and I don't tend to follow news sources that don't accurately portray reality, ideally I wouldn't follow any news source that I regularly disagree with.

Said every dogmatic, orthodox zealot since the beginning of time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

I am american who opposes the military industrial complex so I tend to be perpetually exposed to news I don't agree with or support the framing.

I have to work to find news sources I agree with consistently. I often wind up just playing Bingo with CSpan and State Dept press breifings.

load more comments
view more: next ›