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
Everything. My default position is disagreement.
Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they’re wrong ;)
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.
The Economist
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.
NYT. I wouldn’t say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.
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.
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?
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.
RSS is a great idea, not sure why I haven’t done that. Maybe I’ll set one up this weekend!
Thanks!
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Not all opinions are inherently valid or valuable though. That’s the Paradox of Tolerance. You do eventually have to draw a line, because some people will use the benefit of the doubt to dismantle democracy
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!
(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.
National Review, The Economist, Drudge
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.
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.
Some local/regional news sites that are owned by MediaNews Group, because they’re often the only source for breaking events.
Tbh, whatever pops up on lemmy for the most part. I’m right wing, it’s pretty easy to follow the left and lurk the news communities.
Although, it’s not being persuasive, it’s more disgusting and horrifying that my fellow human beings think these ways.
Ahaha, I glanced at this earlier before diving into work stuff and thought you’d have a lot more angry replies to you!
Among a lot of folks, I’m the crazy liberal hippy do gooder but I gotta say, a good amount of Lemmy kind of worries me. Though, I suppose I attract the crazy by having the temerity to explain or defend Conservative positions, even when I disagree with them.
In the spirit of this post (understanding the other side’s perspective), could you explain what thoughts you consider disgusting/horrifying and why?
My main thing is the illegal immigration thing. When the left says they need illegal immigrants to pick crops, what comes to my mind is 1850s American south, with slavery. The south claimed they needed slaves to pick crops, and now it’s being echoed by the modern left wing.
If farmers paid good wages, they’d get workers. And I’d rather pay extra for ethically grown and harvested crops. I already do to some extent.
