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

221–230 of 302 posts

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

#221

Post by nataliste »

from-nibly wrote: post #215
fragmede wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Whats the point unless you live in a swing state?

The game theory strategy in the electoral college is to register and vote as the non-dominant party in any election. If enough people follow this strategy, the locality becomes a swing state and the party platform and candidates will reflect their interests.

>Also why give the government any ammunition to legitimize their existence in the first place.

Until the government collapses, they still control the monopoly on violence. Unless you're a radical pacifist and willing to be the sacrificial lamb, there is a pretty clear need to participate to the extent that the wolf of government doesn't eat you. The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government is to live under the government of worse people.

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

#222

Post by lotsofpulp »

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…

> but the agency part.

Yes, the agency of a woman and her doctor to do what they feel is necessary for the woman.

> Those lives -could- be saved

No, they cannot be saved.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...

> So it can feel kinda targeted.

Because it is.

> Abortion is a complex topic, with some people holding very strong opinions.

It is not a complex topic. A woman’s body is her body, and decisions about her body are between her doctor and her. And a doctor should never be doubting their decision in split second decisions because they think they might get prosecuted.

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

#223

Post by from-nibly »

It's because every election the political parties figure out how to up the stakes to get people to care about voting. Now if someone gets voted it's "literally life or death" (it super isn't). Everyone could use a dose of "no treason" by Lysander spooner. Then maybe we can care little enough to have actual conversations.

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

#224

Post by zero-sharp »

danaris wrote: post #202
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…

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 poi…

What are some other, modern, issues that instantly cause you to lose interest?

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

#225

Post by bongoman42 »

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]

The interesting thing is, it is hard to tell which side you are talking about here. I've heard exactly the same thing from both the left and the right.

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

#226

Post by zero-sharp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #172
lolinder wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is it a luxury, it's sheer arrogance to pretend it exists at all. None of us get through life without complicated trade-offs, and in most cases when you disagree with ~50% of a country's population it's because you have different values of what good thing matters most.

In fact it's a privilege to not have to worry about moral purity. Being able to look past views without personal consequences is life free of that burden. Some people don't have that option.

Oh, other people have cognitive dissonance too. It's not just you. Being aware of the bad and still engaging doesn't mean that the issue is being ignored or given less weight.

Most people are full of contradictions and often carry beliefs that might be seen as controversial (perhaps in hindsight). Maybe it's not appropriate to lump all controversial beliefs into one, but I think a small part of the problem is that we identify ourselves as being morally pure as a way to avoid having hard conversations.

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

#227

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

olalonde wrote: post #120
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder, Unlike the woman carrying the fetus. In my state, abortion is illegal even if not aborting may cause the mother to die. This is pro life.

Technically, "not aborting" may always cause the mother to die since childbirth always carries some risk. But if you mean a case where the fetus is already dead, I doubt many people would oppose the abortion? What are their arguments? I genuinely can't think of any. Maybe this is just a case of the law being ambiguously written and doctors erring on the safer side?

In my state abortion is illegal no matter the circumstances.

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

#228

Post by fragmede »

nataliste wrote: post #216
fragmede wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Not wanting people to led to believe in a flat earth, and being able to work with people that believe in a flat earth are two different ideas that I don't believe contract each other, but I'm honored you think my writing is worth reading that much of!

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

#229

Post by from-nibly »

nataliste wrote: post #221
from-nibly wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Whats the point unless you live in a swing state? The game theory strategy in the electoral college is to register and vote as the non-dominant party in any election. If enough people follow this strategy, the locality becomes a swing state and the party platform and candidates will reflect their interests. >Also why give the government any ammunition to legitimize their existence in the first place. Until the gover…

Worrying about which government is worse is a much worse punnishment for me. Also why not just let it get worse maybe it will help more people wake up.

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

#230

Post by nataliste »

fragmede wrote: post #228
nataliste wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

Not wanting people to led to believe in a flat earth, and being able to work with people that believe in a flat earth are two different ideas that I don't believe contract each other, but I'm honored you think my writing is worth reading that much of!

Is flat earth actually catastrophical for you? It seems like other catastrophized topics are much greater points of passion.

>When Twitter pretends to be powerless to do anything about death/rape threats to women journalists, the light of civilization is dimmed, ever so slightly. When entire classes of people disengage from mainstream discourse because they are being threatened by bodily harm, maybe it is possible that it is disingenuous to pre-conclude that anything possibly resembling censorship will result in a dystopian police state where African Americans are still denied the right to vote.

Would you honestly be willing to work or discuss politely with someone that endorsed the ideas behind James Damore's memo? Your writing (at least as of 2017) suggests not.

Post reply on HN