Or, maybe, because they also just make shit up or run with stories that fit their narrative before verifying whether or not they're true.

Well, most people going down the "all news media is bad" path didn't get there through any kind of logic or reasoning, so when they find alt media that supports their position, that alt media becomes the new truth for them. Post-fact society my dude. Welcome to the future.

[deleted]

I only trust randos on the Internet whose ramblings reflect my own biases to a T. It's the only way to get accurate, authentic coverage of the only topics that are important and meaningful.

This was kinda just… bad across the board. Even entertaining the idea that there is no such thing as morality should’ve been a red flag. Simply because we haven’t made sense of it or are unwilling to judge others for having different foundations of morality, we shouldn’t fully consider it? That’s how I was reading it. In about 300 years people are going to look back at articles like this, and think we were silly not to consider morality at all because it’s difficult to figure out. Or because there are people that will disagree with specifics. Morality, very much is the objective of civilized humanity. If we want to move away from the beast, we have to move towards morality.

[deleted]

> Is this improvement or anarchy?

Neither. The same economic laws that govern mainstream journalism also cover "private" journalism, only with fewer restrictions because with fewer production costs, they don't need to appeal to a widespread mass audience, and can instead focus on political niches that are more loyal and less prone to seek out differing accounts of events

> all news is unreliable and virtually all of it is owned buy billionaires (media owned by 3 people is about as trustworthy as Chinese state media)

yes, including all the news people insist is "authentic" and "truthful", such as all the internet randos with millions of followers and sponsorships that somehow are seen as more "trustworthy" than actual for real journalists despite having literally no discernable business ethics, and their sources and methods being even less transparent

> It's interesting that conservative media being caught(repeatedly) lying for political gain has somehow translated into all news media being perceived as unreliable.

It hasn't. Non-conservative media is perceived as unreliable by conservatives because it doesn't reflect their perception of the world.

just ignoring times 'left' media has lied for political gain? (what fucking left, whining about minorities and the environment is not 'left' if you also support corporations, private wealth and tax cuts).

all news is unreliable and virtually all of it is owned buy billionaires (media owned by 3 people is about as trustworthy as Chinese state media)

There's tons of trust in specific sources, most of which is built on confirmation bias

CNN isn't as bad as Fox News, but just barely.

It's still fear mongering and mind numbing stupidity that teaches its audience to be tribal and simple minded.

[deleted]

You have to imagine in the past before resource scarcity and with high standards in humanities education - that there was more "honor" throughout society, including the editors of information. Gatekeepers now are as craven as any youtuber in mom's basement, just different chains of command.

If the audience or readers can find the strength to be more discerning and take responsibility for choosing their information, I'd say let it ALL flow.

You’re half right - they were the ones caught repeatedly lying but they were also the most successful pulling in the biggest audiences. This leads to their competitors trying to mirror what they do (queue CNN trying to be the Fox News but for liberals).

The problem is the model worked and then others copy it.

Which was the intention from the beginning

--CNN has entered the chat--

yeah its one arm of the machine that is wrong

It's interesting that conservative media being caught(repeatedly) lying for political gain has somehow translated into all news media being perceived as unreliable.

I'm with you here.

I don’t even watch the news anymore, absolutely nothing useful in there.

Transparency? Possibly in small amounts but overall unlikely.

Trust? That ship has sailed and is 1000 miles out to sea.

• Life is suffering and life has suffering are not mutually exclusive, however the latter is a predicate of the former. I think you are confusing anti-natalism with Pessimism, which is not a predicate of its believing. Only because many anti-natalists are also pessimist, and derive their natalist views from their pessimism, does not mean it is necessary to be one. Is also doesn’t exactly follow that if one is a pessimist, one thus has to be an anti-natalist. Nietzsche was originally a pessimist, due to Schopenhauer, and - in his later writings - still held heavily to a metaphysics of strife (in the periphery of suffering), yet I don’t believe he was anti-natalist.

• I discuss a Metaphysics of Suffering, of which Schopenhauer held, at the end of the Well-being Argument, of which it is a substratum off. Itis important to note that Schopenhauer was not the ‘OG’ anti-natalist, as the position goes all the way back to early christianity, buddhism, and ascetic anti-demiurgicalists (often referred to non-academically as ‘Gnostics’).

• I don’t agree with the phrasing of the question, it is skewed to disfavour anti-natalists. Anti-natalism is about whether or not you should bring someone into existence. Not whether it is worth living once you are within it. If I was to re-write it:

‘Is it selfish to believe one does not have the right and should not bring new people into existence, because it has suffering within it; further, to persuade others to also do the same and, if sufficiently successful, lead humanities extinction within a generation?’

Then: No.

You ask: ‘who am I to even decide if life is worth living?’ - well, there is no life beyond your own, whence you perish, so you are literally the one to decide if your life is worth living or not.

As for the non-existent, I would ask: who are you to bring them into the world? - especially if you don’t know if it is worthwhile?

Absolutely surreal

Always been obsessed with realism and nihilism but free will is taking over now. Looking into this subreddit more and I can't believe I missed out so many articles and reading that link philosophy with science. Although, part me thinks it's all kind of bullshit because we all have our own thoughts about topics. If you can think, and argue for those thoughts - you're a philosopher. Not in the sense we're arguing against each other, but against ideas and in return we learn and expand our knowledge. :)