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

Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

georgesaines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 302 posts

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#281

Post by kelseyfrog »

stale2002 wrote: post #275
kelseyfrog wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you find my outlook reprehensible. This is a great example of how communication between people with different outlooks breaks down. We'll eventually get frustrated, call it quits, and never speak again. It's the exact pattern played out in miniature.

I'm curious, why did you ask a question of me if you didn't care about what my answer was?

The answer was repeating my example when I asked for one of your own. It felt like you didn't really care what my question was. Is there nothing that causes you to feel like you are compromising your morals?

The example you gave with having to make friends to get a good grade, I'm unsure how that relates to compromising your morals. Is that an experience you personally went through? What was that like for you?

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#282

Post by dang »

IOT_Apprentice wrote: post #239
bongoman42 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is, it is hard to tell which side you are talking about here. I've heard exactly the same thing from both the left and the right.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly (e.g. here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41586950, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41586926. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we've had to ask you this before.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

(p.s. this is not an objection to your views. Plenty of other HN commenters express similar views while respecting the site guidelines. If you'd do that as well, that would be good.)

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#284

Post by dang »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #112
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no party that will make “every waking moment a nightmare" for the LGBTQIAP+. That’s the same thing we heard in 2016, and nothing came of it then. And in fact between 2020 and 2024 there is definitely an argument that can be made that even under the “preferred” party things got worse. Ironically, that exact rhetoric has led to multiple terror attacks on innocent people.

[flagged]

Please don't do this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#285

Post by dang »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #123
thatswrong0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#286

Post by dang »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #136
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. No more of this, please, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

If you'd please avoid tit-for-tat spats here generally, we'd appreciate it. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#287

Post by dang »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #177
thatswrong0 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. No more of this, please, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

If you'd please avoid tit-for-tat spats here generally, we'd appreciate it. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#288

Post by stale2002 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #281
stale2002 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, why did you ask a question of me if you didn't care about what my answer was?

The answer was repeating my example when I asked for one of your own. It felt like you didn't really care what my question was. Is there nothing that causes you to feel like you are compromising your morals? The example you gave with having to make friends to get a good grade, I'm unsure how that relates to compromising your morals. Is that an experience you personally went through? What was that like for you?

> The example you gave with

I will repeat and rephase the answer which you may have misunderstood:

Circumstances, like someone preventing one's self from being assaulted every day by racists or racial supremacists, seems like a pretty clear cut example of someone who has less privilege.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#289

Post by mrangle »

zero-sharp wrote: post #116
mrangle wrote: post #92

The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the…

>To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional convers…

This is in regard to widely and long time held social rules ingrained in the spoken and unspoken system of in-person manners / etiquette in the West. It has nothing to do with online forum communication: nor is that latter format some kind of proof for the former.

If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish, be anyone's guest. Just don't complain when you don't get your expected result. As that's how etiquette works. Its enforced through social punishment, and often without saying a word.

There are good reasons for most basic rules of etiquette, especially in public conversation. Protecting those reasons is a strong incentive to enforce the etiquette.

You're over-simplifying what I said when you state that people don't have a right not to see emotion. This is specifically in regard to politics, and the greater consequences of spontaneous political conversations including but also beyond being uncomfortable. What I was implying is that said emotion, in regard to politics, too often frequently leads to group tumult. Which is one aspect of why the etiquette exists.

I'm sure you can find people who will go out of there way to argue with you. But to expect random common people in their few precious leisure hours to not avoid you is asking too much, should your preferred topic of conversation be politics.

Re: Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

#290

Post by zero-sharp »

mrangle wrote: post #289
zero-sharp wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional convers…

This is in regard to widely and long time held social rules ingrained in the spoken and unspoken system of in-person manners / etiquette in the West. It has nothing to do with online forum communication: nor is that latter format some kind of proof for the former. If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish, be anyone's guest. Just don't complain when you don't get your expected result. As that's how et…

I already feel like I'm walking on eggshells just trying to respond to this/you.

I was trying to clarify the scope of your comment "infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over."

I've been living in the United States for over 20 years and I genuinely have never experienced/felt such a strong standard for public conversation, even amongst groups of people from different generations. It doesn't represent my experience at all. In fact, there are cultural memes involving older generations who absolutely do not follow this standard. It really paints the group that you're describing as extremely fragile, and I think that's also an implication of the article.

"If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish" No, I don't think I said that, actually.

Post reply on HN