zlacker

[return to "I stopped following the news"]
1. kornak+e7[view] [source] 2026-01-28 09:26:13
>>mertbi+(OP)
I’ve had similar experiences. These days I only visit Hacker News to read some tech-related stuff. For me, not reading the news to the point where I ask my mom to turn off the TV when I visit is important, because I want to avoid hearing anything about wars, etc. As someone who lives in Poland, I followed so much news about the war in Ukraine in 2022 and 2023, and it was really bad for my well-being and my behavior. A few examples come to mind: not being proactive and creative when it comes to taking care of my house and family, not being present when playing with my son, being less productive at work, and literally feeling angry after consuming news — like the feeling after eating fast food and having bloating. But I’m grateful for the people who do follow the news, read it, protest against the bullshit, and participate more in the democratic process than I do.
◧◩
2. nicbou+fc[view] [source] 2026-01-28 10:06:19
>>kornak+e7
It’s unfortunate that American news slip into the HN feed, and that Americans get indignant when it gets flagged. I took so much flak for saying that I already know where to hear about US politics, and don’t need it forced into every unrelated forum.
◧◩◪
3. popalc+dd[view] [source] 2026-01-28 10:13:13
>>nicbou+fc
I sympathize, and the attitude may be annoying, but you've got to realize you can not bury your head in the sand about the global rise in fascism, nor the fact that what happens in America affects the entire world. Imagine if you were to transfer your comment back to WWII era, perhaps you're French and you're saying that you're tired of hearing about this little kerfuffle between Germany and Austria... well, clearly the disinterest did not pay off.
◧◩◪◨
4. defros+ud[view] [source] 2026-01-28 10:15:50
>>popalc+dd
I read their comment and at no point did I get the impression they were burying their head in the sand.

They explicitly stated they knew where to read / hear about US politics and did not see the need to have that news domain echoed across every forum.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. popalc+3e[view] [source] 2026-01-28 10:20:42
>>defros+ud
They may be aware of it, but others who frequent this particular forum may have HN as THEIR source. When someone like the above commenter tries to gatekeep areas where discussion, particularly of things like fascism or other forms of oppression, takes place, it only serves and furthers the goals of the oppressor. There is no domain of life which is not intrinsically political. When we act like there is -- such as when we pretend politics should be off the table for discussion -- we are simply ceding ground, casting away our part in the story, and abdicating our responsibility to take that part seriously.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. 72delu+Uf[view] [source] 2026-01-28 10:33:04
>>popalc+3e
Do you also believe you should discuss every other topic under the sun in the belief that not discussing it is "ceding ground" to a viewpoint or action of others?

It would seem that in your view, we should be discussing all things at all times due to this "oppressor" mindset.

This simply cannot be true.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. popalc+Tf6[view] [source] 2026-01-29 21:10:33
>>72delu+Uf
You're clearly being facetious. I will simply say that the rise of Naziism/Authoritarianism in the west is a preeminent threat to all human beings on the planet, especially when the king of all nazis has access to the nuclear missiles. It obviously demands a sense of urgency that other topics don't.

If you disagree with that, be explicit about exactly what part.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. 72delu+sMj[view] [source] 2026-02-03 09:22:45
>>popalc+Tf6
There are lots of threats to all human beings on the planet. You are simply taking the view that the thing you personally see as the biggest threat is therefore the thing that everyone else should see as the biggest threat (they won't) and agree with your view (they will not), casting your view of the world as the single truth (it isn't), then further presenting it in a ultimatum-based combative manner, asserting that other people take action based on your narrow definition (they won't).

This prevents any reasonable discourse so is unlikely to be successful, no matter how dogmatically or assertively you present your case. Others will simply perceive it as unreasonable, I suspect.

This doesn't mean that you can't still believe it to be true - it just means that others will not engage with the points you mention, and you'll then end up being more isolated and frustrated.

[go to top]