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

301–310 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#301

Post by DarylZero »

stolenmerch wrote: post #88
idontwantthis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60% of Republicans believe that Biden did not win the election. If you believe the presidency has been stolen by a conspiracy then violence is the only recourse remaining. This is not a handful of extremists. This is the predominant view.

And about the same number of Democrats believe the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election or that members of congress were paid Russian assets. That's the thing about polarization. It's easy to see the crazy when it's your political enemy doing it.

No, it's only one "side." Democratic Party isn't going in for false conspiracy theories. Republican Party is.

Just look at how the DOJ treated these two different "conspiracy theories":

1. DOJ denied any factual basis existed for Trump's election claims.

2. DOJ investigated and convicted numerous people on the basis of the Russia collusion investigation.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#302

Post by supreme_loquat »

DarylZero wrote: post #300
supreme_loquat wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I wrote that all democrats didn't want to fix this, it was simply an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so. You have to consider that CA could have passed this long ago, it's not like this was their first chance. The fact that it took them so long in the first place to even consider it doesn't speak great things about them. There's also t…

> an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so I think you could make an even stronger statement: the majority of Democrats probably aren't even aware of the issue. It's not a popular issue, and not the kind of thing that Democratic politicians can use to inspire people to vote.

Not sure I'm convinced. They'd have to have their heads totally buried in the sand to not know it's a problem, and as the saying goes, it is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends upon not understanding it. If it makes it potentially harder for a democrat to get elected, why would they want to support it? That's one of the reasons I consider voting reform so important since it shows a critically severe character flaw if they aren't willing to risk losing their power.

It's not like Newsom is some outlier, just a year ago in San Diego there was an initiative to try and put IRV on the ballot so that the people of San Diego could vote on whether they wanted it or not. The initiative to put it on the ballot failed, only 2/6 democrats in the city council voted in favor of it. 1/2 republicans were in favor and the independent was in favor.

My personal theory is that if there's a strong majority, then the party on top would not be in favor of it. Hopefully we can break the cycle but it's a hard problem when the people most incentivized to vote for it are already the most marginalized.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#303

Post by epakai »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #231
epakai wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, their defacto leader pushed false rhetoric that all but ensured such an event would happen and they didn't reject him or even condemn his actions. This is what condemns the group.

I don't think Arabic people need to dignify terrorism with any response or condemnation at all....it's not Arabic people commiting the crimes, it's fanatics. Just like republicans don't need to dignify this Jan 6th protest with any response at all, it's not republicans, it's fanatics. I believe you may be looking for reasons to condemn republicans.

Republicans in congress and in the executive were the ones pushing the conspiracy theories that our democracy was at stake and the election was stolen. Even after their lies had been disproven they continued the farce.

It's disgusting that you try to excuse this by saying it's just fanatics. These fanatics continue to hold power within the party.

Shame on you for the gaslighting. I reject your belief, and you would do well not to try to ascribe other's motivations for their actions.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#304

Post by edmcnulty101 »

DarylZero wrote: post #290
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Its very different story if there were bombs brought into the capitol. That would start looking more like an insurrection instead of a protest.

However there were none.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#305

Post by dragonwriter »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #304
DarylZero wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its very different story if there were bombs brought into the capitol. That would start looking more like an insurrection instead of a protest. However there were none.

The way you're moving goalposts in this thread, I’m sure if actual bombs were found to have been brought into the Capitol, you would retreat to the “statistically insignificant number” argument you've already used to dismiss them.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#306

Post by drekk »

slowhand09 wrote: post #284
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…

"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-fr…

You don't know that, you're going off of last names. Why are we justifying conspiratorial thinking

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#307

Post by slowhand09 »

pvaldes wrote: post #294
slowhand09 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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-fr…

> I see no siblings Siblings is not the only combination possible, people can mourn a son and his cousin for example, or the best friend of your son, or the son of a close friend. Most people would describe the experience as losing two children. I'm not claiming that the history is neither real or is false, just that the data don't point clearly to one or the other option

Siblings IS the only combination, unless you are playing word games. You have a job, with benefits available. Go to HR, tell them you want the additional coverage for your children. Mention that one is your best friend's child. Or your daughters best friend. When concise wording matters, this choice will become important. Else it is like the collective "we lost favorite actor|humanatarian|humorist|etc person this year" stuff in clickbait headlines. The collective "we" is about manipulation of perception and feelings.

This is not to minimize the loss felt by the poster I replied to's friend-of-a-friend. Its about not misleading by choice of words. Isn't that a big part of the original post?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#308

Post by edmcnulty101 »

epakai wrote: post #303
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Arabic people need to dignify terrorism with any response or condemnation at all....it's not Arabic people commiting the crimes, it's fanatics. Just like republicans don't need to dignify this Jan 6th protest with any response at all, it's not republicans, it's fanatics. I believe you may be looking for reasons to condemn republicans.

Republicans in congress and in the executive were the ones pushing the conspiracy theories that our democracy was at stake and the election was stolen. Even after their lies had been disproven they continued the farce. It's disgusting that you try to excuse this by saying it's just fanatics. These fanatics continue to hold power within the party. Shame on you for the gaslighting. I reject your belief, and you would d…

To me, the demonization of one group by another group or person for a political agenda, is the worst form of gaslighting possible.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#309

Post by edmcnulty101 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #287
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I just find it funny that it's so unclear if this is an insurrection or a protest that they have to have polls about it

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#310

Post by edmcnulty101 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #305
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its very different story if there were bombs brought into the capitol. That would start looking more like an insurrection instead of a protest. However there were none.

The way you're moving goalposts in this thread, I’m sure if actual bombs were found to have been brought into the Capitol, you would retreat to the “statistically insignificant number” argument you've already used to dismiss them.

Am I moving the goalpoasts or are you trying to demonize people and I'm not buying your narrative?
Post reply on HN