New political polarization casts rivals as alien, unlikable, contemptible • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by throwaway894345 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #131

throwaway894345 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I see anecdotally is that the left has become more inclusive, and the right as become more extreme. I think there are some on the right who have become more extreme, but I interpret this as a reflex against a rapidly growing extreme leftism (apologies to anyone offended by this term; I don’t mean it as a value judgment as much as a literalism). I’m a liberal, personally, and I certainly feel like the left is m…

Thank you for some discussion. > My more controversial opinion is that this behavior drives some people to the far right. Extreme begets extreme. If I claimed I knew who went extreme first, it wouldn't matter and only lead to arguments without furthering the discussion. I will say though, that I think the left feels pushed to more extremes by how SCOTUS has gone down since 2015. > Notably, if I’m right about the dyna…

I generally agree. I’m not arguing that “the left started it”, only that some people argue that this all originated with Trump and I think it goes back further than that.

Interestingly, I don’t think the left has been overrun by the right. It seems to me that liberalism was winning out circa 2010 (at least socially/culturally)—consider how quickly gay marriage became acceptable and even celebrated. I don’t think extreme leftism was a response to some rising tide of conservatism (whether extreme or moderate), but maybe I’m wrong.

In whatever case, I think the solution is to return to more moderate, liberal values (obviously im biased as a liberal), but specifically for all of us to foster an atmosphere of understanding. If we can foster intolerance in the name of tolerance, maybe we can foster genuine tolerance? If nothing else, I’m optimistic that the next generation will not see the point in our petty partisanship and want something better for our country. I hope I’m right.

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

#162

Post by blablablerg » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

the-dude wrote: post #157

blablablerg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Violent repression of speech is a hallmark of oppressive regimes (putting intellectuals in the gulag for example) and saying such a thing about the left is just as bad as calling them nazi's or murderers. The commenter in question uses more words but it essentially boils down to the same.

But nitpicking about what insult is worse is beside the point for me. It is not as if most of the left is out to demonize the right and vice versa, and I regret it if you see it that way, and even more so if you think that one side is worse at it. Putting the whole of society in two camps and ascribing behaviour to them which are exacted by a minority as if they are a homogeneous unit.. oversimplified and prejudiced.

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

#163

Post by highmastdon » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

quicklime wrote: post #82

throwaway3699 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you seen the article posted here this week which claimed the main narrative on Twitter was only originating from about 6 people? Do you have a link?

I'm not sure which post they were referring to, but here's one that I saw (from HN) recently: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/15/differences-... "6 people" seems to be an exaggeration, but most tweets are generated by a minority of Twitter users. And Twitter users themselves tend to be more political than the general population. So what you see on Twitter is representative of the more hardcore partisans,…

What strikes me is that it seems each side only thinks in the outcome of the others’ parties rethoric instead of the contents. Maybe that’s also what’s at core of the matter of this polarisation.

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

#164

Post by luckylion » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

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…

I'm not sure the scandalizing etc doesn't follow the importance, not the other way round, i.e. there's so much at stake, that's why people go all out. That we have natural incentives to encourage extremism certainly contributes, but I don't think it's the primary driver.

Countries like the US with a presidential system could have less politicized administrations (but that may just shift the primary fight to the elections for the legislative). In countries with parliamentary systems, the executive is accountable to the legislative, so division of power between these two is mostly on paper, as the executive is typically controlled by the majority of the legislative.

I do believe that "make politics boring again" would mean "make politics have less influence on the average citizen's life", and I think that's a great idea. But I'm aware that this also just so happens to align with my political views, so others might see that very much differently.

Maybe it's just a natural evolution when societies rapidly become more diverse. Identity/group/tribal politics play a much larger role, the stakes are raised, and more tribalism is the response.

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

#165

Post by sershe » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

cozuya wrote: post #155

ryandrake wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I personally think about half or so of both quotes are completely made up straw men, while about half of each are justified. Your approach here is "exhibit A" for the comments above.

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

#166

Post by TMWNN » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

Put on a "Make America Great Again" hat and walk through downtown Chicago, San Francisco, Ann Arbor, or Cambridge before or after election day 2016 (or 2020). Now, put on a "I'm With Her" or "Biden/Harris 2020" shirt and walk through Provo, Fort Worth, or Pensacola before or after election day. In which scenario are you more like to be yelled at and/or physically attacked?

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

#167

Post by konjin » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

throwaway13337 wrote: post #120

konjin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm starting to realize why sport was pushed so hard until the 00s. It is complete nonsense that you can get your tribalism out on without impacting any part of your life. Imagine how much better the world would be if people checked game scores instead of tweets.

Politics and sports are often linked. From chariot races to football clubs, real politic change happens through sports. Here's an account of the famous chariot race riot in ancient Constantinople: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots Humans will make an identity group worth dying for over anything.

That was literally the teams uniting over politics and burning the city down.

Bread and circuses was a state policy in the Empire for a reason.

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

#168

Post by salamimonger » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #70

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.

People in social media spend several hours per day following politics but almost nobody of them is engaged in any real political work. They are engaging with politics to satisfy our own emotional needs and intellectual curiosities. That’s political hobbyism/consumerism. It's not different from being sports fan. Making noise from the couch but not having no effect in the game and annoying people who don't follow. They…

This got me thinking. Is it ultimately better for people to be battling it out online, on social media, rather than actually fighting in the streets? Everyone will get to have their fair share of outrage and stress release(after amassing it online in the first place), but no one get's hurt. On the other hand, like you suggest, none of their struggles will produce anything real. Which got me thinking, was it better back then, when people actually had to fight it out in real life? Then there would be some kind of result, and people would be able to make changes to the society that they see fit. It was often bloody though, and one side losing meant actual death(s). But from that, there was progress - good and bad. The way things are now, reminds me of all the bureaucracies in the world that prevent things from getting done - good and bad. Maybe people are drawn to fighting it out online, because they subconsciously know there's nothing they can do in real life anymore. They are well aware of how little influence they actually have on the real world and the only outlet for fighting for their ideals is online, which mostly result in nothing but mental stress and pain. Another thing, I have this idea that after two sides fight in real life, sometimes they can gain an understanding or appreciation of each other. They see each other face to face, as real people, and both understand that they are fighting for what they believe in. Whereas online, there's none of that. You could be fighting against a bot, or someone across the seas who was paid to just start shit. And online, if you lose, you just move on to a new thread or a different forum. You never have to live with the consequences of losing.

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

#169

Post by ecocentrik » Sun, Nov 01, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #133

ecocentrik wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping informed has been always been a prerequisite of American democracy. "wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government" Thomas Jefferson ( https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/60.html ) Engaging in the political dialogue is not wasted energy. Low level engagement on social media might be about as impactful as filling a stadium to see a politician speak during a pandemic but…

> Engaging in the political dialogue is not wasted energy. As it is practised in the internet it's horrible destructive energy in the internet. Actual political work is much better. >Sane politicians Yes. Politicians. They also do actual political work. Public that spends hours in political internet and does not engage outside it goes insane.

It seems like your assumung that pundits and bots already dominate the dialogue to such an extent that normal people can't communicate and voice their political grivances. I don't belive that's the case.

We're learning to deal with new forms of propaganda the same way we dealt with the old ones. I remember when people were talking about the information overload of the early days of the internet as driving people insane. Or people who complained about TV advertising being a form of mind control.

People that can't cope will either succumb to the will of others or retreat but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't keep using these tools to our advantage.

> Yes. Politicians. They also do actual political work.

Isn't it clear that renaming post-offices a few months before they're defunded qualifies as actual political work or filling stadiums of people to give them a rock concert version of the political experience or hosting twitch streams of a co-op video game to an audience of 500k people? You might consider grilling social media companies for not doing enough to promote for their party's interests "political work" but when it's done in a chamber dedicated to governing through legislation and comes of as whining or yet another attempt at pandering it misses any loftier goals you're implying might exist.

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

#170

Post by bassman9000 » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

konjin wrote: post #86

mnd999 wrote: post #17

Peoples willingness to line up behind banners, flags and slogans without bothering to look at what those politicians are actually selling baffles me. I think if people from both sides were willing to ignore that and just sit down and talk about what kind of county they want to live in they would find they have a lot more in common than they think. I think this is what the article is proposing, and I think I agree wit…

I think I'm starting to realize why sport was pushed so hard until the 00s. It is complete nonsense that you can get your tribalism out on without impacting any part of your life. Imagine how much better the world would be if people checked game scores instead of tweets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses