Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes • Hacker News Board

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#271

Post by edmcnulty101 » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 12:09 PM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #259

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The following are all things you've said to me today, they probably violate some site guidelines, but I think collectively you can interpret them as my response to you, just substitute right leaning for left leaning.

> 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.

> you are insecure and uninformed about your own opinions.

>We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic

> Again, no one forced you to talk to that person

>you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with.

>Fucking what? Just answer the question

> If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.

>Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.

> At no point did you treat the opposition with respect

> I tried being reasonable but you don't want to listen to reason.

>Did you at least learn something new here?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#272

Post by zksmk » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

supreme_loquat wrote: post #255

zksmk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yup, I've missed it somehow. I'm also a fan of approval and particularly star voting compared to IRV. It's good they're gaining ground.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#273

Post by Mezzie » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #249

Mezzie wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both. I work in political communications/as a civics educator. I also grew up in a purple state in the 90s with a half liberal family and a half conservative one. The media landscape is completely different now. When I was growing up, my dad and I would do things like listen to Limbaugh and then discuss what points we agreed with + how stuff was covered online (he read the Drudge Report and other conservative on…

> The media landscape is completely different now Not entirely. Right-wing talk radio has been fanning the flames of hatred towards "liberals" (e.g., all "others") for decades. It's taken root and flourished. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/us/politics/limbaugh-deat...

I remember. They were the earliest ones acting like that, but now everybody is. The right wing talking heads used to be a novelty; even when people listened to them like my dad + other conservative relatives, there wasn't a media ECOSYSTEM built around filter bubbling those opinions. The idea of somebody being informed with only what they knew from Limbaugh would have been absurd.

You're right that it's been building for a long time; in hindsight we can identify key points (like the development of AM talk radio, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the introduction of CNN/the 24 hour news cycle, digital media's embrace of the advertising funding model), but it's a trend.

Both sides are doing it now because it pays.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#274

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #142

grover35 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm American and I can't help but think many of you just lack social skills. It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Avoid leading/gotcha questions, don't smirk, appear to genuinely listen and seek to understand the other person, resist the urge to tool on…

> It's very convenient to think that everyone's hyper-sensitive and there's nothing you could do to change that, but usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. I think a lot of people are willing to listen, but there is a some amount of evidence that indicates political leanings may have some basis in biology: > Studies have found that subjects with right-wing, or conserva…

[deleted]

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#275

Post by the_gastropod » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #270

the_gastropod wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I completely understand your point. My point is: it's false equivalency. One example of "interrupting government services" is not necessarily equivalent to another example of "interrupting government services". Very specifically, one of these groups was interrupting the democratic election process. That bears a hell of a lot more weight than the other examples.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#276

Post by DarylZero » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #256

archagon wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Trump tried to overturn the election result for _months_. It wasn't just one day and it certainly wasn't just "voters."

Even the people in the GOP who refused to back his coup attempt did not sever ties with Trump.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#277

Post by mrkentutbabi » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

I wasn't a Trump supporter, and cheered when Biden won presidency.

Fast forward now, not so much anymore. Now I want Trump to be back in the office.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#278

Post by DarylZero » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:12 PM UTC

supreme_loquat wrote: post #66

idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

> One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy Okay so lumping together half the country in with a few extremists would probably be the first step to answering your question. Yes there were probably plenty of people at home cheering them on but if you really believe it was half the country then you need to get outside your bubble. > the other side wants to make voting for whoever…

> eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems

So a Democratic majority state legislature _passed_ this legislation?

And the veto proves that it's not what Democrats _really_ want?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#279

Post by throwawaygal7 » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #7

DeathArrow wrote: post #3

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.

I think there is a pendulum effect, but it's dominated by a leftward cultural trajectory.

The republican party really just takes democrat positions from a few years ago on social issues, adds some murmering about trying to reign in the debt, occasionally cuts taxes , and continues the progression of the dominant culture.

My theory is the increasing polarization is due to one side clearly seeing their dominance in the culture and wanting to crush all opposition; and some reactionaries on the right noticing this state of affairs and calling for more aggressive means to try to change the situation.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#280

Post by DarylZero » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #196

dragonwriter wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital One insurrectionists was physically caught in the cordon on the grounds when law enforcement was clearing it with a firearm (Alberts), whether he had gone inside the building or not is uncertain (and immaterial). One insurrectionist (the DEA Agent Ibrahim) was caught and charged with having been on the grounds with a firearm based on photogra…

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.

Because they didn't leave any guns behind after they stormed the capitol building, that proves how innocent they are?

Silly.