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

New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#151

Post by civilized »

scrollaway wrote: post #150
civilized wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually read the article, why would you choose an irrelevant metric that is basically uncorrelated with the actual content of the article to prove your point?

Very easy way to disprove your frankly very low effort post. You have since edited it to be a bit more substantive but when I replied it was reddit grade.

I guess it'd be a disproof if my original claim was about the number of times "Republican" and "Democrat" were mentioned in the article. I'll give you that! I will definitely root for your side in any dispute that involves the number of words in an article. You may well be the world's expert there!

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#152

Post by luckylion »

krapp wrote: post #34
api wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics and government are definitely in the class of things we want to be boring. Interesting government and interesting politics were a major cause of death in the first half of the 20th century.

Unfortunately, ever since the debate between JFK and Richard Nixon, we increasingly demand that politics be spectacle, and that the president, specifically, be demagogue in chief. We don't believe politics can be useful, so it should at least be entertaining. I'd rather being president were more like being prime minister, just a bureaucratic position without much prestige, necessary but no one is calling you "leader…

> I'd rather being president were more like being prime minister, just a bureaucratic position without much prestige, necessary but no one is calling you "leader of the free world."

I agree, but I don't think it's a possibility. An administration that would essentially just be boring and bureaucratic wouldn't "change" the country, but essentially run it on the status quo. Lots of people aren't happy with the status quo for various reasons, they want to change it. That in turn makes other people want to stop them from changing it.

If you didn't have two groups that split across some major fault lines, you didn't have "exciting" politics. When you have these divided groups, how could you have boring politics?

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#153

Post by blablablerg »

the-dude wrote: post #136
blablablerg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also from NL, and first of all, you are blaming a big and diverse group, the 'left', for unnuanced statements and regrettable actions of some individuals. Every group has its crazies. Doesn't mean the whole 'left' is like that. Second, they may be right. Which groups with 'different opinions' are you talking about? Geert Wilders has been convicted for libel against ethnic minorities. And Baudet has said that he…

I will only respond to one part of your rebuttal : do you think being called 'crazy or lazy' is in any way comparable to being called a fascist, nazi or murderer? I don't think so.

Name calling is wrong either way and leads to polarization. It doesn't matter what term is worse. Calling people lazy and crazy is also a form of subhumanization.

Besides, you only have to check geenstijl.nl (https://www.geenstijl.nl/5155500/et-tu-francisco/#comments) for worse: the left are terrorism enablers, etc.

I can't link directly but I quote: "Moslims zijn beter te vergelijken met linkse activisten, andere meningen worden niet getolereerd en desnoods met geweld onderdrukt."

(Translation: You can compare muslim with leftist activists, other opinions are not tolerated and are repressed, with violence if needed).

So your point that the left is somehow worse at demonizing is invalid. People of both sides do it, and both are wrong.

So I hope you can focus on policy instead, because the statement that one party is worse at name calling is biased and doesn't lead us anywhere.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#154

Post by everdrive »

navidfarhadi wrote: post #61
swiley wrote: post #10

Delete your twitter/facebook/reddit account. Seriously! Go do it now! These sites are built with the goal of pushing people into groups that are always angry at each other. Angry polarized groups spend more time on the site and are easier to sell things to. The only thing ignoring this trash will do is make you a happier, more functional person.

It’s possible to (mostly) avoid political stuff on those websites if one wants to, instead of refusing to use the sites completely. Just as an example, I rarely visit r/all, but I do visit specific subreddits that I’m subscribed to like r/privacy, r/pihole, and r/thinkpad. On Facebook, I never browse my newsfeed, but I am a member of a group for my apartment complex in the Stockholm area which lists local events and…

It’s easy to filter your reddit, and get quite boring results. (Who knows if that will change in the future, though? The old reddit interface could be taken away at any time.) But, Facebook and Twitter are a different beast. Facebook seems all the sadder since the groups can be quite good, and the prospect of staying connected with friends is obviously appealing.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#155

Post by cozuya »

ryandrake wrote: post #149
cozuya wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reasonable discussion to be had with people that deny science, deny inclusiveness, promote racism, accept white supremacy, and refuse to condemn violence against groups they don't like.

Remember, the other side is saying the exact same thing: "There is no reasonable discussion to be had with people that deny freedom, want to take away guns, promote socialism, accept killing babies, and refuse to condemn enemies." Nobody is willing to even come to the table anymore because of how totally wrong and evil they see the other side as. Which is kind of the point of the article.

Except these 2 "sides" are not equivalent. Not in the least. Everything in your quote above is made up or a strawman with the possible exception of "accept killing babies" which is admittedly well phrased.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#156

Post by bsenftner »

ForHackernews wrote: post #49
bsenftner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't all governments to this to any other democratic government? This practice is as old as democracy itself.

Since when is Russia a democracy? But yes, foreign propaganda has existed for a long time.

No, all democratic governments receive foreign propaganda from other governments, regardless of the others being democratic or not.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#157

Post by the-dude »

blablablerg wrote: post #153
the-dude wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will only respond to one part of your rebuttal : do you think being called 'crazy or lazy' is in any way comparable to being called a fascist, nazi or murderer? I don't think so.

Name calling is wrong either way and leads to polarization. It doesn't matter what term is worse. Calling people lazy and crazy is also a form of subhumanization. Besides, you only have to check geenstijl.nl ( https://www.geenstijl.nl/5155500/et-tu-francisco/#comments ) for worse: the left are terrorism enablers, etc. I can't link directly but I quote: "Moslims zijn beter te vergelijken met linkse activisten, andere…

I disagree with you in that it doesn't matter what term is worse. Calling somebody lazy or crazy is something fundamentally different than calling somebody a fascist, nazi or murderer. Or disguised dead threats like Roep dan pang.

> "Moslims zijn beter te vergelijken met linkse activisten, andere meningen worden niet getolereerd en desnoods met geweld onderdrukt."

What is your beef with this quote? I don't see the problem.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#158

Post by the-dude »

throwaway_hey wrote: post #138
the-dude wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean by not accepting it? I will make sure you will never call me a criminal of the worst kind ever again. In my experience, not very much is needed.

I’m not sure that’s going to help bridge the gap. Further re-trenching is the exact type of thing this article is warning against, no?

It is not further re-trenching. It is slight re-education to steer them to civilized discourse.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#159

Post by krapp »

luckylion wrote: post #152
krapp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, ever since the debate between JFK and Richard Nixon, we increasingly demand that politics be spectacle, and that the president, specifically, be demagogue in chief. We don't believe politics can be useful, so it should at least be entertaining. I'd rather being president were more like being prime minister, just a bureaucratic position without much prestige, necessary but no one is calling you "leader…

> I'd rather being president were more like being prime minister, just a bureaucratic position without much prestige, necessary but no one is calling you "leader of the free world." I agree, but I don't think it's a possibility. An administration that would essentially just be boring and bureaucratic wouldn't "change" the country, but essentially run it on the status quo. Lots of people aren't happy with the status q…

Except politics isn't "exciting" due to honest debates between honorable adversaries who recognize each others' legitimacy and respect the integrity of the political system, it's "exciting" because of scandal, propaganda, outrage and violence. Driven by conspiracy theories about satanic pedophiles and new world order death camps. We've descended from Lincoln-Douglas to the juvenile circus between Biden and Trump.

And the main reason for this, in my opinion, is having "change" be embodied in a single demagogue figure elected to force their party's agenda through at any cost, rather than having "change' understood to be an effect of long-term and widespread engagement with the system at multiple levels.

Change shouldn't be the president's job anyway, that's what the legislature is for, and people wanting change should engage more with local and state politics. The executive keeps the system running, which implicitly means keeping the status quo.

Re: New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible

#160

Post by api »

krapp wrote: post #159
luckylion wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather being president were more like being prime minister, just a bureaucratic position without much prestige, necessary but no one is calling you "leader of the free world." I agree, but I don't think it's a possibility. An administration that would essentially just be boring and bureaucratic wouldn't "change" the country, but essentially run it on the status quo. Lots of people aren't happy with the status q…

Except politics isn't "exciting" due to honest debates between honorable adversaries who recognize each others' legitimacy and respect the integrity of the political system, it's "exciting" because of scandal, propaganda, outrage and violence. Driven by conspiracy theories about satanic pedophiles and new world order death camps. We've descended from Lincoln-Douglas to the juvenile circus between Biden and Trump. And…

This is really an argument for far less power in the executive. Unfortunately the trend has been toward an increasingly king-like presidency since the depression and especially WWII.
Post reply on HN