Hacker News Reader

In politics the opinions actually matter.

In politics, all sides are wrong about something big. And it isn't clear whose mistakes are bigger. More importantly, all parties promote narratives where we argue about inconsequential items to distract the public from bigger issues.

For example in the USA, Republicans argue against universal healthcare even though their own internal analyses show that, done right, we would save money and have better healthcare outcomes. Democrats argue for a level of micromanagement in regulation that creates bad outcomes for everyone. Republicans have politicized basic science and generally believe it to be propaganda. Democrats put political correctness above sanity. And so on and so forth.

But neither party wishes to discuss the fact that we have become a surveillance state, with an insane legal system, and a prison system that is one of the horrors of the world. They do not wish it discussed because party leaders have reasons to continue these policies, but according to polls a solid majority of Americans, across political parties, would prefer these policies discontinued. See, for example, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/15/key-takeawa... and https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-p... for evidence of that.

Therefore the fact that politics is about something that matters is an argument that team A vs team B rhetoric is itself actively destructive. The more important you believe the issues to be, the more that you should aim to depolarize the discussion.

Your comment is the most on point here. The real tribe in US politics are those who want status quo vs those that dont. The major parties are both just flavors of the same status quo.

> Social media simply amplifies the toxic effects of industries of dishonesty - from PR, astroturfing, and manipulated academic and media narratives, to calculated and deliberate hostile attempts to focus conversations on low-impact but high-emotion issues, and to split populations along tribal and narrative fault lines.

I would say it just amplifies human traits.

If "There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics." and "In politics the opinions actually matter." we're fucked because surely after 6 million years of evolution we shouldn't be where we are now. We're just fancy apes with a way to shitpost world wide instantly and it's not helping anyone.

You're right that political opinions matter but I don't believe they matter for the right reason. It's still a "us vs them" problem all the way to the top, just that that one is more complex and out of reach to the average joe. So instead of informing people we throw them 5 min clips of clickbait video here and there and ask them in which "team" they are every few years, after a while the teams are naturally swaped because "nothing changed", rinse and repeat.

We're just fancy apes with a way to shitpost world wide instantly and it's not helping anyone.

And you’re my instant hero! Saved, favorited, bookmarked, etc.

> after 6 million years of evolution we shouldn’t be where we are now

That’s genetic evolution.

Memetic evolution? We’re just getting started.

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

The relevant point isn't how important the outcome of Team A versus Team B is, but rather the amount of influence an individual has over that outcome.

A normal individual has very little effect on the outcome of sporting competitions, but an individual sports fan does get satisfaction from choosing a team to cheer for.

Likewise, a normal individual has very little effect on the outcome of major government policies (e.g. federal policies in the USA), but an individual voter does get satisfaction from associating with a particular political group, following their events, researching their arguments and rebuttals to opponents' arguments, etc.

It's true that major government policies actually are extremely important, but that doesn't mean that individual political participation has much of an influence on outcomes. It is very common for people to have a strong association with some political group and act similarly to sports fans (e.g. "my group is great, your group are a bunch of hateful cheaters"). It's not as common for people to spend effort and resources attempting to increase their actual influence on political outcomes (things like having constructive discussions, organizing events, campaigning, or even running for office), because people correctly realize that most of the time the effort and resources spent would be larger than the resulting effect on the outcome.

NOTHING is objectively right and wrongs in politics. Right and wrong depend on your personal morals. By my personal morals there are objective rights and wrongs, but every moral I have there is somebody will disagree. For things like planed killing of otherwise healthy adults there is a large enough agreement that it is a wrong and we send those who disagree to prison. Note even there how many qualifies I had to put in - every one is required to get around a large fraction that will disagree.

We do not send those who disagree about killing adults to prison. We send there those who we think actually killed people. That is massive difference practically.

Technically you are correct, but I don't think it makes much difference: the vast majority of people agree there.

Some we send to Afghanistan and Iraq, with pay and holidays and parades.

Opps, you are correct I forgot about war. There are probably a couple other exceptions to the "general rule" as well.

Back in college, I took a Contemporary Moral Problems class (from a professor who resembled Captain Kangaroo---it was surreal and probably an example of something). The one quote I remember from the reading was,

"I believe I have a moral responsibility not to wantonly slaughter my neighbors."

It's a short sentence, but the amount of waffling in it is amazing.

I think you are confusing whether people agree on right and wrong with whether their is an objective right and wrong. It's entirely possible that there is an objective right and wrong but that some people are mistaken as to what it is.

Philosopher's have not been able to agree on anything. Religion and culture can agree on many right and wrongs, but there is nothing universal across other religions or cultures.

That doesn't mean that there is nothing universal, just that religions and cultures don't always agree on what it is.

Even then, there is generally agreement that murder is wrong, and that murder means killing innocent people. The disagreement is generally over what constitutes "innocent" and "people". Similarly, pretty much everyone agrees that stealing is wrong, the differences are just in the details of what constitutes property and associated rights.

Stronger: Even if we were in agreement about right and wrong, that doesn't mean that we agree about what to do. We agree that homelessness is bad? Great. How should we fix it? There we may still differ, even if we agree that homelessness is a problem that we should try to fix. How sure am I that my preferred policy is more likely to work than your preferred policy? I would say that at best I am only about 70% sure.

The problem comes when I act as if I am certain that my policy proposals are better than yours - and, worse, that you are therefore evil for proposing such flawed policies as you do. We assign to policies a certainty that they don't deserve.

"In reality no political program can be more than probably correct." - C. S. Lewis.

> objectively right and wrong answers in politics

I tend to think that sentiments like these are perfect arguments for a one-party authoritarian technocracy.

> policy cause and effect

Something that sounds so trivial yet notoriously difficult to establish.

> There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics.

Usually not; policy goals are a matter of subjective preference. What policies maximize goals may be matters of objective fact, but most political debate is (sometimes under the surface of the rhetoric) disagreement about goals, not mechanisms.

> There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics.

What would be considered objectively right or wrong?