Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

mest.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 234 posts

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#131

Post by ema »

beatpanda wrote: post #119
robbizorg wrote: post #2

Hi everyone, Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest,…

This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants." My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What good could that possibly do?

Don't you feel at least a little bit curious on why someone could adopt a position that is so obviously wrong to you? Remember, these are people too, not that much unlike you. Some of them might even have the same favorite movies as you.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#133

Post by farright »

pklausler wrote: post #117
TulliusCicero wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whites were arrested for 276,460 violent crimes in 2015. Blacks were arrested for 169,612. Do you think there are the same number of blacks and whites in America?

Of course not, but it's not relevant to the claim that was made: "that black Americans commit much more crime than white Americans".

I meant "per capita". I'm wondering if you are really being fair in interpreting my comment the way you did. E.g. a progressive article uses the exact same language[0]:

It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.

...even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes.

(incidentally this is exactly the kind if article that moderate liberals should be refuting, and in turn the article should acknowledge that moderate liberals also believe blacks really do commit more crime).

[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-...

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#134

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

apathy wrote: post #81

Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything? Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!? It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.

Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely wrong.

The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd affiliation.

I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or curiosity.

HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say "The other side sucks."

I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit which satisfies them they've won the argument.

The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument.

You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit.

I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for one.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#135

Post by bigtunacan »

smoyer wrote: post #20
shireboy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree in principle, but one thing that threw me off off the bat- it asked if I was for or against trump. My views are more nuanced than that- to the point I wouldn't feel comfortable selecting either. Not sure how to best express that in the app, but I do think it's one of the things people misunderstand about "the other".

I was hoping it was a text entry box too!

Agreed. Interesting idea, but limits the discussion too much.

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#137

Post by vanadium »

pmarreck wrote: post #65
austincheney wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A two party system is a large part of this problem. One group validates itself by demonizing the only other player in town. It's toxic and it energizes the most self-serving of us.

The two-party system is a direct consequence of the winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post voting system. If you want more than 2 polarizing parties to emerge, you have to use an alternative voting system which allows ranking, such as IRV, and thus encourages third parties instead of disincentivizing them (due to spoiler effect).

...which just passed in Maine (ranked-choice voting).

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#138

Post by XaspR8d »

seanisko wrote: post #105
losteric wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think modern transportation and communication have contributed to our increasingly divided society... by extending our interactions over larger areas, those tools allow us to naively fall into our own physical "filter bubbles". Modern transportation contributed towards physical obesity. Technology became so efficient and so cheap that we became isolated from physical reality... we have to work out in order to stay…

I agree with these statements. Debate has become an offensive action many will go to great lengths to avoid.

I don't avoid "debate" because I fear disagreement or attacks. I avoid "debate" because so often when I enter one, the person engaging with me immediately employs ad hominem attacks or strawmen or appeals to emotions or any number of other unconstructive argumentation techniques. I am tired of engaging people who cannot argue using logic or rationality. I avoid it because it will be tedius and draining and there is no hope against someone not using logic. (Obviously this whole statement is merely an anecdote, and I'm not trying to explain trends.)

Re: Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with

#140

Post by huangc10 »

baby wrote: post #116
okreallywtf wrote: post #75

While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best)…

> so far I think technology has made the problem worse I think this statement is completely untrue. Compare to how people were divided around the world a hundred years ago. Technology has gathered people together, but it also makes differences clearer to see.

> Technology has gathered people together, but it also makes differences clearer to see.

Doesn't the last part of your comment contradict your entire comment? Imagine gathering a hundred people together and making the differences between each person clear. Instead of uniting everyone, what will ensue is hatred. Shouldn't the point be to find a common ground and not focus on our differences?

Post reply on HN