Live data from Hacker News

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

georgesaines.com

41–50 of 302 posts

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

#41

I don't often discuss politics with my niece; we've actually had physical altercations before. But I mustered some courage and brought this up to her, and she had the following to say: "The two party system forces people who advocate for issue X to also have to advocate for Y and Z, when they may really only care about X. Another factor; the decay of respect of and audiences for traiditional mass media, and the rise…

i think your niece is on to something. I'd like to develop it further.

I think the problem is that when you talk politics, the subject or your position are irrelevant. You can even extend that to what the parties themselves do and say (the american uniparty has been a common complaint for many voters).

Why ? At the core, the issue are the ideas that each party represents, and how those ideas label you immediately with your peers, regardless of what you actually advocate, or what the party line is on a given subject.

Take a statue. The republican position is to not build it. The democrat is to build it. Just having a conversation about the merits of the statue automatically puts you on a spectrum.

If you are against the statue, you must be an uncaring republican. If you are for the statue, you must love doing charity with other people's money.

And so on.

This is in spite of direct evidence that both parties don't seem to care about americans, and the unrestrained use of their tax dollars.

Politics in the USA earns you a label, for free, that is not even accurate or deserved.

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

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still puzzled over the article frankly. In India there's political violence and people are getting killed - but they still are happy to discuss politics with their friends and neighbors? There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting. Why are they talking to everyone about their political views if it might get them killed?

That's the question that the Indian person is asking. Here in the US we'll refuse to interact with someone if we find out that they're part of the wrong tribe, but our political violence is pretty low on the scale of what's possible. There, they have a lot of political violence and from what I understand quite divisive political issues that put people's lives and livelihoods at stake, but apparently they don't have t…

I don't refuse to interact with people of the wrong "tribe", I make sure to ask for their political positions on, e.g., "should interracial marriage be allowed? Should we allow trans people to change their birth certificates?"

If someone is like, "Nah, those things are bad" then I'm happy to not associate with them because I find their beliefs abhorrent. It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy.

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

#43
Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams.

In America we haven't quite lost hope yet.

edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' political actions.

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

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. To one side, the other side includes (or defends) people who were "trying to dismantle democracy [over] unsubstantiated claims of fraud". To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. In a nutshell, the two sides simply can't even agree on basic reality . If you can't agree on the basic facts of something, it is not possible to have…

> To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. I assume anyone claiming this is lying.

A few people claiming something contrary to readily-available evidence could be explained by lying, but when a significant part of the population does so, it has to be something else.

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

#45

[flagged]

Difficult to read even though you mentioned Broken Democracy with capitols. Was not typing it out again twice really more effective communication? The overhead for replacing two other uses in a single context didn't warrant the creation of a new acronym, let alone one so short.

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they'd have less political violence if they didn't associate with people who disagree with them. I'm not sure I'm convinced that dying for your political views is a fair price to pay for conversations with your neighbors.

I'm not convinced that the two are correlated. We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, ~~without the violence~~. [Scratching this part out because it's drawing plenty of justified criticism. I stand by the rest, and this part was generally true—with small exceptions—from at least 1990-2008.] The complete refus…

Disagrees with you on what, exactly? Be specific.

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they'd have less political violence if they didn't associate with people who disagree with them. I'm not sure I'm convinced that dying for your political views is a fair price to pay for conversations with your neighbors.

I'm not convinced that the two are correlated. We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, ~~without the violence~~. [Scratching this part out because it's drawing plenty of justified criticism. I stand by the rest, and this part was generally true—with small exceptions—from at least 1990-2008.] The complete refus…

> We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives...

We most certainly did not. Point to an era where there wasn't political violence in the US.

Jim Crow? Civil rights era? WTO Protests? Vietnam war protests? Rodney King? Stonewall? Like... this country has been violent about politics since this country was a country.

Growing up I was afraid to be even remotely "non-manly" because I was so worried I'd be dragged behind someone's truck.

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

#48

Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams. In America we haven't quite lost hope yet. edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' politic…

That sounds plausible.

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

#49
post #8

For a lot of people in the US, politics has become very personal. I believe that some policy decisions have become a direct threat to my health and I can try to discuss those policies calmly but I'm not good at covering my aggravation. I'd say that everyone has gotten increasingly disdainful of the 'other side'. I know I have - I'm not proud of it but I'm also not a good actor. I was in a message group recently and s…

Want some practice? What policies?

I wish we could disagree about policies. Instead we literally have elected leaders screaming that the one party is controlling the weather to destroy another party.

How do you engage and have any kind of civil discourse with that?

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

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the question that the Indian person is asking. Here in the US we'll refuse to interact with someone if we find out that they're part of the wrong tribe, but our political violence is pretty low on the scale of what's possible. There, they have a lot of political violence and from what I understand quite divisive political issues that put people's lives and livelihoods at stake, but apparently they don't have t…

I don't refuse to interact with people of the wrong "tribe", I make sure to ask for their political positions on, e.g., "should interracial marriage be allowed? Should we allow trans people to change their birth certificates?" If someone is like, "Nah, those things are bad" then I'm happy to not associate with them because I find their beliefs abhorrent. It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to…

>It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy.

This is absolutely not how a lot of people operate.

Post reply on HN