Live data from Hacker News

Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

wired.com

741–750 of 964 posts

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#741
post #723
post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties. The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimensio…

> The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle. As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way. For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also b…

Regarding "I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."

Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media, they might imply or present thinking from the right as "uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."

I take the "How informed about..." quizzes at Pew regularly. And I regularly score in the top group across the board. And I identify as conservative, after growing up as blue collar, patriotic, and somewhat liberal.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#742

> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. (Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.) I th…

But lots of times people will make an argument for the other side, then poke holes in it, aka a straw man. So it's pretty annoying to hear "people on the other side argue X but that's wrong because Y" as a demonstration of one's enlightenment.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#743
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing a lot of people miss is that there is a profit motive here. You can make money, sometimes a lot of money, by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant. You can find examples of people doing this on all sides, especially at the extremes where outrage and other powerful negative emotions can most easily be stirred up. All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorshi…

> Censorship means state power is deployed to silence speech, and that is not (at least in the USA) happening much. >cen·sor (sĕn′sər) >1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and *to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.* Being authorized by twitter to do it on twitter is still censorship. A simple non-political example: censor bars on nudit…

That makes censorship a basically meaningless concept, since any exercise of one's property rights to deny a soap box to anyone now counts as censorship. It makes access to privately owned media an entitlement.

Censorship historically means the initiation of force by the state (in the form of bans, fines, arrests, etc.) to suppress speech. There's very little of that in the USA outside certain well known areas like child porn or explicit personal threats of violence.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#744

I'm sorry, but I find articles like this entirely disingenuous. It opens with a rural Tennessee classroom in which the teacher and a lone student bravely try to help a bunch of Trumpers understand their perspective. It continues with another example of a right-leaning former WV legislator coming around to the leftist position on transgender participation in sports. But what I did not find was a single meaningful exam…

The article may not do a good job highlighting where the left moves right but I believe that is because that movement is the status quo given obstruction on the right.

Remember when "$2,000 checks out the door immediately" became $1,400 checks after weeks of delays and the left leaning media outlets and thus liberals went along with it?

Remember when Biden dropped plans to help out with student loan debt and nobody batted an eyelid?

Remember when Medicare-for-All and Green New Deal were things liberals pretended to care about?

The left constantly moves right by accepting the status quo. They don't need to document specific examples in an article because it is the basis behind every major policy topic for at least the last 10 years.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention both sides being terrible cesspools, but your concrete examples only hit out at what you deem to be progressive subreddits. One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.

> One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so. This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions: 1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. Thi…

So in the issues of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, anti-lynching laws, Voting Rights what position would a centrist have taken that wouldn't have explicitly maintained white supremacy?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#746
post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great philosophy. Who gets to decide what is truth and what is a lie? Case in point. The Pulse Nightclub shooting 5 years ago. Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him. Now it is hailed as persecution of the LGBTQ+ community - a target. Who is doing t…

>Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him. How? By whom? Why should we trust you or your sources? Your thesis is that no one can be trusted to decide what is truth and what is a lie... then you follow up with several "facts" which clearly share a common ideological bias…

On June 12, 2016, Mateen spent just over three hours in PULSE from the time he began slaughtering innocent people at roughly 2:00 a.m. until he was killed by a SWAT team at roughly 5:00 a.m. During that time, he repeatedly spoke to his captives about his motive, did the same with the police with whom he was negotiating, and discussed his cause with local media which he had called from inside the club. Mateen was remarkably consistent in what he said about his motivation. Over and over, he emphasized that his attack at PULSE was in retaliation for U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. In his first call with 911 while inside PULSE, this is what he said about why he was killing people:

Because you have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people. What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there. … You need to stop the U.S. airstrikes. They need to stop the U.S. airstrikes, OK? . … This went down, a lot of innocent women and children are getting killed in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, OK? … The airstrikes need to stop and stop collaborating with Russia. OK?

In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable, instead always emphasizing his geo-political motive. Not a single survivor reported him saying anything derogatory about LGBTs or even anything that suggested he knew he was in a gay club. All said he spoke extensively about his vengeance on behalf of ISIS against U.S. bombing of innocent Muslims.

Mateen's postings on Facebook leading up to his attack all reflected the same motive. They were filled with rage about and vows of retaliation against U.S. bombing. Not a single post contained any references to LGBTs let alone anger or violence toward them. “You kill innocent women and children by doing U.S. airstrikes,” Mateen wrote on Facebook in one of his last posts before attacking PULSE, adding: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”

: People still surround the Pulse nightclub which is still an active crime scene on June 18, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive, but that never made sense: the whole point of terrorism is to publicize, not conceal, the grievances driving the violence. And again, good journalism requires evidence before ratifying claims. There never was any to support the story that Mateen's attack was driven by anti-LGBT hatred, and all the available evidence early on negated that suspicion and pointed to a radically different motive. But the media frenzy ended up, by design or otherwise, obscuring Mateen's anger over Obama's bombing campaigns as his motive in favor of promoting this as an anti-LGBT hate crime.

As the FBI investigation into Mateen proceeded, all the early media gossip — that Mateen was a closeted gay man who had searched for male sexual partners and had even previously visited PULSE — were debunked. The month after the attack, The Washington Post reported that “The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele,” and quoted a federal investigator as saying: “While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted PULSE because it was a gay club.” The New York Times quickly noted that no evidence could be found to support the speculation that Mateen was gay:

F.B.I. investigators, who have conducted more than 500 interviews in the case, are continuing to contact men who claim to have had sexual relations with Mr. Mateen or think they saw him at gay bars. But so far, they have not found any independent corroboration — through his web searches, emails or other electronic data — to establish that he was, in fact, gay, officials said.

The following year, the local paper that most extensively covered the PULSE massacre, The Orlando Sentinel, acknowledge that “there’s still no evidence that the Pulse killer intended to target gay people.”

As the investigation proceeded, this anti-LGBT hate crime narrative became more and more unlikely. But the question of Mateen's motives was settled once and for all — or at least it should have been — during the unsuccessful attempt by the Justice Department to prosecute Mateen's wife, Noor Salman, on numerous felony charges alleging her complicity in her husband's attack. That trial — quite justifiably — ended in a full acquittal for Salman, but evidence emerged during it that conclusively disproved the widely held view that Mateen chose PULSE because he wanted to kill gay people.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist doesn't hide their ideology and advocacy. Unlike many "well renowned sources" (ahem... NYT)

What would you think the ideology of the Economist is and where in their website do you get that from? Just asking for the sake of argument.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. And VERY much pro status quo.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should refund the police, and then call them! What are you arguing about? 1. Someone mentions Fox being bad for bias in story selection. 2. I ask: why are we singling out Fox specifically? Others do it too? 3. You say: "They give Trump airtime!" Ok? That is a difference I guess? Not got much to do with what we're talking about though?

It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait

Day after day for two years, MSNBC and CNN hosts and guests went on and on about how Trump was beholden to Putin. There was a "pee pee tape", remember? There were deals that Trump and Trump Jr. made in a Trump Tower meeting that would give Putin certain guarantees in exchange for his help in getting Trump elected. Pulitzers were given to newspapers that printed one breathless anonymously-sourced accusation after another.

None of it turned out to be true. When you compare the Adam Schiff memo release with the Devin Nunes memo, you can see that Nunes' memo was accurate. Schiff's memo was full of misinformation. Schiff was one of those guests who appeared on CNN and MSNBC over and over, claiming that there was evidence for "Russia collusion with the Trump campaign". He later had to retract that repeated lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q2su1iknyk

Mueller and his team of Democrats instead tried to make a case for obstruction against a President who waived all executive and even most of his attorney-client privilege. Even the impeachment-hungry Democrats in the House couldn't mount impeachment charges on that weak claim.

What a waste all that was, and it was egged on and sometimes even fabricated at every turn by CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WaPo.

But keep pretending that Fox News is some big boogeyman or even an outlier in the news business.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#749
post #570
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…

>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change. That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people. As an aside, t…

I don't think there are or could be neutral political positions, nor would it be desirable to have them.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#750
post #518
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…

I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties. The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimensio…

Most people I know don't even trust their own political party. I have a hard time believing there's many people that actually trust both.
Post reply on HN