←back to thread

Kite News

(kite.kagi.com)
178 points tigroferoce | 6 comments | 10 Jul 25 07:55 UTC | HN request time: 1.183s | source | bottom
Show context
wkat4242 ◴[10 Jul 25 11:42 UTC] No.44519877[source]▶
> World doesn't live in echo chambers. The reality emerges from the collision of different viewpoints and perspectives - that's how we separate signal from noise

To be honest, when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

For me this term has gained a really negative connotation. I understand the problem but hearing the same tired ranty talking points repeated is not helping my state of mind. If that means I am in an "echo chamber", so be it. Alternative viewpoints, fine, when there is something to build on. But there are limits. When differences in opinion are too extreme debating them is only causing agitation and polarisation, in my experience.

I understand the point but I wouldn't use the term "echo chamber" anymore.

I like this service by the way. I've been thinking of making something myself by using an AI to filter news feeds by the topics I'd be interested in. Edit: Just found out it is very configurable, that's great! My original point was that the default is very US centric in its news choice but this can be simply modified.

replies(14): >>44519976 #>>44520002 #>>44520010 #>>44520137 #>>44520155 #>>44520165 #>>44520220 #>>44520265 #>>44520302 #>>44520583 #>>44521023 #>>44524197 #>>44526114 #>>44533561 #
carlosjobim ◴[10 Jul 25 12:26 UTC] No.44520220[source]▶
> To be honest, when people start talking about "echo chambers" it's usually because they are upset that I won't listen to bigoted alt-right hate.

Good observation! Just like people who talk about peace treaties or cease fires are always enemy agents trying to weaken our resolve. But they can't fool you and me, we're smarter than that.

replies(1): >>44523316 #
1. wredcoll ◴[10 Jul 25 17:26 UTC] No.44523316[source]▶
You say this like you think you're making some kind of clever point.

Just to pick one easy example, the confederate states of america employed agents to advocate for peace treaties and cease fires during the civil war. By all reasonable classifications, they were "enemy agents trying to weaken our resolve".

Would some people have benefitted from a peace treaty? Of course. Would everyone have benefitted equally? Obviously not.

replies(1): >>44524143 #
2. carlosjobim ◴[10 Jul 25 18:40 UTC] No.44524143[source]▶
Exactly, I'm with you. People who claim to "advocate for moderation" or for "depolarization" are always enemy agents or AI bots who get paid a salary from the enemy to try to weaken us. We must stand firm in our psychological self defence, and only listen to verified and trusted sources and people. We have to diligently prune our friend groups and family from those who have been infected with wrongthink and started working for the enemy. They get together when we think they're at the dentist to plot against us, it could even be your own spouse!
replies(2): >>44526176 #>>44527754 #
3. const_cast ◴[10 Jul 25 22:05 UTC] No.44526176[source]▶
Jesus Christ, the sarcasm is thick. You even used the word "wrongthink".

It's not a conspiracy or anything like you're describing, it's that moderate politics is often just... wrong. Believe it or not, there's sometimes a right answer, and a wrong answer. And if you go "in the middle" you end up being wrong.

I mean, take a small gander a history. There's usually a right answer... and a wrong one. Typically, in the moment, the people don't know that. So some construct middle-ground that they believe seems reasonable. Then, we look back on it, and say "what the fuck were you thinking". And that's how we end up with bullshit like the 3/5ths compromise. Seriously, what the fuck was that?

Point being, simply being moderate or depolarized doesn't save you. Consider that, in some countries right now, moderate positions are pro-genocide. Because that's how far gone the politics in said country are.

replies(1): >>44527685 #
4. wredcoll ◴[11 Jul 25 01:51 UTC] No.44527685{3}[source]▶
I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct, people either didn't care or were willing to live with it in pursuit of another goal.

Also, as you said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation there's a name for it!

replies(1): >>44537028 #
5. wredcoll ◴[11 Jul 25 02:01 UTC] No.44527754[source]▶
The point I'm making, which you are either unable or unwilling to grasp, is that being moderate is not the same thing as being correct. Sometimes the right position is an extreme one. Fighting hitler is a pretty easy example.

There's a particularly annoying form of cowardice that involves refusing to take a position and then pretending this is some kind of moral high ground.

6. const_cast ◴[11 Jul 25 21:40 UTC] No.44537028{4}[source]▶
> I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct

I disagree, they absolutely thought it was morally correct because morals progress throughout history.

What I think people miss is that slavers were evil people doing evil things. No, they were normal people doing normal things. And that's much more scary.