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

201–210 of 302 posts

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

#201

Post by s1artibartfast »

somerandomqaguy wrote: post #191
deathanatos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

… 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…

I would say no. Most religious moral systems would say no, as well as Kantian ethics.

The only moral framework I know that would accept that is the strongest form of utilitarianism.

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

#202

Post by danaris »

rightbyte wrote: post #185
whaaaaat wrote: post #36

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…

The problem with this position is that politics in the current situation are not just about minor details of tax policy or whether to build a bridge here or five miles away there. They are an existential matter for too many people.

When the issue at hand is something like "I think black people deserve the same rights as white people," no, no one is ever going to convince me of the opposite. There is literally no point to me listening to someone who has that as their position (and you're damn right I don't want them convincing the audience either). Same with a number of other prominent issues at stake today.

So if someone comes at me with one of those positions, and doesn't seem, from the outset, to be already seriously on the fence, or to be presenting extremely easily debunked misinformation, yeah, I'm going to nope out of there. It's not worth raising my stress level to argue with that type of person, with or without an audience.

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

#203

Post by s1artibartfast »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #169
s1artibartfast wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

im curious what the dissonance is. what is the it in "out of _it_"

is it just cultural instinct and expectation?

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

#204

Post by danaris »

bombcar wrote: post #73
nineplay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care. Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges. This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country. So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm f…

More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions. But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.

This is a common way to try to shut down discussion of genuinely important topics: "Why are you complaining? This isn't as bad as $OTHER_ISSUE!"

The issues are independent. We can try to deal with each in their own way. If we were only ever trying to reduce the primary cause of death, and paying no attention to anything else, we would have all kinds of terrible problems running rampant.

Furthermore, the problem with abortions is not just preventable deaths. It's the massive emotional and psychological toll unwanted pregnancies take, and the women left with chronic health issues for the rest of their lives, either because of the pregnancy itself and complications thereof or a failed DIY abortion, and the doctors who are put in prison or who lose their medical licenses for trying to save a woman's life even if the fetus is already guaranteed not to survive.

Ultimately, it's about treating women as whole and complete human beings who have agency over their bodies the same way men do, and not as walking incubators who have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.

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

#205

Post by diogocp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #87
whaaaaat wrote: post #36

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…

> being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.

> unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.

My recent experience is that even intelligent and thoughtful people start sounding like idiots when they decide to talk politics, and the conversations quickly turn into a huge bore. All I can do is roll my eyes.

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

#206

Post by rightbyte »

pjc50 wrote: post #189
sixothree wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ignored. Democrats have been pushing automobile safety since the 1970's, uphill the entire time against republican opponents.

Weirdly, one of the key people, the author of Unsafe at any speed , ended up as a crank accelerationist third-party presidential candidate.

I think it is a quite common fate for these 'see ignored problems clearly' types to go insane.

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

#207

Post by ftfft »

whaaaaat wrote: post #141
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.

To be clear, I believe both parties are anti-trans. Malcom X was spot on with the Fox and the Wolf -- they both want to eat the lamb, the wolf is just a lot more honest about it. I regularly argue that Biden has been specifically and materially awful to the trans community. Do not mistake me saying that Republicans want to do worse as somehow saying the Dems are good. But anti-trans legislation, particularly at the s…

[flagged]

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

#208

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whaaaaat wrote: post #130
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.

It has an opportunity cost. It's not burdensome to be challenged, per se, it's burdensome to repeat that, "Yes, I think trans people are humans with complex interior lives who mostly want to be left alone. No, they are not coming into bathrooms en masse to molest you. Yes, they deserve to just get on with their lives. No, we shouldn't mock them for who they are" etc. etc. It takes someone 3-5 seconds to "just asking…

> it's burdensome to repeat that, "Yes, I think trans people are humans with complex interior lives who mostly want to be left alone

So…don’t. Listen to why they think that. The point is it’s fine to walk away still disagreeing but understanding why a little better.

> On an internet forum?

Oh hell no, I’m talking about in person.

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

#209

Post by RickJWagner »

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…

Psychological safety is another way of saying 'anonymous, cowardly trolls'.

People say things they shouldn't when they believe they are anonymous. It's to our detriment.

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

#210

Post by rightbyte »

toofy wrote: post #196
rightbyte wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thos…

Well, nothing like a lengthy meta debate about lengthy debates.

I think I was quite clear that I accept the 'endurance excuse'.

I was trying to make the point that the 'endurance excuse' is used as as an escape hatch way too often to silence the debate by people often with the consenus opinion that don't want to risk losing a debate.

In general I agree with you points.

Post reply on HN