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

261–270 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#261

Post by techdragon »

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?

Unscrupulous marketing people discovered the effectiveness of doublespeak. They turned the natural suspicion of internet information back at itself by implying that “the other people on the internet are lying to you, I’m going to tell you the real truth” and because everyone knows you can’t trust the internet they are subtly manipulated into being more likely to believe something new that is untrue.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#262

Post by andrei_says_ »

azinman2 wrote: post #182
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…

My close friend used to be a democrat, then became a Trumper and even worked in his administration. We got into a lot of heated debates, and our friendship finally about ended when he recently told me I was “lying to protect my political allies,” which is about the most rediculous statement I could imagine. Not only do I not have political allies (I’m not in politics), but I’m also giving pointing out opinions and ev…

It’s as if an evil sorcerer kidnapped our friends and family members and turned them into minions.

We could say that brainwashing and propaganda are black magic - after all they turn brother against brother and mother against daughter. Extremism, dehumanization, division often end up in violence on massive scale.

Being able to cheaply and efficiently hypnotize people into an alternate reality and maintaining that is… what kind of power?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#263

Post by ZeroGravitas »

vidarh wrote: post #238
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are valid reasons to be angry with the Lib Dems and vow never to vote for them again, but vowing to not vote for them again over AV is illogical. They have always wanted PR, they got a vote on AV as a conpromise which is the closest anyone ever got to achieving it, and there's no other party that is pro-PR that has any chance of getting power under the current system (except maybe some regional parties and they're actually working against their own interests by supporting PR). The current system also makes it a requirement to vote tactically so ruling out voting for any party is an extreme position.

On the other hand, the current system also means many votes are wasted and maybe your friends know thier vote wasn't going to matter anyway, bit they prpbably sgouldnt encourage others who moght be on different circumsrances.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#264

Post by the_gastropod »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #236
jfengel wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And failing to move your car for street sweepers is an interruption of government activities, and therefore equivalent to Jan. 6th too, right?

The Jan 6th—let’s call them participants—were there to overturn the results of the election. That is an important detail you seem to be trying to “both sides!” your way out of.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#265

Post by ben_w »

pandaman wrote: post #244
JasonFruit wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was elected Chancellor in 1933.

He was not. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg, it is not some obscure fact and can be googled in 5 seconds. I am confused why people keep insisting on such an obvious lie to be honest. Especially in this topic: Weimar Republic experienced the same degree of polarization and the breakdown of political process as the US is experiencing now. Instead of trying to make a new history it's worth re…

While this is true, that he was in charge of the party which won more votes than any other in an election is definitely something I count as “winning an election”.

While I am also concerned about the breakdown of political discourse in the USA (and, to a lesser degree, the UK), I don’t think it’s reached the level of late Weimar Republic.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#266

Post by vidarh »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #263
vidarh wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are valid reasons to be angry with the Lib Dems and vow never to vote for them again, but vowing to not vote for them again over AV is illogical. They have always wanted PR, they got a vote on AV as a conpromise which is the closest anyone ever got to achieving it, and there's no other party that is pro-PR that has any chance of getting power under the current system (except maybe some regional parties and they…

It was a surrender because they cared more about power than about PR in the end.

As it stands the Labour membership is overwhelmingly in favour of PR and it only failed at Labour Conference this year because the unions did not have a position, so odds are that before the next election Labour Conference will have mandated a pro-PR position for Labour. Given almost all the smaller parties also supports it, it will then be a real possibility.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#267

Post by DarylZero »

fallingknife wrote: post #63
collaborative wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. At the end of the day it's a lot less harmful to worship an invisible being than an idealised visible entity

I think you may be on to something here. But I think that in terms of US politics, the stabilizing factor was that, until recently, both parties shared the same religion. Even up to the 90's, being Christian was very much a requirement for Democratic presidential candidates.

How is it not now? Dems never nominated a non-Christian candidate for Pres.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#268

Post by DarylZero »

fallingknife wrote: post #62
bellyfullofbac wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a leftie, but who can't relate to the many demands they now have (e.g. cancel culture), did Christianity influence the GOP? Or is it more the GOP saying "We are Christians" and what "Christianity" means to them is whatever they say it is?

I think it used to be the former, and is now more like the latter. And I think that as Christianity, independent of the GOP, continues to be less of a political force, you will see a brand of Republican religion without reference to Christianity. I think the beginnings of this can be seen in the purging of Liz Cheney, who, until very recently, was a canonical Republican. Now it is basically heretical in the Republica…

But he still kind of did just by choosing Mike Pence as VP.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#269

Post by DarylZero »

Jensson wrote: post #224
datenarsch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say "I support the AfD." (which is a bit like the German equivalent of saying "I support Trump") in Germany though and you are villified beyond belief and declared an Unperson, so while I may agree with your point in general, Germany certainly isn't a great example to support it.

In Germany you can vote for lowering taxes without voting for AfD, while in USA the entire right wing block gets the same hate as AfD does in Germany. That makes the American situation extremely different, most people who vote for Republicans aren't racist etc, they just care about lowering taxes and Republicans is the only party that you can vote for to get that. USA's political system causes this issue.

Lowering taxes is racist.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#270

Post by edmcnulty101 »

the_gastropod wrote: post #264
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And failing to move your car for street sweepers is an interruption of government activities, and therefore equivalent to Jan. 6th too, right? The Jan 6th—let’s call them participants—were there to overturn the results of the election. That is an important detail you seem to be trying to “both sides!” your way out of.

I'm saying an interruption of govt activity is NOT an 'insurrection'.

So failure to move to your car for a street sweeper is also not an insurrection.

It feels crazy we're even having this discussion.

Don't tell any of the media this example though, they will have 4 talking heads debate if Trump or AOC not moving their car for a street sweeper was an insurrection, and tons of ideologues getting angry and supporting it.

Post reply on HN