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

The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 127 posts

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#31

Post by zardo »

wrong_internet wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #6

The "Other side" is scared, not dumb. Molly Ivins used to point this out. For the white lower middle class, life has been a slow downhill slide since the mid-1970s. Those are the people who support Trump and the Tea Party. Unfortunately, exploiting that fear is politically effective. This is a problem with a long history. There are records of it back as far as Cicero. It's not their fault that they don't know what to…

There's also the 130+ IQ group of neoreactionaries who like Trump from a perspective informed by history.

I had not heard the term. The current top post in their subreddit is "How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner"

Sounds like a great group of folks.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#32

Post by TeMPOraL »

Another observation about the "Other side" (that is, really, about all of us) to add to excellent points made by others here.

Most disagreements happen around things that have no direct impact on day-to-day life. People can hold widely different opinions about politics because... it's politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life anyway, at least not immediately or directly. Take two people who are in fierce disagreement about the balance between government intervention and market freedom - take them, and go see how they manage their personal checkbooks or how they maintain their homes and cars. Suddenly, you'll see agreement, similar solutions, and both people being generally smart.

People are pragmatic. We tend to invest in knowing the actual truth proportionally to how the issue is actually important to us. Hence most disagreements are about things that actually cost us nothing when we get them wrong.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#33

Post by bitwize »

If this were in reference to France or Germany or the UK or Australia or New Zealand, it'd be very on point.

In reference to the USA, where just around half the population believe that God literally created the universe in six literal days, no, I'm sorry, the "other side" really is willfully, dangerously stupid.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#34

Post by lostcolony »

state wrote: post #26
joolze wrote: post #13

You seem to be describing what is commonly known as a "conversation". I find it hilarious that western society has gradually devolved itself to such an extent with fear-fear mongering, hate-hate speech, and an absurd amount of righteous indignation that people are literally terrified to have opinions outside the groupthink; and you not only have to invent a game to feel human again, but that game is apparently novel…

This seems to me to be even more true online, although we like to think that information technology has the opposite effect.

It is more true online, and for a lot of reasons.

I meet someone at a party and we become Facebook friends. I then post some sort of political article or comment to my feed. They see it, disagree with it, and (likely) either comment on it in a non-polite manner, or stay silent, but either way categorize me in their head as a crazy right/left winger. Why? Because these are what is easiest to do for 'crazy' opinions coming from strangers.

Compare that with what can happen in real life. I get to know someone over the course of multiple interactions; all my political comments are kept to those I already know and trust. Eventually we get to a point we know and trust each other, and I venture an opinion, one they disagree with. They say "I disagree with that", and we discuss it. Why? Because we already know each other, value each other, trust each other, and are seeking legitimately to understand and/or sway one another, while also preserving the relationship.

The internet has essentially made it so the thoughts we used to reserve for those we knew in depth, are becoming aired to strangers, and responded to accordingly.

While it means that insular bubbles of thought (the rural family who doesn't know anyone who believes in gun control, say) are encountering people who disagree with them, those people are strangers, and there's no reason to give them any credence. If anything, it just makes one even more vociferous, because now you can preach to people who -aren't- in the choir.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#35

Post by TeMPOraL »

zardo wrote: post #31
wrong_internet wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the 130+ IQ group of neoreactionaries who like Trump from a perspective informed by history.

I had not heard the term. The current top post in their subreddit is "How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner" Sounds like a great group of folks.

Here's an article that summarizes the ideas of reactionaries, attempting to present them in most charitable way the author can:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...

There's also the same author's attempt at rebutting the most common neoreactionary beliefs, although per disclaimer at the beginning, the author doesn't endorse everything he wrote there anymore:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-fa...

A long read, but should clear things up :).

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#36

Post by TeMPOraL »

lostcolony wrote: post #34
state wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to me to be even more true online, although we like to think that information technology has the opposite effect.

It is more true online, and for a lot of reasons. I meet someone at a party and we become Facebook friends. I then post some sort of political article or comment to my feed. They see it, disagree with it, and (likely) either comment on it in a non-polite manner, or stay silent, but either way categorize me in their head as a crazy right/left winger. Why? Because these are what is easiest to do for 'crazy' opinions co…

I have a tiny hope that after experiencing this phenomenon from both sides - both seeing and being the lunatic stranger - most people will learn to embrace that their beliefs may not always be correct or universal.

It's a tiny hope.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#37

Post by maldeh »

gweinberg wrote: post #16
poke111 wrote: post #12

I like that he mentions the Ideological Turing Test, though not by name ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test ) "As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue."

That's bullshit though. On many issues, one or both sides don't have any argument beyond "me not like". But that's enough, if you can find enough people that feel the same way.

This reaction feels to me to be exactly what the article (and even the old debate club maxim) is hoping to have us consider.

On most of the pressing social issues of our time, I can at least identify a considered point from the other side - [a]theism, pro-[life|choice], gun-control, liberalism/conservatism, you name it. I often disagree heavily with the other side, but that doesn't invalidate their particular perspective. It always comes down to some axioms each side assumes that are inviolate, in tandem with a personal utility function judging certain outcomes more important or more just than others.

Take pro-life/choice for instance; here I am personally very strongly on the pro-choice side, but I can't deny that the other side at least has these points which they evaluate differently from me: - at what point do we consider an embryo alive and sentient? We reduce lifeforms to black and white like this all the time, yet we know there to be a wide range of grey in between - considering it is valid for people to consider a fetus as alive and sentient, where do we draw the line on saying it is okay to terminate its life? - even as we accept that it is okay to abort a fetus and a future potential life, does it not come down to a value judgment whether a woman's right to her own body, and her right not be held in thrall to rapists, supercedes that of a potential human life?

Acknowledging an argument on its merits does not automatically put it on the same level playing field or "elevate" it to be equal to the other side. Some arguments can have holes picked through them and can be successfully dismantled if not substantiated fully against all attacks. But this can only happen when both sides play by the rules to evaluate each other objectively, without weaseling out and dismissing the other side with reductionism. Granted, you have no control of the other, and can't compel them to play by your rules, but you will still be able to come to your own truths if you can internally argue on their behalf, and be more satisfied your reasoning for it.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#38

Post by lostcolony »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #36
lostcolony wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more true online, and for a lot of reasons. I meet someone at a party and we become Facebook friends. I then post some sort of political article or comment to my feed. They see it, disagree with it, and (likely) either comment on it in a non-polite manner, or stay silent, but either way categorize me in their head as a crazy right/left winger. Why? Because these are what is easiest to do for 'crazy' opinions co…

I have a tiny hope that after experiencing this phenomenon from both sides - both seeing and being the lunatic stranger - most people will learn to embrace that their beliefs may not always be correct or universal. It's a tiny hope.

I wish I had that hope. I've seen people who in person I've had intelligent, rational discussions with on areas we disagree, then post virulent political posts that tear apart strawmen arguments. I actually quite like this article because it paints this out as why we do it. With someone we disagree with in person, they're still part of our tribe. We know them, we like them, we trust them. With someone on the internet, they're 'the other'.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#39

Post by TeMPOraL »

onewaystreet wrote: post #28
gweinberg wrote: post #14

This article has it exactly wrong. Most people on the other side ARE stupid. Most people on your side are stupid also.

The thing that someone who has a firm grasp on an issue will often find is that most people on both sides don't actually know what they are talking about.

This is a painfully true observation.

I think the first time I really realized it was when I was drifting away from my religion of birth, and actually started to listen to atheist people around me. I soon discovered that the only difference between most of them and the religious people I know was the value of $religion variable. For one group it was "God", for the other it was "no God". The thought patterns were exactly the same. Neither of them could actually justify their beliefs.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#40

Post by TeMPOraL »

lostcolony wrote: post #38
TeMPOraL wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a tiny hope that after experiencing this phenomenon from both sides - both seeing and being the lunatic stranger - most people will learn to embrace that their beliefs may not always be correct or universal. It's a tiny hope.

I wish I had that hope. I've seen people who in person I've had intelligent, rational discussions with on areas we disagree, then post virulent political posts that tear apart strawmen arguments. I actually quite like this article because it paints this out as why we do it. With someone we disagree with in person, they're still part of our tribe. We know them, we like them, we trust them. With someone on the internet…

Yeah. I've seen those people too. It's about signaling, I think. Hell, I often have to stop myself from resharing stupid strawmans on Facebook just to "stick it" to the outgroup.
Post reply on HN