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

211–220 of 302 posts

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

#211

Post by graemep »

gwurk wrote: post #190
graemep wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just the US though. It is also true in the UK (maybe not as bad - yet) but we have the polarisation. The hatred of the other side is more on-sided here - its more a characteristic of the "left": you hear "I hate Tories" rather than "I hate Labour voters" or even "I hate socialists" (nor did you even before socialism died). It seems to be the same in other Anglophone countries. There has also been a shift in the f…

I think the american to party system is the problem, which happens to also be used in the uk. You can not make assumptions of the entire west about political matters based on something happening in two countries when they differ so much from other western countries in it's political system.

I did not say its the entire west, I said its not just the US, and I specifically highlighted Anglophone countries.

The American party system is not that similar to the UK's. They are both FPTP but the UK is nothing like as two party as the US. Compare this:

https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown

to this:

https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons

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

#212

Post by toofy »

rightbyte wrote: post #210
toofy wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …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.

i hope i didn’t come across as if im “debating” something, apologies if it did.

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

#213

Post by nataliste »

danaris wrote: post #200
nataliste wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

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

#214

Post by ChocolateGod »

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…

> To be clear, I believe both parties are anti-trans

This is IMHO the most toxic and divisive topic not just in politics, but in society too, it touches upon a universal long and cultural fabric of sex division. What you may consider anti-trans to someone else is updating legislation to cover something they never thought it would need to.

Republicans or conservatives in general, may be opposed to same-sex marriage, but it doesn't specifically make them anti-gay.

For context, I'm not a conservative, I just try and be polite, respectful and understanding to those with opposite opinions, as long as they treat me the same.

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

#215

Post by from-nibly »

fragmede wrote: post #195
nataliste wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 belief…

Why not just throw your vote away anyway? Whats the point unless you live in a swing state? Also why give the government any ammunition to legitimize their existence in the first place.

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

#216

Post by nataliste »

fragmede wrote: post #195
nataliste wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 belief…

fragmede, 2017:

>I’m not sure what’s turned the tide for me, but I now believe there are limits to free speech. It turns out that some ideas are toxic, as in, people get sucked into them, are too stubborn/whatever to admit they were wrong, and become rabid believers of nonsense.

>Witness the adherents to the flat earth society or those that stringently don’t believe we landed on the moon, never [sic] the Googler’s sexist manifesto. Anti-semitic screeds like “the Jews run the banks and this is why you’re poor!” frequently leak into open comment sections of your local news’ website, or YouTube comments.

It's not just Americans. The worst offenders tend to be those that believe that they are immune to it.

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

#217

Post by from-nibly »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #128
DirkH wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Americans have lost hope as well. I think in America it isn't hope for a better tomorrow that is driving politics anymore, it is fear for a worse tomorrow. I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with some…

There is also an element of vindictiveness and revenge. e.g. you harmed me, so I am willing to suffer costs to inflict harm an you.

Secret band of robbers and murderers

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

#218

Post by gilbetron »

It isn't population density, since we used to discuss politics all the time until 2016. Family get togethers, work events, just friend hangouts, all of them would have active discussions and arguments surrounding politics. The Trump era changed all that. I don't know about India, but I think social media is what changed everything, and how it changed everything is more complex than many people think.

There are so many factors to it. The non-stop nature, the echo chamber effect, how it allows you to hear the thoughts of people you never would have heard before, but also, and maybe this is a big difference with India, that insane effort from Russia and China (and others) to maliciously engage with our social media with the sole goal of disruption of our culture and nation.

I'm in my 50s, and there was plenty of political discussion before 2016, much like the person from India in the OP describes. We used to have a close friend in our friend group and we would regularly tease each other over political issues, but also listen, and he was a staunt Obama-hater and subscribed to birther conspiracies. Two years into Trump and we stopped being friends, and I haven't talked to him since 2018.

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

#219

Post by ethanpailes »

bruce511 wrote: post #81
bombcar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In absolute numbers, your statement is true. But the deaths are not equivalent because of agency. Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.) The issue either abortions is not the death part, but the agency part. Those…

Since the pandemic, enforcement of traffic laws has fallen off a cliff, with a corresponding increase in traffic deaths. That is the result of a specific policy choice. Women who get pregnant experience potentially fatal complications somewhat randomly, just like victims of driving accidents are killed somewhat randomly. You probably can’t eliminate either category of death entirely with policy, but it is clear that there are policy levers that could reduce deaths in both categories. They actually seem almost exactly equivalent.

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

#220

Post by bongoman42 »

nataliste wrote: post #174
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 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…

This. I've had conversations with PhD folks who are genuinely afraid Trump getting elected will mean their naturalized citizenships will be reversed and they'll be deported. I've had conversations with gay Americans who asked me if they should consider moving to Canada because Trump may remove recognition for gay marriages. Both of these positions are so far out of the likelihood of things that may happen that there is no reason to think about them at all, and yet they do. There is little point in discussion at that point.
Post reply on HN