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

141–150 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#141

Post by Clubber »

TomSwirly wrote: post #124
insickness wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :-)

There's nothing to rebut. The point is he's only looking at his adversarial party's ills and totally ignoring his own party's ills, or full willing to justify them. That's how it works, that's the divide and conquer. No matter what his party does, he will never vote for the other party and vice versa. That's the main way the system protects itself.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#142

Post by throw0101a »

grover35 wrote: post #91
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…

I'm American and I can't help but think many of you just lack social skills. It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Avoid leading/gotcha questions, don't smirk, appear to genuinely listen and seek to understand the other person, resist the urge to tool on…

> It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them.

I think a lot of people are willing to listen, but there is a some amount of evidence that indicates political leanings may have some basis in biology:

> Studies have found that subjects with right-wing, or conservative in the United States, political views have larger amygdalae and are more prone to feeling disgust. Those with left-wing, or liberal in the United States, political views have larger volume of grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and are better at detecting errors in recurring patterns. Conservatives have a stronger sympathetic nervous system response to threatening images and are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as threatening. In general, conservatives are more likely to report larger social networks, more happiness and better self-esteem than liberals. Liberals are more likely to report greater emotional distress, relationship dissatisfaction and experiential hardship and are more open to experience and tolerate uncertainty and disorder better.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...

* https://www.routledge.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives...

> The book is intended as an objective study of the conceptual metaphors underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views. Lakoff makes it clear however, that there is no such thing as an Objective study of politics, as politics is based in subjective morality.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#143

Post by idontwantthis »

Clubber wrote: post #139
idontwantthis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, superdelegates. One of many gripes with the Democratic Party that are famously equivalent to armed insurrection supported by sitting members of Congress.

Can you name 5 horrible things the Democratic Party has done in say the last 30 years? If not, you've been brainwashed.

Yeah but my dad can beat up your dad.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#144

Post by colordrops »

grover35 wrote: post #91
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…

I'm American and I can't help but think many of you just lack social skills. It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Avoid leading/gotcha questions, don't smirk, appear to genuinely listen and seek to understand the other person, resist the urge to tool on…

I agree with the premise that most people are reasonable, but there is a sizeable minority that are extremely vocal and unreasonable that can make you the black sheep at family gatherings or get you fired for saying the wrong thing, etc. The rest of this reasonable population you speak of stays in their lane because of this.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#145

Post by ripsawridge »

datenarsch wrote: post #79
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…

Say "I support the AfD." (which is a bit like the German equivalent of saying "I support Trump") in Germany though and you are villified beyond belief and declared an Unperson, so while I may agree with your point in general, Germany certainly isn't a great example to support it.

Where I live, people pulled down AfD signs or defaced them. The unpersoning is not helpful. The ideas won't go away, and the people who think the AfD raises good questions will only feel persecuted (because they are).

The worst part is that the ones who hate the AfD don't know why they do and are unable to counter their arguments.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#146

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> There were no guns

Yes there were. Three examples of people charged:

> Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. […]

> Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."

> Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine.

* https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...

Another:

> According to court documents, Alberts was arrested after he tried to flee police officers while leaving the Capitol grounds. Investigators said that three officers tackled him and found he was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun, 25 rounds of ammunition, a gas mask, pocket-knife, first aid kit and one military meal.

> Alberts faces four federal charges: carrying a gun at the Capitol, unlawful entry onto restricted grounds, carrying a gun without a license, and possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Alberts' lawyer declined to comment on the charges.

* https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/capitol-insurrection...

From an actual court filing:

> Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another. There is also probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 7 D.C. Code § 2502.01(a) and 2506.01(a)(3) , which make it a crime to possess a firearm in Washington, DC without being the holder of a valid registration certificate, and to possess ammunition unless it is for a firearm that is property registered.

* PDF: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download

> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection

No centralized organization is needed. From case law (in an insurance case of all things):

> The district court held that the word insurrection means '(1) a violent uprising by a group or movement (2) acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.' 368 F. Supp. at 1124.

* https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/505...

Movements do not need necessarily need leaders:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance

* https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/le...

* https://www.csis.org/analysis/age-leaderless-revolution

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#147

Post by edmcnulty101 »

throw0101a wrote: post #146
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…

> There were no guns Yes there were. Three examples of people charged: > Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds…

Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'.

Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?

WOW SUCH INSURRECTION

What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism.

You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#148

Post by [deleted] »

colordrops wrote: post #144
grover35 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm American and I can't help but think many of you just lack social skills. It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Avoid leading/gotcha questions, don't smirk, appear to genuinely listen and seek to understand the other person, resist the urge to tool on…

I agree with the premise that most people are reasonable, but there is a sizeable minority that are extremely vocal and unreasonable that can make you the black sheep at family gatherings or get you fired for saying the wrong thing, etc. The rest of this reasonable population you speak of stays in their lane because of this.

[deleted]

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#149

Post by throw0101a »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #147
throw0101a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were no guns Yes there were. Three examples of people charged: > Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds…

Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'. Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? WOW SUCH INSURRECTION What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism. You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.

> So you're saying out of thousands upon thousands of protestors three had guns.

You were saying there "were no guns". I am saying there were. One of these is an accurate statement.

> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION.

Firearms are not necessarily for something to be classified as an insurrection.

Firearms aren't even necessary if you want to have a revolution:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution

> Were they overthrowing the constituted government or protesting?

From the court filing above:

> On January 7, 2021, the FBI received information that CLEVELAND GROVER MEREDITH, JR. (hereinafter “MEREDITH”) had recently sent a text message in which he wrote, “Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji].” Additionally, Agents learned that MEREDITH was likely in the Washington, DC area, and that he allegedly had firearms and ammunition.

* https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download

To me, personally, threatening to kill someone would fall under a "violent" label, and so would lean more insurrection.

There could have been other people at the event that did not have violent intentions and simply wanted to voice their grievances, and that would lean more towards protest.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#150

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101a wrote: post #149
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'. Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? WOW SUCH INSURRECTION What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism. You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.

> So you're saying out of thousands upon thousands of protestors three had guns. You were saying there "were no guns". I am saying there were. One of these is an accurate statement. > WOW SUCH INSURRECTION. Firearms are not necessarily for something to be classified as an insurrection. Firearms aren't even necessary if you want to have a revolution: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution > Were they…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN