Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes • Hacker News Board

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#161

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

stolenmerch wrote: post #88

idontwantthis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60% of Republicans believe that Biden did not win the election. If you believe the presidency has been stolen by a conspiracy then violence is the only recourse remaining. This is not a handful of extremists. This is the predominant view.

And about the same number of Democrats believe the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election or that members of congress were paid Russian assets. That's the thing about polarization. It's easy to see the crazy when it's your political enemy doing it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171121144509/https://www.nytim...

A number of other people went to jail among the "Russiagate" investigation. It is true that none of this has ever quite reached Trump himself.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#162

Post by QuadmasterXLII » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

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…

People are really suffering from this attitude. They think “well a leftist was smug about vaccines on twitter, so it’s their fault I’m not vaccinated” and then they die.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#163

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

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 think it might be stronger than just "identity". Say I am a Republican, and you are a Democrat. That's still OK. We might not be able to have a conversation about politics, but we don't have to be at open warfare with each other. We can still coexist, we just cant talk about politics.

But now comes an issue like, say, abortion. You feel like you have to have a country where abortion is freely available, and I feel like I have to have a country where fetuses are safe from being aborted. Now we're at open war with each other. We can no longer coexist.

So I think it's a step past identity. It's this idea/feeling that one must have some political result.

In politics, sometimes you lose. In fact, in a two-party system, about half the time you lose. People no longer consider that acceptable. That makes it really hard to have a functioning political system.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#164

Post by ShamelessC » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

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.

> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION

Your emphasis here isn't helping at all. You just seem angry and unwilling to participate in civil debate when you do that. For what it's worth, I (and others, I assume) find you less convincing now, regardless of the claims you're making.

This is a good example of the type of discourse social media (hacker news) can bring out when we talk about partisan subjects. At no point did you treat the opposition with respect. You just wanted to get more people from your side to up-vote you; changing zero minds in the process.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#165

Post by atoav » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #162

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…

People are really suffering from this attitude. They think “well a leftist was smug about vaccines on twitter, so it’s their fault I’m not vaccinated” and then they die.

Usually, however it would be more among the lines of "I heard a leftist[1] was smug about vaccines on twitter, so ..."

[1]: the leftist was actually fiscally conservative centrist, which would have been in the right wing of any european conservative party, but who cares about the meaning of words anymore, right?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#166

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

TomSwirly wrote: post #123

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…

I can't answer for anyone else, but I my book that was a riot. An incoherent mob damaging and stealing stuff does not make for an insurrection, even if they are stealing stuff like the speakers podium.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#167

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #155

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a violent uprising by a group or movement

> a single person being violent

I mean your definition of insurrection does not jive with what you're saying.

I think you're trying to inflate the statistically insignificant words of one individual to sensationalize a narrative.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#168

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #62

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a leftie, but who can't relate to the many demands they now have (e.g. cancel culture), did Christianity influence the GOP? Or is it more the GOP saying "We are Christians" and what "Christianity" means to them is whatever they say it is?

I think it used to be the former, and is now more like the latter. And I think that as Christianity, independent of the GOP, continues to be less of a political force, you will see a brand of Republican religion without reference to Christianity. I think the beginnings of this can be seen in the purging of Liz Cheney, who, until very recently, was a canonical Republican. Now it is basically heretical in the Republica…

And Trump is a perfect demonstration of a political party having "religious zeal" unanchored to a religion. He's close to a God figure to some people. Those people and Christians really need to be in separate political parties.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#169

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #164

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.

> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION Your emphasis here isn't helping at all. You just seem angry and unwilling to participate in civil debate when you do that. For what it's worth, I (and others, I assume) find you less convincing now, regardless of the claims you're making. This is a good example of the type of discourse social media (hacker news) can bring out when we talk about partisan subjects. At no point did you treat the…

The gish gallop of the person I was responding too, of numerous paragraphs and links, took time out of my life to parse... and turned out to be a SINGLE PERSON found with a gun on capitol grounds not even in the capitol.

It's as disengenous, demonizing of a group, and sensational as it gets.

This poster is also using the same single person as their data point for the motivations of the entire group of protesters.

This is a good example of the type of discourse social media allows by making all arguments equal no matter how accurate the argument is.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#170

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #125

gruez wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

That is my main political issue, but it comes with a major cavaet: where do you put the dividing line between humans? It is not as obvious as you might think, as both sides of the abortion comes down to the rights of the individual.

Same thing, but with opposite supports on a vaccine mandate.