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
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.
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.
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.
Breaking Points. I disagree with the conservatives on there, but respect them. They are smart and rational, and often make good points.
Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!
Glad I helped, hope you find it engaging!
NYT. I wouldn’t say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.
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.
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.
What is this z- prefix you’re using?
Z is painted on much of the Russian war kit. It’s their equivalent of a swastika.
Yep, it’s officially promoted as a symbol of being involved in that war that then generalized as a sign of being patriotic. I mostly described military bloggers, but regular idiots too started to change their and their communities names to include english Z and also S V O into their nicknames on the web. The right hand rule is if you see an avatar with Z or a person who has uppercase english letters you just block them for they are long lost.
National Review, The Economist, Drudge
Some local/regional news sites that are owned by MediaNews Group, because they’re often the only source for breaking events.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
What are you trying to understand about conservatives? Like they believe in a hierarchy and follow a type of virtue ethics. Conservative brains are more fearful and less open.
If you want to understand conservative’s then just look at things through their view of stuff. For example, take Jan. 6 and the different interpretations presented. Conservative news just censors any actual coverage and just makes stuff up to serve their goals. So we get stuff like people were invited in by the cops and the only person who died that day was the girl that got herself shot. While completely ignoring the obstruction the Trump admin engaged in to ensure there was a delayed response to the assault on the Capitol.
Or just look at the coverage to both 2016 candidates mishandling classified documents. I know conservatives that couldn’t vote for H dawg because she mishandled those documents. Then eight years later they have no issue voting for Trump who stored documents in public areas of his resort and worked to obstruct the investigation into said handling. Why the different responses? Because conservatives believe in a hierarchy and their leaders can do no wrong.
Sorry for the essay.
This is pretty much exactly the mindset I’m trying to avoid.
I’d note you could just as easily flip the 2016 classified documents business. A Conservative could plausibly argue that Liberals were willing to vote for someone being investigated for mishandling classified documents when it was their person, but once it was trump it became a serious voting issue. (I tend to disagree, I think trump’s were a lot worse but I can absolutely see the logic of their case.)
Distrowatch
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
Oh no, I wouldn’t recommend Fox or Newsmax or the ilk on anyone.
But I do like to understand what the best version of things I disagree with are. Wider perspectives are important but if I agree with all of them? I dunno, it feels intellectually lazy to me. That’s why I’m asking! I’d like to find something akin to what the National Review used to be.
Otherwise, to me at least, there’s a very real danger of becoming the kind of person who writes off everyone who disagrees with me as ignorant, bigoted or evil. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a great way to live. Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
Sorry I’m tired and rambling while pooping.
Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
I appreciate this level of introspection. I think you’re right to keep an open mind and to seek a broader view of the issues, but don’t be afraid for the conclusion you draw to be that someone or some opinion is ignorant, bigoted, or hateful. You should be open to any possibility… but as anticlimactic as it is, sometimes something really is black or white; that’s a possibility just like any other. Understanding why someone hateful thinks the way they do is useful, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are.
TL;DR: If you never consider other viewpoints, you’ll never find the right one, but if you never stop considering them, you’ll never find the right one either. I wish you luck in your pursuit of knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
So far I’ve been happy with it. I’m not paying enough to see its factuality scores.
(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.
Oh interesting. I always thought the Daily Mail was more of a tabloid with like topless girls on page three or whatever. Am I confusing it with something else? Or is it both?
And fully agree with you on the Guardian.
It is a tabloid. And although I don’t agree with some of their stances, I find the criticism it’ll get from UK sections of Lemmy or Reddit are quite knee jerk and over the top. I don’t think any of the main UK tabloids do page 3 topless anymore. The sports ones maybe?
Typically they report stories with a simplified language style, and tend to sensationalise some language. Though this seems to be far from as bad as how it’s sometimes made out. Not to set the bar too low or anything, but here are a few articles grabbed at random from their frontpage:
Personal story of women paralysed by hit by a teen driver who was texting / videoing / driving dangerously. The article focuses on her family and her suffering. The conviction of the perpetrator is handled quite matter of factly. Nothing is generalised, young drivers arent made out to be villains in any way.
Piece on continued allegations against Gregg Wallace. All allegations are attributed to specific unnamed sources. All are taken credibly. Defence of Wallace / brushing things away appears entirely absent. There’s one quote of a friend saying it’s not like him, everything else in the article explains how he made lots of people uncomfortable / assaulted / or was a creep. It quotes specifically what was said / done with respect to racism allegations without taking any particular delight in including that information.
American 14 year old girl shoots self because of cyber bullying, culprits not caught. Despite the girl being a cheerleader, gymnast and surfer amongst other things the article is tasteful, celebrates her accomplishments and there are no what you might call ‘creepy’ shots of her doing these activities.
That’s just a few. It’s all just…I don’t know… pretty uninteresting to me. But I read it to see what slice of the world that their readers are getting. I think when certain groups trounce the DM as worthless trash (which it may well be in some cases) that doesn’t ring at all true with people reading the likes of the above and it only serves to deepen the divides present in this country.
