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

Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 964 posts

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#601

Post by standardUser »

reedjosh wrote: post #590
standardUser wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps your political viewpoints are fairly mild compared to mainstream conservative discourse? It's difficult to have civil discourse with someone who says your identify (or the identify of those you love) should be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted by the state. That's been a core tenet of conservative politics and policy for several years now and I do not have the intellectual tools nor the emotional stre…

I think a large bit of conservative viewpoint today is that the government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. I don't at all care what you do with your life, and really I'd like it if you gave me the same courtesy. But, if you believe that because I consider myself more conservative than not, I must then hate your lifestyle, how can we ever come to a happy coexistence?

I don't think you hate anyone. I know that millions of voters reliably vote for candidates who are outspoken about oppressing specific groups of people, and who introduce legislation and vote in support of legislation that targets specific groups of people.

I'm glad you don't care what I do with my life. If you vote for candidates that legislate in ways that do restrict my life, I ask that you please stop.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#602

Post by prof-dr-ir »

parafactual wrote: post #514
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree. First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side. As for your example, I am convinced that trans p…

Deeply understanding viewpoints that pose a direct threat to you takes a lot of effort. It takes time and mental resources. I don't think it is fair to expect that of everyone; activists, sure, but most people just want to live and feel safe. That is hard as is, especially for trans people.

But this would only disagree with my comment if you further say that trans people should nevertheless be allowed to call something or someone trans-exclusionary without having understood their position. Is that your point?

If it is then I would still disagree: if it is too emotionally taxing to try to understand an opponent's position then I think that one can just refrain from calling them out in public.

In fact, how do you know a viewpoint really poses a threat in the first place? For example, which of your rights does it propose to infringe? If you can answer that then you probably already understand the viewpoint enough to counter it...

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#603

Post by rictic »

watwut wrote: post #564
anm89 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than tha…

The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture. I could continue, but that is the point.

A "centrist" who looks at each issue and takes the average of the mainstream parties' positions is a fool, and will be wrong more often than someone who picks a party and follows along with their beliefs.

Someone who looks at each issue and comes to their own conclusion is likely to end up with views that will not line up cleanly with any political coalition, and must choose which issues to compromise on when deciding which coalition to back in a given political contest.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#604

Post by nate_meurer »

slumdev wrote: post #335
antiterra wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homosexual behavior was branded disorderly conduct and liquor licenses were revoked as a consequence. So yes, it was effectively illegal if you didn’t bribe the cops. People were arrested because the police didn’t consider their genitals to match their clothes. Drug deals and transactions for sex occurred at Stonewall just as they have occurred on Discord, but I’ve not seen any credible evidence that it was a primary…

You didn't like my comment, so you went through my post history? Recasting criminals as innocent angels is a disinformation tactic. You don't get to accuse people of laziness when they correct the record.

Your habitual rhetoric is lazy, regardless of much you want it to be considered "correcting the record".

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#605

Post by stouset »

mpfundstein wrote: post #537
tw04 wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Joe Rogan has a habit of hosting individuals who are blatant frauds and plays it off as "representing both sides". When you have Alex Jones on and let him spew outright lies for an hour without questioning any of it, you've lost all credibility.

have you seen last podcast? he questions a lot of Alex' stuff. Further are the three AJs podcasts great entertainment

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop going out of our way to provide platforms to influential fraudsters and lunatics?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#606

Post by KittenInABox »

vorpalhex wrote: post #583
watwut wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture. I could continue, but that is the point.

"If you aren't for us, you are against us." This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.

This doesn't actually address the parent post in that quite literally half-truths aren't truths. Of course the rhetorical implication is that only one side had those truths but that is most certainly not the argument being made here.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#607

Post by klyrs »

mariodiana wrote: post #446
Moodles wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)

Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would. What he found was that…

Another way to look at this is that extremists have a significant platform on the right, and that is likely to skew the perception of the right by the left.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#608

Post by systemvoltage »

I don't understand the jabs HN is taking against Centrists - Centrists do not give equal importance to, say, Holocaust deniers and QAnon consipiracists. Listening to other side and believing it in are two different things. The alternative of camping out in your echo chambers is far more terrifying that exposing yourself to the entire spectrum (and ignore lunatic theories).

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#609

Post by atq2119 »

majormajor wrote: post #547
mariodiana wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would. What he found was that…

I would be curious to see what that looks like today when elected Republicans are increasingly spouting what you'd call a "demonized" conservative viewpoint if it wasn't coming out of their mouths directly. "Those are just the opinions of a small fringe" was much more believable in a pre-Trump world - but now, even more than post-Tea Party, the fringe is pushing the agenda. And even pre-Trump, you can read that study…

That seems fair to me.

If this reasoning is correct, then conservatives should be becoming worse at gauging liberals' position on social justice-related topics, considering how their reporting tends to be dominated by extremists as well.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#610

Post by KittenInABox »

atq2119 wrote: post #588
slumdev wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception. If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust. The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.

Technically, one could make arguments based on genetics for the "middle" position. Something like: allowing abortion following rape puts a damper on the spread of genes that tend to lead towards rape. That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.

Allowing abortion for purposes of eugenics is self-contradictory with the notion that life should be inviolate.
Post reply on HN