The culture war is killing us [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#161

Post by krapp » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #158

fighterpilot wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding just recent history, 2015-2021 is more divisive the 2000-2015, don't you think?

No - I think there's a class of people who weren't exposed to the divisions who're only now aware of it. In roughly chronological order: Anti-"war on terror" demonstrations, The Dixie Chicks being canceled, freedom fries, the handling of Katrina, the divisive 2008 presidential campaign season, the backlash to Obama's presidency, the rise of the Tea Party, the Benghazi investigation, Sandy Hook, birtherism. I probably…

It's almost as if something outside the norm happened relatively recently which for some reason dialed the divisions in American society and politics up to 11 then broke the knob off.

Of course, to mention specifics would be partisan, and partisanship is culture war, and culture war is killing us so who can even say what? We'll just say that somewhere around the end of Obama's term it seems like maybe something happened.

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#162

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #144

8bitsrule wrote: post #141

Check the history. There's nothing new about divisiveness in America. Nothing. Culture wars? A lot of mounds have gone missing since 1494. So some of us are more conscious of it. Are they feeling uneasy about what used to be easy to willfully ignore? What's the price of justice? "All created equal"? Fancy words. "I got mine." Ain't that grand.

Regarding just recent history, 2015-2021 is more divisive the 2000-2015, don't you think?

> Regarding just recent history, 2015-2021 is more divisive the 2000-2015, don't you think?

Maybe, but not as a sudden phase transition, just sort of a continuous process since the end of the New-Deal-to-~1994 overlapping partisan realignments and thr subsequent crystallization of the current ideological divide between the two major parties, returning to the steady state norm.

The periods of reduced—or not-party-aligned—divisiveness during the realignment period were an aberration and artifact of the unsettled alignment.

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#163

Post by blaser-waffle » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #78

nradov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well known that foreign intelligence services are active on social media trying to foment divisiveness. They're not even necessarily pushing a specific political goal, just getting Americans to hate each other. The Russians appear to be the most active but other countries play the same game. So before you get drawn into an online argument, ask yourself am I dealing with an authentic person or a paid foreign trol…

I wonder if the same thing happens within/between companies. Industrial espionage is a thing. When billions of dollars are at stake, why not "cultural activities" too?

The Wendy's twitter straight up drunks on other brands.

If you're Pepsi, you've got every reason to retweet all of the Coke stuff about "don't be white".

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#164

Post by blaser-waffle » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

hattmall wrote: post #110

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the same thing happens within/between companies. Industrial espionage is a thing. When billions of dollars are at stake, why not "cultural activities" too?

It's a thing between teenage girls (and boys), it's not some new tactic. If you read about Ben Franklin, he was huge into the idea of secret societies of a small number of people. The primary reason was that they were immune to this type of dissent building and outside opinion influencing. He structured secret societies like an MLM, where you only know you're direct downline, and your recruiters direct downline. Each…

> This is how the revolution and much more was fomented.

The la-le-lu-li-lo still run the show

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#165

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #19

GingerMidas wrote: post #8

A FPTP two party system almost necessitates culture war, since by definition if you're for one party you're against the other. At the end of the day you're forced to pick a side. The anchors are suggesting you ignore that eventuality.

I think moving away from First Past the Post voting systems is a good thing, but it is not the panacea people are hoping it will be. Just because people can vote for viable third parties does not mean that polarization will go down. It’s possible that more parties may increase divisions.

[deleted]

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#166

Post by jfengel » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #156

jfengel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't froth, but I won't have dinner with a Republican either. Their last Presidential candidate was deliberately insulting. We're not just talking about a media figure or fringe candidate, but a person they actually voted for. I came to this conclusion before 2016; 2016 merely marks the point where it became so obvious that no reasonable person could deny it. Even if they didn't pull the lever for him, he was mere…

Well you made my point. Your country is not going downhill because of one or the other, it's because both can't stand each other any more. A republican will write a similar story about Hillary. Have a nice life over there people, I hope sincerely that things will change.

Thank you; I do take your last sentence as genuinely sincere. Regardless of the cause, it's an unfortunate situation.

I am making the assertion that "it's because of both sides" is actually part of the problem. I don't believe that a reasonable person would look at the 2016 candidates and conclude that they showed hostility equally. I believe that one side is weaponizing that instinct to draw compromises. You're certainly correct that a Republican would write a similar story about Hillary Clinton, but I can only leave it to your judgment about whether that argument has equal merit.

You're absolutely right that we can't stand each other, but if they're insistent on not standing me regardless of what I do, it does not improve the situation for me alone to grow ever more accommodating. I understand the impulse to do so, and engaged it for many years. I've come to believe that it has only allowed the problem to worsen, because it allows increasingly irrational people to demand more and more. I believe that 2016 marks a turning point where no reasonable observer could disagree that one side's irrational people are in charge, and that's not true for the other.

So I disagree with your assertion that it's not one side or the other, and the ability of the other side to claim it's me shouldn't be taken at face value. Neither should my argument, of course. But the existence of two opposite arguments doesn't make them equal. That's specious, and if you want to come to a deeper understanding, you should suspend the hypothesis that both sides are equally wrong. Maybe you'll come to it again through a different path, and if so you should try to convince me.

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#167

Post by blaser-waffle » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #114

bostonsre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure corporate media had much choice in the matter if they wanted to survive. Almost all are for profit companies that lost heavily when eyeballs shifted to social media. Social media companies make money off of ads, so they optimized viewership without being concerned with the consequences. In order for corporate media to stay alive and stop hemorrhaging viewers, they needed to play by the new rules. It's a…

They were going this way before the internet threatened them. Newspaper reporting (and journalism generally) was becoming increasingly emotion-based rather than fact-based. The rise of the tabloids in the UK is a good example: highly-partisan papers that appealed to specific demographics with stories that aimed to evoke an emotional response (usually a negative emotion). It's the same mechanic, though: competition fo…

> They were going this way before the internet threatened them. Newspaper reporting (and journalism generally) was becoming increasingly emotion-based rather than fact-based.

"Yellow Journalism" was a thing as long as we had newspapers and a free press. The term was coined in the 1890s, but was almost certainly around long before then. William Randolph Hurst did what Rupert Murdoch does now, just with slower turnaround time. If you assume Fox News help make Iraq happen, then they've both caused the same amount of wars.

> It's the same mechanic, though: competition for eyeballs. Social media became the super-competitor, but the ad-based model would have got there eventually even without the internet.

It was already there, by a long shot. Internet social media just made it omnipresent, automated, and responsive.

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

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#168

Post by sangnoir » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

barbacoa wrote: post #43

pmoriarty wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A decade ago the activists were occupying Wall Street. Now they’re all aligned with the mega corps and the fighting is about semantics of how we say that lives matter" Completely different issues. They are aligned against discrimination, but divided on economic inequality.

It the same issue but with a slight of hand to shift blame. There is a sentiment that at a macro level the economic system is geared to advantage those at the top. What I see mega corps are doing now is try to shift that frustration from a discussion of class to a discussion of race. Suddenly the white working class outside of major economic centers, the same ones who have seen their economic prospects erode over a g…

> Suddenly the white working class outside of major economic centers, the same ones who have seen their economic prospects erode over a generation due to deindustrialization can be painted as the villain and racists.

May you please expand on this, because I am not following how white working class outsiders are involved. To my knowledge, corps & MLB have commented on specific actions by organizations such as the police or legislatures.

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#169

Post by blaser-waffle » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #157

pmoriarty wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have objective evidence of severe legislative polarization at the federal level going back to the 1980s" Political divisiveness in the US goes back much further than that. In the "you think it's bad now" department, I remember reading about the case of, I think it was in the 1800's, of a congressman assaulting another congressman with a cane over some political issue. Of course the most infamous case of political…

Yes but in the 1880's punching someone wasn't that big of a deal. They could have gone to the bar later and got drunk together and made legislation the next day. Underneath the House of Commons (and I believe somewhere in US Congress) was a bar, and after arguing in the Commons, everyone would go downstairs and get wasted. The 1st PM of Canada drank 12 ounces a day minimum. Imagine that. 12 hard drinks a day (!). Wha…

> Yes but in the 1880's punching someone wasn't that big of a deal. They could have gone to the bar later and got drunk together and made legislation the next day.

Bollocks. Charles Sumner gettin whupped with a cane WAS a big deal and made national and international headlines.

It was a direct response to Sumner criticizing slavery, and helped cement opinions in the South that they'd need to take drastic action to preserve that institution.

Re: The culture war is killing us [video]

#170

Post by jfengel » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

wegs2 wrote: post #154

jfengel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't froth, but I won't have dinner with a Republican either. Their last Presidential candidate was deliberately insulting. We're not just talking about a media figure or fringe candidate, but a person they actually voted for. I came to this conclusion before 2016; 2016 merely marks the point where it became so obvious that no reasonable person could deny it. Even if they didn't pull the lever for him, he was mere…

I'll have dinner with virtually anyone, and I'll try to understand them. I also have a lot of historical books, including one written by a genocidal dictator who killed a lot of my countrymen. I try to understand him too. If you're expecting to convince people, it sounds like you're putting in the wrong effort. The goal of a conversation is understanding, not agreement. "Here, let us rationally discuss the issues, bu…

The problem, I believe, is that there is no effort being made to understand me. My side is very fond of publishing books and articles about how they think and what their values are (cf Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Frank, etc). I've never seen a similar effort from the other side.

I'm not as optimistic as Sun Tzu about my ability to win simply by understanding. Perhaps it works in a physical combat, where every human being has a physical limit that can be overcome. In a political system, there are no limits: a vote is a vote, and if they wish to vote in ways that harm me, I cannot change that by any effort, regardless of what I understand.

If efforts to demonize me are sufficiently effective, nothing I understand will help me. And I believe we've reached that point. I can only implore people to understand me, and failing that, protect myself as best I can. That includes not wasting time on dinners with people who wish me harm. I will not enjoy them. Nor will it produce anything of value.

I haven't flown anywhere. It's as incumbent on them to adapt to me as it is for me to adapt to them. This is my country too, and if they're treating me as a hostile foreigner trying to impose his ways on them, it will not end well.