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

Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

georgesaines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 302 posts

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#151

Post by aprilthird2021 »

DirkH wrote: post #105
sunshowers wrote: post #43

Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams. In America we haven't quite lost hope yet. edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' politic…

I think Americans have lost hope as well. I think in America it isn't hope for a better tomorrow that is driving politics anymore, it is fear for a worse tomorrow. I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with some…

> And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).

You cannot grow up in India without realizing there are many opinions you cannot voice at just any random person without inciting a riot. As much as Americans are polarized, they will not burn down cities, houses, etc. over what people said. Even the Indian government has started bulldozing entire homes and even gullies to try to punish people who riot because it's such a problem (and yes it's an idiotic solution to an idiotic problem).

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#152

Post by bruce511 »

tticvs wrote: post #139
bruce511 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In absolute numbers, your statement is true. But the deaths are not equivalent because of agency. Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.) The issue either abortions is not the death part, but the agency part. Those…

> Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving. This is not true at all. Auto accidents are not random and we have significant policy levers that we could pull to drastically reduce them but it's politically controversial…

The cause of an accident is not random. There are lots of causes and we have lots if regulations around that.

The victim if an accident is the random I'm referring to. There's no reason an F-150 driver hits one pedestrian over another.

Naturally there are lots more regulations we could add - but that progresses slowly, and with regard to the parties involved (manufacturers, owners, cities etc.)

By contrast anti-abortion legislation has been enacted quickly, without much (if any) consultation with the electorate or medical fraternity. This has resulted in poorly thought out laws in some cases.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#153

Post by lolinder »

zero-sharp wrote: post #147
kelseyfrog wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here. I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.

There's definitely some things that warrant distancing. But I try to appreciate the good, even if there is bad. Moral purity is a luxury and self-righteousness can be ugly (sorry).

Not only is it a luxury, it's sheer arrogance to pretend it exists at all.

None of us get through life without complicated trade-offs, and in most cases when you disagree with ~50% of a country's population it's because you have different values of what good thing matters most.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#154

Post by stahtops »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #145
deathanatos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… really? Let's say, for sake of argument, that a fetus is a life, equal in rights to that of a human. What counterpoint is there to support the argument that 2 dead is better than 1 dead?

If you were faced with the choice of strangling a 2 year old or someone would kill you both, what would you choose? There are lots of ethical frameworks where it is better to both die than murder the child. That said, the situation posed by the OP was the the mother may die (e.g. there are risks). What percent shared risk of death do you think would justify strangling a 2 year old child? personally, Im pretty middle…

[flagged]

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#155

Post by rebeccaskinner »

Swizec wrote: post #144
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why tho? Just because we might disagree on the details of gender doesn't mean we can't discuss NIMBYism. I don't see what gender has to do with housing. Imagine you have cancer, and thankfully there’s a medication that you can take that keeps your cancer in remission. You’ve been taking it for 15 years, and you’ve been living a pretty good life. Lately though, a bunch of people have been claiming cancer doesn’t exi…

> Now, your neighbor just wants to talk to you about the rules for how far back new houses should be set from the curb, but every other sentence is about how sick those people are who think they have cancer, and how great party is with all of the policies that would basically ensure you die. See that's what I mean. There is (from what I remember) less of this in Europe because the kill-cancer-kids party is different…

My (probably somewhat incorrect) understanding of most European governments was that you might end up in a situation where you vote in the curb setbacks party and then afterwards they decide to form a coalition with the kill cancer kids party because they see it as the most expedient means to get a majority that can increase curb setbacks. Now you have a real problem because maybe you really do care about curb setbacks but not to the point of wanting kids killed.

My understanding is that’s more or less what recently happened in France.

It might make it easier to talk to your neighbor, who can more plausibly say “don’t look at me, I just voted for curb setbacks”, but it does come with some substantial downsides too, and in the end you still have broad multi-interest umbrella coalitions.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#156

Post by binary132 »

American politics is extremely wrapped up in identity and always has been. That means that having an opinion which someone disagrees with isn’t just an opinion they disagree with; in their mind it may be perceived as an opinion about who and what they or their loved ones are, and what should be done to or about them. Maybe I’m presuming here, but something tells me it’s not really like that in the gentleman’s hometown from the article. In America, people who disagree about politics feel like (or are) actual enemies, not fellow countrymen. We also do often place a lot of value on few precious friendships that we’re willing to mutually set aside the fighting and defensiveness for, and for the sake of getting along. I’m not sure that’s hard to explain or understand, and I’m not sure it has so much to do with density.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#157

Post by strken »

whaaaaat wrote: post #36
thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…

I think a lot of people genuinely believe that transwomen are grooming and raping children en masse, or at least trying to get into women's sport so they can win medals. The fact that this is both wrong and stupid and has no real non-circumstantial evidence does not stop them.

At some point people have to talk to each other, right? And that's where you have a discussion about how you don't think kids should go to the Folsom Street Fair either, but that you also don't think it's fair for a 39 year old transwoman not to be allowed onto the division F basketball team with her friends, and maybe you and your interlocutor both discover that the other side is a little more tolerable than you thought.

Edit: I didn't really explain that very well. What I mean is that neither extreme finds the opinions of the other extreme tolerable, and that this is the result of paying too much attention to the long tail extremes instead of the middle of the bell curve.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#158

Post by zero-sharp »

jcranmer wrote: post #146
deathanatos wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us care about harms to our fellow citizens, too? Just because a law might not impact me personally [1] doesn't stop me from going "no, this law is a bad law because it tramples on people's civil liberties." The Golden Rule. > it’s intellectually dishonest to act like a conservative doesn’t care about pregnant woman No, it isn't. Several states have passed total abortion bans that have included, or end up effe…

> They do impact me personally, but I do not think that is a requirement for people to engage in debate. To emphasize this point: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me…

>one needs to be personally affected by an issue to speak out on it.

I don't think the poster is making that point. Did you see the response?

Look: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=41805263&goto=item%3Fi...

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#159

Post by Swizec »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #155
Swizec wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, your neighbor just wants to talk to you about the rules for how far back new houses should be set from the curb, but every other sentence is about how sick those people are who think they have cancer, and how great party is with all of the policies that would basically ensure you die. See that's what I mean. There is (from what I remember) less of this in Europe because the kill-cancer-kids party is different…

My (probably somewhat incorrect) understanding of most European governments was that you might end up in a situation where you vote in the curb setbacks party and then afterwards they decide to form a coalition with the kill cancer kids party because they see it as the most expedient means to get a majority that can increase curb setbacks. Now you have a real problem because maybe you really do care about curb setbac…

Yep that does happen and ultimately the goal of all this is that some sort of concensus is reached.

The benefit is that you get a few seats representing curb setbacks and a few seats representing cancer kids and they both have to work together to make anything happen. As opposed to USA where voting for curb setbacks means the cancer kids get no seats.

I think an important feature is that (as far as I understand) politicians in EU vote based on their issue whereas politicians in USA vote based on their party regardless of issue. And in Europe there's lots of referendums for when the politicians can't agree on something. The big stuff is often decided via direct instead of representative democracy.

So in your example of cancer kids, the party would probably make a big ruckus, then run a few polls to force a referendum, then a few months later everyone would directly have to vote yes/no on the issue. Obviously the parties would run voter campaigns to convince you to vote the way they'd like, but at least they don't get to just decide these things based on whom 50.5% of the country voted for a few years ago.

It's also, I think, a lot easier in [most of?] Europe to refresh the government. I can't even remember the last time a parliament in my home country managed to last a full 4 years without someone forcing an election. The UK in 2022 famously had a prime minister that lasted just 44 days.

We change our politicians like underwear. They're there to do a job not to build empires.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#160

Post by teg4n_ »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #104
whaaaaat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…

There is no party that will make “every waking moment a nightmare" for the LGBTQIAP+. That’s the same thing we heard in 2016, and nothing came of it then. And in fact between 2020 and 2024 there is definitely an argument that can be made that even under the “preferred” party things got worse. Ironically, that exact rhetoric has led to multiple terror attacks on innocent people.

>nothing came of it

I’m guessing you aren’t trans or know anyone that is.

Trans people were kicked out of the military under trump. Some republican governments are making it difficult to near impossible for trans people to get transition related medical care. Republican governments are making it difficult to even get identification documents that match your identity. Republican governments are trying to make certain identities to be considered profane and excluded from general society.

Post reply on HN