Hacker News Reader

Comment by intopieces | Hacker News Reader

>Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them.

I use to think this too, before this election. But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

They are interested in control. Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen again.

The politics of fear won, and I see no oppertunities to bring a divide where one side is hellbent on dynamiting every brick as it's laid.

View on HN

I am very Anti-Trump, but I have to ask, could the same thoughts not be said by a right-winger to a leftist? It seems like neither side is listening.

From what I understand, this isn't what democracy used to be. We've created a divide where somebody says "I'm a democrat/republican" and they look at the party for what that means.

It isn't only the system that is broken, but it is how we view it and how we view each other.

This is why I agreed with Sama and not removing Thiel from YC. We have to listen to the other side and empathize so we can understand. Without that we all lose.

Today, we all lost.

I don't know if the past was so rose tinted.

The 20th century was dominated by the struggle between the far left (communism) and what the communists perceived as imperialist nationalism (capitalism/western democracy). This was a far, far more bitter struggle than what we're seeing now.

That struggle was only the main theme between 1945 and 1990, I'd say the unimaginably destructive wars of the first half of the century dominated.

The Russian revolution marked the start of the revolt against the "fascists and imperialists" and that started in 1917.

Fascism itself basically got its start in 1919 with Mussolini's party.

> This is why I agreed with Sama and not removing Thiel from YC. We have to listen to the other side and empathize so we can understand. Without that we all lose.

I think the point of opposing Thiel at YC have been lost on HN. It wasn't mainly about politics or opinions. Trump is less to the right than many other candidates and the politically viable opinions of Thiel isn't particularly controversial either. It was about the downside of the "bet" on Trump.

At the RNC Trump had roughly a 40% chance of winning the election according to 538. Thiel spent a couple of million usd and some of his time to have a 40% chance of being "friends" with the most powerful person in the world. That's a huge upside with almost no downside, especially if Trump lost, and therefor an easy bet to make.

If there were more downside Thiel would have had a harder time to make this bet and would have had to be more certain on his decision. Favoring more long term behavior in the political process. Instead just ran one of the cheapest political campaigns you can imagine.

All in all this together with other similar "investment" makes a fairly bad precedent for silicon valley in mixing politics and money.

Maybe if you use logic de la ghetto, but in reality this just makes people go harder all in, it would imply that he is easy to constrain by forced pressure, -EV and probably affects his EV in a second order way. ANyways adult men who are high in power don't respond well to this sort of thing.

>We've created a divide where somebody says "I'm a democrat/republican" and they look at the party for what that means.

This statement could not be further from the truth.

Trump is not a conventional Republican, he is anti-trade for one. Sanders, the favorite among the younger generation of left-leaners, is an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. The DNC was highly criticized for favoring Clinton and the voters punished them for that.

So it's not accurate to say people look to their party for what it means to identify as a Republican or Democrat. They actively shape the parties.

I see what you're saying, and would like to agree, but let's not forget that there are Red States and Blue States, and only a few that swing this way or that. I think that goes some way to prove that people stick to their 'party'.

Trump may not be conventional, but he is only contradictory in some of his policies. 'Pro-life', immigration reform, and other policies are in line with Republican views.

I think the "uncertain and complex world" trope is a part of the problem here.

I have become very cynical over time about the way intellectuals, academics, trade negotiators, politicians and the media use/abuse complexity to get their own way. Many times when I examine an issue I see a whole lot of people saying how complex the world is, how impossibly nuanced it is and .... the kicker .... therefore you shouldn't attempt to figure it out or have an opinion. You should just do whatever the "experts" recommend even if it's apparently unintuitive or even quite clearly against your own interests. Anyone who doesn't obey this line is written off as ignorant, too stupid to have a vote, etc.

Yet are these issues really so complicated? Often they are not. The complexity, when you take the time to tackle it, ends up being largely artificial.

This seems like the classic, why did it take such a big team so long to build this product, I could have done it in five minutes....

The world is a complex place, problems that seem simple at first glance with the limited information we actually have can turn out to be horrendously complex and hard to solve.

Take Syria - should be simple shouldn't it, all you need to do is support the good guys against the bad guys. Or maybe you send in some troops to defeat the bad guys and restore order.

Which of these factions are the good guys and which are the bad guys?

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

this x10

You cannot really help gullible people. If you don't, someone else will take advantage of them...and you probably can't control everyone who does that either.

I don't want to diagnose this result, but it seems like a lack of critical thinking is what is missing from large swathes of the American populace.

> But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

Yep. We're all racists and xenophobes and our views have no rational basis. Please feel free to make sweeping judgments about what anyone who voted against Hillary Clinton must be thinking.

Please keep up this rhetoric so we can win in 2020, too!

I'll listen. Care to expand on your ideas for the future under Trump?

I did not vote for Trump. But I'll tell you what I hope to see Trump do:

* Simply tax code, both personal and corporate.

* Devolve federal power back to the states.

* Improve incentives for development of US manufacturing base.

I think it's kind of up in the air at this point. We'll see what happens.

If you're looking for more than that, I'm not sure what you're asking.

> They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world.

Doesn't this describe the other side? "Deplorables," "ignorant ruralites," "uninformed -ist -phobes"? Is that attitude interested in empathy or calmly discussing things?

> Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen

Isn't this exactly how Obama got elected? "Hope and change", and Obama's been practically worshipped as a savior ever since.

> The politics of fear won

I think fear had a lot to do with this result, but those fears are grounded in reality. One candidate acknowledged the problems that have arisen in the last decade, while the other did not. Time will tell how well he actually handles them.

What I learned from this is that we should coddle idiots so they don't feel dumb. Apparently the educated need a better way to talk to the uninformed.

It's actually funny how, when faced with your failure, you double-down on your failed strategy, rather than humbling yourself and reconsidering whether you are actually so much more intelligent than everyone else.

Not only are they idiots, but uninformed as well. That's always the root problem, isn't it? If only they would read what you read, they'd think what you think! Just gotta find a more effective way to brainw--I mean, communicate. Have you considered asking The Riddler for help strategizing? Maybe you could join forces with the Greens...

And leftists say that conservatives are stubborn, sheesh.

Intellectual arrogance is just as ineffective as plain ignorance.

I've heard a lot more people saying that people say he's a savior than I've heard people saying he's a savior.

Sorry, but, what's your point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com