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

281–290 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#281

Post by DarylZero »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #211
dragonwriter wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coffman's truck was, and the DNC and RNC where the bombs were placed are, all near the Capitol.

Ok. But no confirmed bombs on the capital grounds or in the capital and no confirmed connection between those bombs and the protesters?

How so? Coffman was one of the "protesters."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-fir...

Coffman admitted in the plea agreement that he exited the pickup truck at 9:20 a.m. and walked in the direction of the U.S. Capitol Building, and towards a rally near the National Mall. Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and a cooler containing 11 mason jars filled with ignitable ingredients for Molotov cocktail incendiary weapons. Coffman also carried a loaded handgun and a loaded revolver as he walked around the area that day. A search of Coffman’s residence in Alabama later that month led to the discovery of 12 additional mason jars containing ignitable substances, each constituting the component parts of Molotov cocktails.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#282

Post by DarylZero »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #169
ShamelessC wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION Your emphasis here isn't helping at all. You just seem angry and unwilling to participate in civil debate when you do that. For what it's worth, I (and others, I assume) find you less convincing now, regardless of the claims you're making. This is a good example of the type of discourse social media (hacker news) can bring out when we talk about partisan subjects. At no point did you treat the…

The gish gallop of the person I was responding too, of numerous paragraphs and links, took time out of my life to parse... and turned out to be a SINGLE PERSON found with a gun on capitol grounds not even in the capitol. It's as disengenous, demonizing of a group, and sensational as it gets. This poster is also using the same single person as their data point for the motivations of the entire group of protesters. Thi…

They were all allowed to leave the capitol building without being arrested. There wasn't the police manpower to arrest them. No one was arrested inside the capitol building.

If the lack of arrests inside the building prove there were no guns -- it proves there were no people, either.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#283

Post by jerkstate »

atoav wrote: post #260
jerkstate wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Republics are a form of democracy, but I think that "bringing democracy" was always just an excuse to invade countries for natural resources and to fight proxy wars to contain other world powers.

If you're complaining that i.e. a k-12 education misrepresented the government in the USA and didn't adequately explain the reasons behind it, this is a common gripe among conservatives/republicans, that kids get educated to believe that the republic system is unfair due to states electing presidents and congresspeople instead of direct democracy, and that the system would be better if it was a direct democracy. In particular, the Federalist Papers #10 discusses why representative democracy is more anti-fragile (to use a modern term) than direct democracy.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#284

Post by slowhand09 »

TomSwirly wrote: post #114
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…

> 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…

"A long-time friend of mine started posting about Sandy Hook being a hoax - that the school had never existed. I pointed out that a friend-of-a-friend of mine had lost two children there, and my friend just went ballistic and started calling me the most unbelievable names, "Do your homework!""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...

I see no siblings on the list of victims. Your friend-of-a-friend story sounds like some information was omitted which impacts credibilty.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#285

Post by pandaman »

ben_w wrote: post #265
pandaman wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's fine that you count somebody doing something other than winning an election as winning an election, that's why I asked the original poster what did he mean by that.

And, in the same sense, we do not have the same level of polarization: we don't close the opposition newspapers, only websites/social network accounts, so definitely not the same, we don't ban parties yet (just harass them through selective law enforcement and impede their ability to raise funds) and only one party so far has the enforcers (coincidentally borrowing the name and attributes of the one of KPD from 1920s). Also, economically, we have much lower inflation.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#286

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg

In the same sense that Boris Johnson was appointed PM by Queen Elizabeth II; constitutional systems in which the head of government is appointed by the head of state, based largely on control of Parliament, but sometimes with bounded discretion where there is no clear parliamentary majority, are rather common models.

Had Hitler’s party not won the plurality of seats, or had other parties that could work together in a coalition had more seats, he would not have been appointed chancellor.

Controlling the largest bloc that can work together is winning a parliamentary election; not as total a victory as winning an outright majority, but—in the constitutional and political context in which the Nazis did it—a rather sufficient one.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#287

Post by dragonwriter »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #228
dragonwriter wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were no guns, which an insurrection would have. Both halves of this sentence are wrong: there were guns, which an insurrection need not have. > I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views. Viewing the insurrectionists as insurrectionists isn't an extreme view. ---quote--- Half of Iowans say the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to derail the election certification pro…

Is it so unclear if it's objectively an insurrection that they have to have polls about it?

Does it get tiring running around all over carrying goalposts?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#288

Post by edmcnulty101 »

DarylZero wrote: post #281
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. But no confirmed bombs on the capital grounds or in the capital and no confirmed connection between those bombs and the protesters?

How so? Coffman was one of the "protesters." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-fir... Coffman admitted in the plea agreement that he exited the pickup truck at 9:20 a.m. and walked in the direction of the U.S. Capitol Building, and towards a rally near the National Mall. Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition…

> in his truck

Nothing confirmed from Coffman at the protest on Capitol grounds though?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#289

Post by edmcnulty101 »

the_gastropod wrote: post #275
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a real insurrection meets different criteria than 'interrupting government activities' by an unarmed, disorganized mob of protestors.

Its subjective and most people's interpretation of the events predictably falls along party lines.

We're arguing the semantics of 'insurrection'.

I think there would not be a shadow of a doubt if a real insurrection occured.

This event was closer to blocking a street sweeper than a real true insurrection.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#290

Post by DarylZero »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #288
DarylZero wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Coffman was one of the "protesters." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-fir... Coffman admitted in the plea agreement that he exited the pickup truck at 9:20 a.m. and walked in the direction of the U.S. Capitol Building, and towards a rally near the National Mall. Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition…

> in his truck Nothing confirmed from Coffman at the protest on Capitol grounds though?

Not sure what you're asking or why.

He was one of the rest of the pro-Trump crowd that you have been calling "protesters." He heeded the call of Trump.

You sound to me a bit like Matt Gaetz saying it was Antifa storming the capitol.

Post reply on HN