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

81–90 of 302 posts

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

#81

Post by bruce511 »

bombcar wrote: post #73
nineplay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care. Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges. This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country. So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm f…

More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions. But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.

In absolute numbers, your statement is true. But the deaths are not equivalent because of agency.

Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.)

The issue either abortions is not the death part, but the agency part. Those lives -could- be saved, but aren't, because the law provides reasons for not saving them.

To make things worse, only one half of the population is subject to this risk. So it can feel kinda targeted.

Fundamentally death is not an issue. We have plenty of people. We could lower the speed limit, we could ban alcohol, or guns. All that would drive up life expectancy. We don't do that because there would be consequences and effects from those changes. And life expectancy is not the primary metric.

Abortion is a complex topic, with some people holding very strong opinions. The pendulum has swung to the point where simple medical interventions to save lives are being denied. That's what makes the topic newsworthy.

It's not the death part that matters, it's the preventable part.

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

#82

Post by Hutrio »

whaaaaat wrote: post #36
thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…

[dead]

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

#83

Post by olalonde »

nineplay wrote: post #38
orionsbelt wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want some practice? What policies?

Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care. Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges. This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country. So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm f…

> So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm flabbergasted that I know parents of daughters who support these policies.

Do you really not know the reason? They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder, just as killing a baby would. It's as simple as that.

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

#84

Post by sixothree »

bombcar wrote: post #73
nineplay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care. Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges. This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country. So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm f…

More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions. But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.

It's not ignored. Democrats have been pushing automobile safety since the 1970's, uphill the entire time against republican opponents.

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

#85

Post by shusaku »

lolinder wrote: post #14
nineplay wrote: post #12

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…

When reading an article like this, I think westerners get guilt tripped. We must be wrong, just look at all the troubles we have. Maybe if we talked more things would be better.

But maybe the real take way here is that people in Indian should talk less about politics!

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

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

> it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case

I live in both! It’s easy to discuss if you’re respectful. Even with someone who will take offence to any opinion but their own. You can label them zealots. But they’re also passionate about something, and even if the what is banal the why is usually incredibly beautiful.

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

#87

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whaaaaat wrote: post #36
thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…

> being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important

Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.

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

#88

Post by bruce511 »

orionsbelt wrote: post #68
nineplay wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hardly know what to make of this. If I was a wealthy woman in a blue state than it is wrong of me to give a damn about what happens to poor women in red states? That is a unique POV. I can't imagine how a hypothetical Polish person got into this. I cannot cast a vote in Poland so their politics are outside of my control. > they weight the fetus’ life more than .... They weight the fetus's life more than its mothers…

I didn’t say it’s wrong for you to give a damn - I said the opposite, that you can certainly give a damn and support pro abortion policies. But you said it was a direct threat to YOUR health — is it really? Are you a poor woman in a red state? If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat…

There are obviously two sides to the abortion question, and we're not going to "solve" it here, but I think at least discussing it is healthy.

The pendulum has swung a lot in the last couple years, and I'd argue it has swung a bit too far. All laws have unintended consequences, and we're seeing the out-working of some of that now.

Right now the law is dictating to medicine - laws written by activists and politicians, not doctors. Placing legal liability on doctors as to who they can help, and when. That seems to me to be too far.

Equally the pendulum has swung to a point which is not the viewpoint of the majority. Not even in red states. When on the ballot pro-abortion positions are consistently winning. IVF is under threat (not by accident.)

Moving the law back to the states is a cop out. It creates inequality among citizens of the same country. Which in turn creates a divisive discourse between people who are now forced into one or other position.

Pro choice is not the same as Pro abortion. It moves the choice to the patients and doctors involved. Personally, for reasons, I'm not a fan of abortion. But I can see there are cases every it is appropriate. I support the notion that the right people to make that choice are the people involved.

Lots of people feel differently to me. Perhaps they're in the 50% who will never have to make that choice. Perhaps they are in the 99.99% who will not experience a loved one dying in a preventable way.

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

#89

Post by rebeccaskinner »

Swizec wrote: post #19
thephyber wrote: post #2

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…

> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament. Those larger parties still have…

> Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country.

Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mostly behind the scenes with some influence from the primary process. In the other case, it happens after the election when the parties are figure out how to form a majority after the representatives have been selected. One advantage to the former is that at least you know who what other policies your special interest are going to align you with ahead of time, rather than finding out after the fact that your vote brought along more baggage than you bargained for.

> You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues.

But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real, have a right to exist, deserve health care, etc. then it doesn't matter if they agree on 9/10 other issues. Same with abortion. If one person in a discussion believes in the value of rational evidence based decision making, and the other believes in woke 5g space lasers, there's simply no foundation on which to build a shared understanding upon which to base a conversation.

Many of the central arguments that are causing polarization in politics today are due to fundamental incompatibilities in values- the kind that no amount of agreement on other matters of policy

> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.

There absolutely is. There's no perfect candidate, but there's still going to be a better choice. You pick what matters most to you, and how many things you are willing to compromise for those things, make the best choice available, and work to push the discussion of one party or the other closer toward your views in the areas you don't like.

Post reply on HN