Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#251

Post by popcube »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #240
Kye wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

every one connected to Facebook>

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#252

Post by edmcnulty101 »

ShamelessC wrote: post #250
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly. By protesting or by....insurrection? > Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?". As much as the BLM damaging the federal buil…

I never said most of the things you're claiming I posited. For what it's worth, you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion. > the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly. > By protesting or by....insurrection? Fucking what? Just answer the question. By any method available including but no…

> you should try assuming good faith

> Fucking what? Just answer the question.

----

It's not an insurrection or an attack on democracy or any sensationalized label you want to attach to it.

I'm sorry your argument lacks any evidence other than subjectively trying to determine 'intent' and one off wingnuts whose significance is being blown out of proportion, with no hard objective facts to support this being an confirmed insurrection.

If you want to believe it was an insurrection or attack on democracy and demonize your fellow citizens, despite the lack of objective evidence, go right on ahead!

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#253

Post by edmcnulty101 »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #223
dragonwriter wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists , preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves , who were not shy about announcing their purpos…

>> capitol police were completely overwhelmed The protestors left the capitol building at some point. Any idea why?

Was it the capitol police?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#254

Post by jerkstate »

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.

What Congress was doing at the time was arguing about whether or not a special commission should be established to investigate the election before certifying. They had not yet begun the process of counting the votes (so that is not what was interrupted)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EQfUbE4bL8&t=10800s

this fact is often lost to the sands of time; had the capitol not been invaded, it is likely that the republican majority senate would have convened a special commission. really, it was a stroke of luck for the democrats what happened.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#255

Post by supreme_loquat »

zksmk wrote: post #120
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'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet a key (admittedly not only) part in making the US so polarized: first past the post voting system which inevitably leads to a two party system. Good luck having nuance in that system. It literally pits people against each other in two umbrella teams. The internet's echo chamber mechanic has only amplified this. People need to challenge their own beliefs more often. You vote Democr…

I did actually touch on it briefly in [1] but it was not my only focus so perhaps you missed it. But I fully agree our voting system is one of the primary reasons for our polarization (social media is probably another but that's mainly an instinctual hypothesis). Unfortunately the alternative with the most support currently is ranked choice/IRV which does not really solve polarization (perhaps it might help it due to external societal factors, but in a mathematical vacuum I believe IRV is just as polarizing as first past the post). As far as single winner methods go, approval and STAR are gaining momentum and they do address polarization, so if one of these catches on I expect it to help slowly improve our current situation.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29550838

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#256

Post by totony »

archagon wrote: post #203
insickness wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You inadvertently provide an excellent example of what is causing polarization in America: Highlight the worst possible examples from the side you oppose while assigning the most charitable intentions to the side you support.

As far as I’m concerned, “attempted coup” is a burned bridge that will never be rebuilt. I’m not a member of the Democratic party, but there is nothing the Republican party can do to make me ever vote for them in the future. I hope that the party withers and dies, and that any remaining sensible people go and form a new party. Some offenses are simply unforgivable.

I think "attempted coup" definition has already been discussed hell and back. It's a very disingenuous description of what happened. Also, it is very disingenuous to blacklist one of your only two parties because of what a (small) subset of their voters did.

N.B.: Not american

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#257

Post by ninorata »

ilikecakeandpie wrote: post #87
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…

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it'…

The left talking about body autonomy in 2021... the irony.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#258

Post by [deleted] »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #171
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #119

The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. B…

Why were they there? To support overturning the results of the vote. That's at least in intent an insurrection. Why did they bring a noose for Mike Pence? Isn't that insurrection? Or is it "merely" assassination? (Or just an over-the-top prop that they didn't intend to use?)

[deleted]

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#259

Post by ShamelessC »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #252
ShamelessC wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said most of the things you're claiming I posited. For what it's worth, you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion. > the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly. > By protesting or by....insurrection? Fucking what? Just answer the question. By any method available including but no…

> you should try assuming good faith > Fucking what? Just answer the question. ---- It's not an insurrection or an attack on democracy or any sensationalized label you want to attach to it. I'm sorry your argument lacks any evidence other than subjectively trying to determine 'intent' and one off wingnuts whose significance is being blown out of proportion, with no hard objective facts to support this being an confir…

For what it's worth, I was attempting to find some middle ground this _entire_ discussion and all you ever did was dig yohr heels in, persuading me of one thing - you are insecure and uninformed about your own opinions.

Have a nice life.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#260

Post by atoav »

jerkstate wrote: post #110
atoav wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe counting actual people instead of representatives would be a start? While I get the whole idea behind giving the rural parts sith less population more of a say, when I first heard about it I intuitively felt that this was undemocratic. Where I grew up I learned that it is most important that everybody's vote counts the same. I was shocked when I learned this is not the case in the US and even more shocked when…

The United States is a Republic and not a Direct Democracy

I am aware of that. Yet I had my adolescence during a time where "bringing democracy" was cited as the goal of multiple US-led wars.

So understandably I was surprised when I realized the degree of misrepresentation going on in the US.

Post reply on HN