Live data from Hacker News

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

georgesaines.com

191–200 of 302 posts

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

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing- Imagine you think killing fetuses is akin to murder. What response would you give to your own point? There is a huge list of counteragents someone could make if they start from that basis, and your counterpoint does nothing to impact them. Everyone is talking past each other with arguments which make sense to them, but are largely off target for the other person.

… 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?

I suppose if would depend on whether you believe that inaction leading to more death is more ethical then actively choosing to murder one life to save the other.

Let's look at the same problem but swap out the actors. Say you have one man with a mortal wound to his heart, and another man with a mortal wound to his lungs. Both will probably die, both men have families, and neither wants to die. Is it ethical to murder one man without his consent and harvest the deceased's organs to save the other?

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

#192

It's enough to think for a couple of seconds to realize it has nothing to do with population density, otherwise you could freely discuss politics in less populated areas of the States. The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world. It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning,…

Do you actually believe that most western countries use a two party system?

Do you use a different definition of two party system than I do, when I say 2 party system I mean "first past the post"-systems, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

and for which countries use that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/me...

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

#194

I don't often discuss politics with my niece; we've actually had physical altercations before. But I mustered some courage and brought this up to her, and she had the following to say: "The two party system forces people who advocate for issue X to also have to advocate for Y and Z, when they may really only care about X. Another factor; the decay of respect of and audiences for traiditional mass media, and the rise…

I think that your niece is absolutely right about this.

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

#195

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…

And this is precisely why people, not just Americans, can't disagree about politics over time. Politics always turns into someone having the perspective "civil disagreement cannot be tolerated because the stakes are too high for my side" which is anethema to reason and concord regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Catastrophizing is always incentivized in the immediate term because it forces any interlocut…

But what's special about Americans and politics? If I told my coworkers I think the Earth is flat, they'd think I was an idiot and shrug and then continue to work with me. But somehow knowing how I vote is a shortcut to assuming I've drunk the party koolaid and believe in everything the party does and then we can't work together? The extreme sides of both parties are just that, extremes, and don't represent my beliefs on any number of issues, but it's a two party system so you have to go with one or the other, or throw your vote away. Elsewhere, people can work together just fine knowing their coworkers voted for the wrong party.

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

#196

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…

> And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. 'Agree to disagree' is just an opt out. At that point there usually isn't any agreement upon what is disagreed upon in the first place. It is a debate evasion. It is usually more honest to say 'I don't want you to convince me or the audiance otherwise'. But ye there is some endurance limit the discussion need to respec…

> …It is a debate evasion.

> It is usually more honest to say 'I don't want you to convince me or the audiance otherwise'

i’m not trying to be mean but this is just wild. i’ve walked away from “debates” with people many times, not because i “don’t want to be convinced” it’s because too often i just genuinely don’t care what the person thinks about $ISSUE.

i mean, most of us went to university and many of us took those classes, many of us have been online for long enough to have seen every argument and every sophist angle countless times. i learned quick enough that many of these issues have no ‘correct’ answer, they’re personal beliefs with deep foundations.

we also learned early on that debates are silly unless there are actual subject experts (like recognized-by-their-peers-experts), strict moderators, and rules in place. randoms “debating” incredibly complex nuanced topics without actual experts is just… i mean…

…without those things it’s just rhetoric and sophistry. for the debateBros it’s about “winning” rather than coming closer to a truth. other than a few loud debateBros most people discovered these things in like sophomore year.

even more important, and this is just a personal opinion, but i find debateBros super weird and not in the good way. far too often their antisocialness just kills conversations. if someone is a grown adult and can’t tell the difference between a conversation and a debate they almost universally just end up making the entire atmosphere awkward. i learned pretty quickly when out with friends to spot randoms shifting into "debate mode" and we drag the conversation in a totally different direction to stave it off.

unless i know someone irl and enjoy them on a personal level theres almost unlimited things id rather do than spend my time "debating" with them. it boggles my mind how they just repeatedly fail to understand that adversarial debate is not at all normal conversation.

while i absolutely do enjoy passionate discussions of politics with a few family members (cousins, aunts, etc…) and a few friends, but with randoms? almost never. randoms "debating" outside of actual experts? nah, not a chance.

and it’s super important to understand that most of the current divisive topics don’t have “one” correct answer. often they don’t even have a correct answer at all, but rather many valid ways to approach and from multiple foundational beliefs.

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

#197
post #157

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…

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…

The topics of housing and drugs and energy and monetary policy and don't get more airtime because we spend time discussing gender and abortion. This is by design.

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

#198

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.

That’s because it’s an identity thing. And it’s not just religion, it’s also different groups (right?) who have different opinions about what territory belongs to those groups. Is that something which frequently comes up as a subject of debate at table stakes political discussions? I don’t know how common it is for those conflicting parties to interact, but something tells me they don’t discuss politics about it calmly together.

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

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vio…

Don't forget that a lot of the crazies are carrying guns, thanks to America's obsession with "gun freedom".

For what it's worth I am in the most gun toting state and we do talk politics. I do not claim to be one of theirs and do not always say nice things about their guy. I try to focus on areas that I know we have common ground and that I think they will find interesting. It usually works out to be a fun conversation. In fairness I would not try this in a bar where peoples inhibitions are taking a break but I do not drink so that's fine. I think my saving grace is that I distrust all politicians equally and I know some bits of the deep state they were unaware of so they get something out of it. At the end of the day we are all still part of a community and still help each other out.

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

#200

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…

And this is precisely why people, not just Americans, can't disagree about politics over time. Politics always turns into someone having the perspective "civil disagreement cannot be tolerated because the stakes are too high for my side" which is anethema to reason and concord regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Catastrophizing is always incentivized in the immediate term because it forces any interlocut…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN