Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes • Hacker News Board

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#181

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #154

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.

> I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns.

There were guns. And bombs. And...

There was perhaps insufficient organization for the armed participants to employ them effectively.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#182

Post by azinman2 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

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…

My close friend used to be a democrat, then became a Trumper and even worked in his administration. We got into a lot of heated debates, and our friendship finally about ended when he recently told me I was “lying to protect my political allies,” which is about the most rediculous statement I could imagine. Not only do I not have political allies (I’m not in politics), but I’m also giving pointing out opinions and evidence contrary to his viewpoint, which he dismisses as a lie (versus debatable points). It’s gotten so absurd, and I blame media on this one. People go into self-reinforcing areas that just get more and more extreme as people try to score points within their own clan. It’s sad, as he was one of the only people I knew that voted for Trump that I could have a real discussion with. Now I just watch it all from afar.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#183

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 5:57 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.

> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?

The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists, preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves, who were not shy about announcing their purpose.)

I would also note that the crowd having overwhelmed the security in the building, the armed insurrectionists outside the building on the Capitol grounds were more usefully positioned to interfere with any relief effort.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#184

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #178

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, There were guns; several firearms charges have been filed related to the Insurrection. > there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, A single centralized organization is not required for an insurrection; there were various organized groups with common purpose as well as participants inspired by direct calls from influential leaders without participating in a formal organiz…

>> There were guns

One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital. the other charges are related to guns in a vehicle and a hearsay claim.

You're inflating statistically and significant details to further an inaccurate narrative.

>>was a violent, unlawful collective action aimed at using force and threat of force against officials as a means of overturning the election

Nice claim but pretty subjective interpretation.

I'm sure there were a few people there with bad intentions.

But are all Arabs terrorists? Were all the protestors there to overthrow the government?

Your sensationalizing a statistically insignificant number of bad people to demonize an entire group who were there to peacefully protest.

It seems to be a pattern. Take a statistically insignificant detail and exaggerate it to demonize and further a narrative.

This is what the media does as well.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#185

Post by brightball » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

ilikecakeandpie wrote: post #174

brightball wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements. I think it doesn't matter what one personally believes if they're enabling a party/company/base that mostly campaigns and executes on items that are opposite of their views. Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all i…

> Claiming that one is in favor of abortion until a certain limit, but then supporting a party that says none at all is the way to go is pretty off base, yeah?

Sure there are people who opposed it entirely, but the majority of what is actually proposed and passed are more focused on defining a cutoff time when the baby is alive with rights of its own. “Heartbeat Bills” are a good example.

There’s a reason you see different laws in different states and it’s because people don’t agree.

You’ll always have people who want to eliminate it entirely and you’ll always have people who want no restrictions at all. That will never change.

Simply trying to agree on a point in time where a fetus has a right to life where termination is unacceptable though, that’s the problem. And politicians don’t want that to change because the moment that the bulk of the charge goes out of an issue they can’t use it to divide people anymore.

If that one issue was off the table, would you reevaluate your party platform? Do you agree with all of it? Do you agree with anything at all on the other side of the isle?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#186

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #172

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Thi…

No one forced you to fact check them and you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with. It seems if there's one thing we agree on, it's that social media encourages divisiveness. Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.

I'm very pleasant to people who don't discuss things with disengenuous, statistically inaccurate, sensationalist intentions, meant to further an ideological narrative.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#187

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #181

pjc50 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns. There were guns. And bombs. And... There was perhaps insufficient organization for the armed participants to employ them effectively.

Where did you hear that there were bombs?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#188

Post by pandaman » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #152

ripsawridge wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't remember any elections Hitler has won, neither does Wikipedia. What did you have in mind?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#189

Post by brightball » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

SavantIdiot wrote: post #159

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.

And you saw no similar behavior from the left in the preceding months to that event?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#190

Post by ShamelessC » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #132

TomSwirly wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> weapons Sensationalism. There were no guns, which an insurrection would have. > A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. Even your language: 'advance on Congress and stop the steal' is vague and non-specific, and could refer to a protest. They organized a protest that got out of hand. Sensationalism. I'm not really go…

> This is identity politics in America.

No. Identity politics is (for instance) being incredibly pedantic about the usage of a word because you take (glaringly obvious, btw) personal offense to its usage. We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic. Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".

The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly.