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

151–160 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#151

Post by sleepysysadmin »

epakai wrote: post #138
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #74

>Democracies require compromise. But compromise becomes almost impossible when voters are divided into diametrically opposed camps. One of the identity tricks that George W Bush used was being a yokel. The Democrats fell into the obvious trap of attacking his identity which immediately turned off tons of people. Then Bush kept going with identity politics. Like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal So…

Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.

>Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches.

Like I dont mind Biden's position on the left wing riots. BLM or antifa for that matter. I feel like rational people are going to be upset with clear police brutality that is happening. Though the tremendous violence that is involved is wrong. Biden is right to say this. However, as a leader who acknowledges police brutality. He should do something about it.

>Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.

If you look at it objectively. Trump has to date done more for the blm cause than the democrats since replacing trump.

As of right now, they have achieved nothing for blm. Like I think we can all agree there's a police brutality problem. But also clearly a racism related issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 The only difference is skin colour and police react much differently.

As a leader this needs to be fixed. So lets step back. Why would Trump not acknowledge the issue or attack blm? Why is biden and friends doing nothing for them?

Also, why does blm only exist during elections? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

BLM isn't about police brutality. It's not even about racism. Trump attacks them because of what they are and biden ignores them because of what they are.

Alas, sideline BLM. The USA still has a police problem. Biden seems to acknowledge the problem exists and they seem to be clearly not interested in fixing the problem.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#152

Post by pjc50 »

ripsawridge wrote: post #145
datenarsch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see everyone's forgotten the reason the far right are banned in Germany. Remember, Hitler won a democratic election, and (by implication) the popular debate.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#153

Post by edmcnulty101 »

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…

You're leaning ALOT on the opinion of ONE guy this CLEVELAND GROVER MEREDITH who to represent the view and motivations of the entire group of protestors.

Do you also think all Arabic people are terrorists?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#154

Post by pjc50 »

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

As a non-American who's overexposed to second amendment rants, I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns. The sheer incoherence of the protesters may have been a factor.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#155

Post by throw0101a »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #153
throw0101a wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're leaning ALOT on the opinion of ONE guy this CLEVELAND GROVER MEREDITH who to represent the view and motivations of the entire group of protestors. Do you also think all Arabic people are terrorists?

I am making no such assumption on the group, as I clearly state:

> 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

#156

Post by Kye »

TomSwirly wrote: post #114
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…

> usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Non-American here. I lived in the United States for over thirty years. My experience was different. I lost a lot of friends in the last ten years, because they started posting completely ridiculous, crazy stuff and were completely defensive of even the most reasonable objections. I'd put up with "Obama is a Muslim" for a long ti…

Spot on.

I finally a cut a relative off after his long slide deeper into extremism culminated in posting Facebook memes demeaning me and people I cared about leading up to the 2016 election. I'm sure he thinks it was out of nowhere because he brushed me off when I asked him to stop saying such cruel and ignorant things.

Said relative was completely unmoved every time I said "that's me. You know me. Why are you saying these things about me? Why are you saying these things about people who matter to me?"

We were strangers long before I realized it. 2016 was just the wakeup call. There's no difference to me between people claiming relatives cut them off out of nowhere "over politics" and estranged parents in estranged parent forums who don't understand why their kids went no contact. They know or were at least told. But they didn't listen.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#157

Post by pjc50 »

brightball wrote: post #137
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'…

You’re illustrating my point here. You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements. This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label. I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The b…

> opposition is to late term abortions

That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#158

Post by pjc50 »

Clubber wrote: post #89
idontwantthis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is a single Democratic politician fighting to close polling places and restrict Republican populations from voting? Where is a single Republican politician fighting to give greater access to the vote? Where was a single Democrat who stormed the Virginia capital when Republicans won the Governorship? 2 Republicans in Congress voted for an investigation of the insurrections, so there you go: charity.

While you focus on the other party, you are probably ignoring the detrimental things the party you support does. This is by design. The GOP supporters do the same thing and can list all the horrible things the Democratic Party does with equal fervor. Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people. https://en.wikipe…

Superdelegates are a matter of internal party organisation. The party still has to go through a real election, whoever's chosen.

(It is very weird that the internal politics and internal elections of US political parties seem to be a public matter; open primaries are unheard of in most of the rest of the world.)

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#159

Post by SavantIdiot »

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…

Only one side picked up torches and marched for white supremecy, and had an entire news network support them.

This is why all these articles on "why can't we just get along" are almost impossible to take seriously.

If you look at the situation, the left is finally admitting that it is tired of trying to "get along," and it is hard to blame them.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#160

Post by superflit2 »

epakai wrote: post #136
superflit2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what IF one of groups "invite" or promote immigration to make another group weaker?

What if they don't but one group spreads a lie that they do so? Have you fallen for it?

Like If I send millions of buddhist people to a Muslim country.

The buddhist will become Muslim?

Is that how it works?

Post reply on HN