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

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#121

Post by idontwantthis »

tlear wrote: post #105
idontwantthis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“To be fair” nothing approaching the same ballpark has been committed by the left and the any “violent and anti democratic behaviors” you can give examples of have not been championed by the left establishment. One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.

Let me help you expand your knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...

Uh yeah let’s equate that to an armed insurrection that killed 3 people and would have overturned a presidential election if not successfully repelled, and that has been defended or denied by Republicans en masse.

He was condemned by both parties, and was not part of the mainstream liberal movement.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#122

Post by johnisgood »

o5ira wrote: post #103
johnisgood wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already gave up our agency to make our own decisions in many areas of life. The Government does it for us.

In my experience, Government imposes far fewer limitations on my life than the Market does. It determines that I must work to live, who I can work for, what sort of home and food I can have, etc.

> I must work to live

Are you saying that you do not work voluntarily but under duress, e.g. to avoid starvation?

In any case, just to be clear... are you blaming our economic system, capitalism for this? I am asking, because it is a common thing to do; blaming capitalism for everything that is the fault of the Government. After all, capitalism is about working less to earn more. This alone is in conflict with "work to live". Plus the market is a voluntary concept. The Government interferes with the market, and creates all sorts of horrible financial incentives. We have an interventionist economy, and it is not doing too well, I agree with you on that. People should support each other more. Our web of social support is not satisfactory. We have the technology to "retire" many people, but if we do that, they cannot get money, and not getting money is a problem indeed. The Government "creates" all sorts of useless jobs we could do without just so people can earn money. We should be able to work less, and live just as well, if not better; which is what capitalism - our economic system - is about.

That said, existence has externalities. Humans take food, water, produce waste, damage things, require shelter, etc. and someone has to cover that and you could always work to cover it or go join a commune to cover it if your Government has not made it illegal.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#123

Post by TomSwirly »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #119

The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. B…

A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. They showed up in the thousands with weapons and restraining devices, broke into the Capitol building, broke a lot of things, literally wiped their shit on the walls, and were finally repulsed.

Sounds like an "INSURRECTION" to me. What part is missing? Do you only count it as an "INSURRECTION" if it fails? Hmm...

---

Hey, I heard a joke:

Q: How do you know Trump was running the January 6 insurrection? A: It failed.

:-D

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#124

Post by TomSwirly »

insickness wrote: post #72
idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

You inadvertently provide an excellent example of what is causing polarization in America: Highlight the worst possible examples from the side you oppose while assigning the most charitable intentions to the side you support.

Well, I'm not an American, and yet I think they're entirely right.

Also, we note you don't provide any actual rebuttal. :-)

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#125

Post by oceanplexian »

gruez wrote: post #104
ilikecakeandpie wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it'…

seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"

Think of how much of a better world we would live in if everyone respected the individual private choices of others (What drugs you want to consume, what medical procedures you want to take part in, who you are allowed to marry and fall in love with). Unfortunately both the Left and the Right salivate at the thought of using the government's monopoly on violence to control people depending on what they think is for the good of "society".

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#126

Post by edmcnulty101 »

idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

Just to make you aware, these views are extremist.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#127

Post by specialist »

kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

Yes and: Ezra Klein provides a lot of context in the book Why We Are Polarized.

It was long argued that partisanship (Dem v GOP) should become polarized, so that voters knew what they were getting. (Careful what you wish for.)

Sorting proceeded polarization, then became self reinforcing.

To your point about identity, somehow sorting and polarization led to a stacking of our identities, creating super identities. So that any given belief becomes strongly associated with many others. Like a NASCAR fan is more likely a GOP voter. This is somehow like homophily and schismogenesis.

Klein concludes by punting on how to unwind polarization. Instead, he advocates majoritarian rule by ending the vetocracy. So then our polarized parties are better held accountable.

--

This paper's Attraction-Repulsion Model is worth considering. I really like their use of dynamic simulations. Coolness. Alas, I currently have no clue if ARM has any predictive power (real world use cases).

To noob me, sorting and polarization -- tribes and wedge issues -- kinda look similar to k-means clustering and bee colony optimization. ARM isn't so different.

I've been reading about voter behaviour modeling. Starting with William McPhee's work. Again, I have no idea if what they're actually doing is any better than phrenology.

Having worked on campaigns, I actually know the mechanics of polling, profiling, GOTV. But the work of orgs like Data for Progress, fivethirtyeight, and our local party's quants has always struck me as black magic. (Or complete bullshit. I still haven't decided.)

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#128

Post by JohnWhigham »

ilikecakeandpie wrote: post #87
brightball wrote: post #84

The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled the…

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it'…

OP presents a perfectly reasonable statement and your rebuttal is to strawman/argue in bad faith. You are exactly who they are talking about. You are part of the problem.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#129

Post by idontwantthis »

h2odragon wrote: post #96
idontwantthis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“To be fair” nothing approaching the same ballpark has been committed by the left and the any “violent and anti democratic behaviors” you can give examples of have not been championed by the left establishment. One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bomb... > Six members of the radical far-left Resistance Conspiracy were arrested in May 1988 and charged with the bombing, as well as related bombings just one, commonly cited counterpoint.

This game is fun, can I play?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

> In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#130

Post by epakai »

ridiculous_leke wrote: post #93
idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

Did all conservatives and right-wing people storm the capital?

No, their defacto leader pushed false rhetoric that all but ensured such an event would happen and they didn't reject him or even condemn his actions. This is what condemns the group.
Post reply on HN