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

161–170 of 302 posts

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

#161

Post by renewiltord »

krapp wrote: post #135
renewiltord wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>Who’s the intolerant one? It's still the white supremacist fascist who wants to kill all the Jews and gay people.

Yeah, but perhaps one might find common ground with them on which football team one supports, or on the subject of the weather. Once the interaction is done, one can write B2B SaaS while the other goes to kill all the Jews and gay people (and perhaps the Communists and Trade Unionists as well if Niemoller is to be believed), both doubtlessly performing acts of equal moral value. In this way, America might be healed and people with different political opinions might get along.

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

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

stahtops wrote: post #154
s1artibartfast wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

direct answer to the question asked, with no abstraction whatsoever.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

mrangle wrote: post #92

The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the…

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by jcranmer »

zero-sharp wrote: post #158
jcranmer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

The reply said:

> If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat - when perhaps that is an exaggeration that is being caused by our media.

Which rather strikes me as finding it inappropriate to vociferously speak on an issue that doesn't directly affect them.

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

#165

Post by lamontcg »

This part of American culture is probably because of religious pluralism. At work, you don't want workers arguing over religion. You also don't want members of your church being converted to other religious sects at work. Then that gets applied to politics as well, which is useful to keep workers from talking about political things which might lead to discussions of unionization (and similar to guidelines from employers not to talk about salaries).

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

#166

Post by sunshowers »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #149
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 don't feel as if politics is a low stakes discussion in India, especially the religious end of political discussion. There are so many incidents of full blown riots and violence and killings over what people say about this and that religion or how you portray or don't portray this and that figure.

Religion absolutely is very high stakes. But there is a very deep seated cynicism about electoral politics in much of the country.

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

#167

Post by orionsbelt »

jcranmer wrote: post #164
zero-sharp wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

The reply said: > If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat - when perhaps that is an exaggeration that is being caused by our media. Which rather strikes me as finding it inappropriate to vociferously speak on an issue that doesn't directly affect them.

Again, I wasn’t suggesting that one needs to be personally or directly affected to speak out about an issue. I was suggesting that it’s harder to have a reasoned debate on an issue when you are directly affected — emotions just run too high. So, my theory for why Americans are so divided and unable to have political disagreements these days is in part because the media is highjacking people’s emotions by making EVERY issue feel that way.

I always support people being passionate and vocal about what they believe in if it’s productive. If you want to go campaign or be an activist and support changes to abortion laws, great! But if you are unable to have a discussion or disagreement with your friend or neighbor, who is not making policy or effecting anything, without potentially getting so heated that you blow up the relationship, and doing that for every single political issue, then perhaps something is wrong in America and it’s worth examining what that is.

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

#168

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

Two issues that are probably rare but not worth the risk

1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk.

2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more violent. I ain't risking that just to make some small talk in public. Most people are far from good faith and a few have enough short fuses that I'd rather not take that risk.

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

#169

Post by kelseyfrog »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #142
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.

This is what I find as strange. Why couldn't you sleep at night? In my mind, the moral, healthy, productive, and pro-social thing would be to continue friendship. I dont think shunning people builds bridges or helps anyone. Then again, my generation grew up with stories like black activists who befriended KKK members and slowly converted them with compassion and challenging their preconceived notions.

I couldn't sleep at night because it would cause cognitive dissonance. I don't think I'm capable of intellectualizing my way out of it.

More power to the people who can do it. It's just not within my ability.

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

#170

Post by firesteelrain »

teg4n_ wrote: post #160
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“ In August 2017, the White House put out the actual policy behind those tweets. According to the administration, Trump would effectively return to the pre-2016 era in which trans troops could not serve openly. It would also ban the military from paying for gender-affirming surgeries, with some exceptions to “protect the health” of someone who had already begun transitioning. The guidance also allowed the secretary of defense, after consulting with the secretary of homeland security, some wiggle room to decide what to do with already serving trans service members — and it let them advise the president on reversing the ban.”

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/26/16034366/trump-tran...

There are also no reliable numbers of any trans people who were kicked out of the military (if any). Many continued to serve that were already in.

Post reply on HN