Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes • Hacker News Board

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#231

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

epakai wrote: post #130

ridiculous_leke wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did all conservatives and right-wing people storm the capital?

No, their defacto leader pushed false rhetoric that all but ensured such an event would happen and they didn't reject him or even condemn his actions. This is what condemns the group.

I don't think Arabic people need to dignify terrorism with any response or condemnation at all....it's not Arabic people commiting the crimes, it's fanatics.

Just like republicans don't need to dignify this Jan 6th protest with any response at all, it's not republicans, it's fanatics.

I believe you may be looking for reasons to condemn republicans.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#232

Post by lamontcg » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

What if the polarization is the result of the economic system becoming bankrupt and that large structural changes are actually necessary? There's a baked in idea here that compromise and centrism is always right, when it may be that during periods of history when centrism is the wrong path that political polarization naturally increases. By trying to avoid deeper structural change it becomes like pressure building up on a fault line and the longer it goes on the worse the resulting political Earthquake becomes.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#233

Post by Rury » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

I find the paper a bit ironic, but I think the problem isn't identity beliefs per say, the problem is more innate than that. And the innate problem is merely a conflict in individual wills as Thomas Hobbes argues in his state of nature. Or put more simply, politics is entirely just a conflict in personal wants, and the problem is that other people don't always share the same wants as you do.

To demonstrate Hobbes point: imagine living on a desert island, alone by yourself. You can do whatever you desire, as there is no one to stop you from doing it. No law, no opposition whatsoever. If you want to burn everything on the island, no one to stop you! There is no politics to be had!

Now, imagine you're on an island, and suddenly there's another person on that island. And all that's on the island is a stack of resources, just enough to either build a boat to safely transport one person off the island, or enough to build a hut to shelter one person so they can live on the island. You want to build a boat to get off the island, however the other person wants to use the resources to build a hut to live on the island. Notice what you want and what the other person wants, is at conflict with another! How do you resolve this conflict in wills? If you compromise, and share the resources, there won't be enough for either of you to get the outcome you want. Additionally, who is righteous to say whichever outcome happens is just/fair? Is it what you both agree on? Well that's both what you will isn't it?

Anyhow, being against "anything that undermines democratic norms" is a will of itself. So is the desire to "prevent extreme polarization...", which is really just a roundabout way of saying "Preventing the opposition from doing what it is I want."

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#234

Post by lamontcg » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#235

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #176

pjc50 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> opposition is to late term abortions That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?

3rd trimester

Again, barely actually happening: https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-aborti... and used as a pretext for restricting all abortion by dishonest legislators and advocates.

To the extent that it does happen it's often in situations where the mother's life is in danger, and it was a particularly nasty death in such situation that _finally_ got Ireland to change its constitution.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#236

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #226

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no guns found inside the capitol? Not a single gun was found inside of the location where it's claimed it's claimed they were trying to overthrow? Not a single shot went off? Just poop on the walls? Can you overthrow a government by making it so gross with poo that they don't want to go back in the building? I don't believe this should be labeled an insurrection.

Failing to acknowledge what the Congress was doing at the time makes it very difficult to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Every argument about labeling it in "insurrection" has to do with interrupting the counting of votes. If you cannot address that, then you've already lost the argument.

BLM protests took over an area of Seattle called the CHAZ...and stopped all government activities there for days, even the police left.

Still a protest...

Interruption of government activities does not make an insurrection.

The January 6th protest was not even close to a violent overthrow of the government.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#237

Post by Clubber » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #158

Clubber wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you focus on the other party, you are probably ignoring the detrimental things the party you support does. This is by design. The GOP supporters do the same thing and can list all the horrible things the Democratic Party does with equal fervor. Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people. https://en.wikipe…

Superdelegates are a matter of internal party organisation. The party still has to go through a real election, whoever's chosen. (It is very weird that the internal politics and internal elections of US political parties seem to be a public matter; open primaries are unheard of in most of the rest of the world.)

It's a lot more important with a 2 party system. If one party's administration gets almost 20% of the total primary votes, that's a pretty heavy thumb on the scale. We typically only get 2 real choices: red or blue.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#238

Post by vidarh » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #73

vidarh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another reason why it lost was because a lot of proponents of PR saw it as a trap to get electoral reform off the agenda. Most people in the UK I know who supported PR voted against the change for that reason, and considered accepting it as part of the coalition agreements as a total betrayal by the Liberal Democrats.

I doubt this subset of a subset of voters had any meaningful impact on the result. The only political parties to espouse this view were the (very small and fringe) BNP and Respect parties. I can imagine a large chunk of people were in the "would have preferred to vote for PR, but still voted Yes to AV" camp though.

None of the people I discussed this with would ever consider either Respect or the BNP. They were Labour or Lib Dem voter. It was a widespread sentiment in my circles.

I think you're massively underestimating just how many people were angry about it. I know people who voted Lib Dem over their promise of PR who have woved never ever to vote for them again.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#239

Post by watersb » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:48 PM UTC

I am in the process of reading all of these comments, so I know I have a ways to go.

If we are in fact talking about strange beluefs becoming a matter of identity, then any attempt to talk someone out of that identity will not help anyone.

It's certainly important to acknowledge our own beliefs, and to check those beliefs against the facts on the ground. You can sure start to feel like you are surrounded by crazy people, and get pulled into arguing "the facts" anyway. That's how I usually screw it up.

So what happens if, instead of pushing back on facts, when someone in personal conversation insists that (for example) the current president was illegitimately elected... what happens with a responsing by questions that signal my interest in their point of view?

"Ok, what is the most important thing for Americans to do right now?"

Usually people will think I am agreeing with them. I might have to assert my point of view, I don't want to lie to people.

I don't know if anything will work, at this point.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#240

Post by kelseyfrog » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

Kye wrote: post #156

TomSwirly wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Spot on. I finally a cut a relative off after his long slide deeper into extremism culminated in posting Facebook memes demeaning me and people I cared about leading up to the 2016 election. I'm sure he thinks it was out of nowhere because he brushed me off when I asked him to stop saying such cruel and ignorant things. Said relative was completely unmoved every time I said "that's me. You know me. Why are you saying…

Growing up I was told hundreds of times "not to believe everything you read on the internet." Parents, teachers, relatives, and older folks all told me that. It was a cliche, and us younger people made fun of it being a cliche in the same way we made fun of downloading cars. Even so, it stuck with me.

Then it stopped. No one said it anymore. What happened?