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

Our Culture of Contempt

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 175 posts

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#61

Post by rlt »

tailrecursion wrote: post #23

Ben Shapiro acts respectfully when answering students and debating BLM or other persons. I've seen so many instances of bad behavior on the part of his conversation partner, yet Ben remains cool and professional. The worst I remember is that instance where he refused to use a pronoun on Television. If I recall the trans person in that situation behaved very badly. Jordan Peterson remains cool, even with interviewers…

Sam Harris is a good one on the left.

Joe Rogan is fairly neutral but has a lot of interesting guests from both sides on.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#62

Post by logicchains »

ip26 wrote: post #58
logicchains wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. There are conservatives who genuinely want to build a just, equitabl…

Do you view Pruitt or Zinke as having been fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society?

Do you understand the difference between "there are conservatives that X" and "all conservatives X"? Do you believe that "worst example I can think of from Y" is representative of "all of Y"? Saying conservatives are ill-intentioned because Pruitt is ill-intentioned makes as much sense as saying all communists are ill-intentioned because Mao was corrupt and killed millions of people.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#63

Post by excalibur »

athenot wrote: post #38

The article is about how motive attribution asymmetry leads to contempt, first for the "other political side" then eventually to individuals within that other side. But I think it could go further and question why things get polarized into 2 sides. Our modern society is way more complicated and contains way more nuance than what a binary system can offer. I don't know what the answer is but I feel that political part…

> But I think it could go further and question why things get polarized into 2 sides. Our modern society is way more complicated and contains way more nuance than what a binary system can offer.

It's not that great for the masses, but it's wonderful for the elite. If you can persuade the vast majority to pick a side, then you don't have to worry about engineering public opinion to your own benefit on each and every issue. All you need to do is control both the red and blue teams. Then you can regularly shit on the proles and retain their support, simply by blaming the "other side" for their misfortune.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#64

Post by burfog »

ip26 wrote: post #58
logicchains wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. There are conservatives who genuinely want to build a just, equitabl…

Do you view Pruitt or Zinke as having been fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society?

Them being "fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society" is a good explanation for why they wiped out lots of job-killing regulations that infringed on private property rights. This might not be your idea of how best to achieve things, but it is consistent with a well-intentioned view that destroying jobs and infringing on private property rights is unjust and inequitable.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#65

Post by blueboo »

elefanten wrote: post #13

All political mud-slinging aside, all weighing and apportioning of blame withheld, the main suggestions of the article are worthwhile. 1. Don't allow yourself to slide easily or prematurely into contempt. We do it too often these days. 2. Disagree better. You can disagree, but make your case and engage in the responses. Rhetoric has a place but it's being overused.

Unfortunately that leaves one vulnerable to the arsenal of concern trolling. The problem is that these strategies only work if your conversation partner is doing the same in good faith. (This is precisely what Arthur Brooks would have us do, someone who deserves all of our contempt, ironically.)

After all, it’s human nature to (often) entrench when faced with facts that challenge ones beliefs! And that dynamic is particularly acute when someone has chosen to believe the less-plausible-thing, the mark of conspiracy.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#66

Post by justin66 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #33

Hillary's "deplorables" comment was the embodiment of this problem. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was what tipped the election for Trump in the end.

> Hillary's "deplorables" comment was the embodiment of this problem.

I'm always fascinated by the fact that some people believe this.

I remember a decade ago, in a heated time during an actual war, Sarah Palin would go on and on about "real Americans," a group which she made clear does not include me. Just one memorable example of the rhetoric she used toward those outside her tribe. She was a huge hit and hugely influential in her party.

Clinton let fly once with a comment exhibiting the same level of contempt that prominent Republicans use all the time and she suddenly became exactly half the problem.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#67

Post by philwelch »

vore wrote: post #14

This is an argument you can make regardless of what is actually going on on the ground. "The problem isn't policy, it's actually polarization" -- but the article completely fails to examine the causes of said polarization: What are people feeling angry about? Which people feel angry about what? Are those people justified in feeling angry? Are those angry people just doing it for show or are their lives being actively…

Polarization is a tactic used to gain power, on both sides. It’s obvious who benefits from polarization: the moral defectives who end up in positions of power and influence by stoking it.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#68

Post by [deleted] »

duado wrote: post #45
paulsutter wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. Both sides agree Trump is a swindly buffoon, and everyone agrees the Russians have higher standards when recruiting spies. The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok - or even funny - to have a swindly buffoon as president, and my democrat friends find this…

But the liberals think the conservatives are dumb enough to actually believe that Obama is Kenyan. And the conservatives think the liberals actually think that a guy like Trump is suitable material for a KGB asset.

[deleted]

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#69

Post by tiredyam »

noobermin wrote: post #57
discard0000 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find two things interesting about your comment. The first is that you refer to conservatives in the general, and democrats in the specific. This may be simply inadvertant coincidence, but it stood out to me. In fact, you use those particular constructions twice: > None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. > The difference…

Keeping it real, you're reading way too much into what they're saying.

No he isn’t. I agree with him that there is something interesting about the fact that he refers to democrats specifically and conservatives generally. It gives us some insight into his/her bias. It exemplifies some of the broad strokes that are being painted. All conservatives think X because all conservatives, whether fiscally or socially, have the same beliefs. Their anecdata is also highly questionable and presented as a legitimate source of information.

Re: Our Culture of Contempt

#70

Post by [deleted] »

paulsutter wrote: post #34
discard0000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Created a throwaway account for this. As a foreigner who has spent significant time living the US, indeed this seems like the kind of mealy-mouthed, somewhat vapid meta-commentary about "unity" that offers nothing more than some soundbyte call for some abstract value (in this case "better disagreement"). It doesn't address, for example, the fact that the two political factions in America now accept different versions…

None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. Both sides agree Trump is a swindly buffoon, and everyone agrees the Russians have higher standards when recruiting spies. The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok - or even funny - to have a swindly buffoon as president, and my democrat friends find this…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN