Hacker News Reader

Comment by mqrs | Hacker News Reader

> we're all under the same spell

Isn't this an oversimplification of politics, though--that our political opinions are nothing more than preferences around which we form tribes, and that there is not one single tribe that is objectively correct when it comes to matter of policy when, in fact, there are correct ways of deciding on policy.

Take vaccines, for example, or the matter of wearing masks. If I am for vaccines and for wearing masks during the pandemic, am I simply in some kind of "spell" and am I not, objectively speaking, correct, because my opinion on those matters are backed by science?

View on HN

> one single tribe that is objectively correct

There are conclusions that are more true than others, but it gets messy when people start talking policy. Ground level facts have regularly led to horrible policy decisions despite being 'correct' according to the science.

> am I not, objectively speaking, correct, because my opinion on those matters are backed by science?

It is true that shutdowns, distancing, masking are all evidence based methods to contain the pandemic. However, politics is not only about selecting what methods work, but where they are applied, and who bears the cost. There is rarely an objective 'backed by the science' answer across the board.

You're correct, but observably that's not where the political trenches are dug. The wedge issues for the past few years haven't been around "how do we best implement the science", instead they're around fundamental disagreements that the science even exists.

Moving the trenches such that the main problem was trying to decide what the implementation of the shared science-based policy should be would be such a seismic shift in political discourse that I don't think I can visualise what that world would actually look like.

I mean President Trump literally said disparagingly at a rally "Biden will listen to the scientists" and then Biden put "I approve this message" at the end and turned it into an ad.

You can't get any clearer messaging on anti/pro science.

>You can't get any clearer messaging on anti/pro science.

Surely you can get clearer messaging than an out-of-context misinterpreted quote.

Trump always seems to take himself out of context, we all has accrss to his tweet history, but every missteps is a "joke" or "out of context". He can't even accept the results of a democratic election.

> Ground level facts have regularly led to horrible policy decisions despite being 'correct' according to the science.

Yes but that's because of lack of specificity, isn't it? That is, exactly the science in the lab is what is deployed on a grand scale outside the lab in terms of policy, when the specificities of the real world should have been taken into account.

In any case, with the real-world peculiarities taken into consideration, the underlying science would be the same nonetheless. It would be preposterous to say that just because vaccines and masks work in the lab doesn't mean they won't work in the real world.

lol i no longer have energy for gotta hear both sides argument, whether its naive because of a myopic and narrow world view or just bad faith. like you said - how tf is mask wearing a political issue jfc

Combination of decadence, selfishness, cultism and vindictive politics.

The first two are self explanatory and certainly cross party lines.

Cult of Trump is to merely accept his say so that mask wearing has no efficacy and is merely political correctness. And really believe he knows better than scientists (anyone really).

From many conversations, it's just to piss off liberals. What I call vindictive politics. Literally many conversations, why do you like Trump and agree with him on things like fighting over masks? Schadenfreude. Making liberals scoff and angry makes them happy.

Ok why so much annoyance with liberal? A common example, is gay marriage which many Trump supporters consider completely immoral on religious grounds. It's so heinous to them they use oral rape metaphor to describe it: you liberals jammed gay marriage down our throats. We support Trump because he makes you angry.

I've asked for clarification: this is pay back for things like gay marriage and protecting abortion rights? "You betcha its payback! We don't care what crazy things he does or says. The more it pisses off liberals the better job he's doing." Their words. They have grievances. Trump soothes it by helping them get payback.

He grew his base by 7 million in this election. He gained almost as many votes as Bernie Sanders total vote count in the 2020 primary.

A lot of people think this is about Trump. And it's gone once he's gone. I don't.

> It's so heinous to them they use oral rape metaphor to describe it: you liberals jammed gay marriage down our throats.

This is such a ridiculous spin on “jammed down our throats” that none of them would have even considered that as a possible interpretation until you said it. Gay marriage is definitely not an issue that is top of mind for many Trump supporters.

”not an issue that is top of mind for many Trump supporters.” with a group that large I could replace 'gay marriage' with anything else and it would still be true. It might not be on spot number 1 for shared worry. However pretending that a _substantitial_ part does not have it on top of their mind (even if just to piss liberals) is dishonest.

You’re simply wrong. Do they have a position on it? Yes, obviously. Is it why they voted for Trump? Not even a little bit. And obviously they would have been pretty disappointed if they had, because he didn’t do anything to oppose gay marriage, nor did he say he would if re-elected. Yet 70 million still voted. I’m not going to call you dishonest, because like most on the left, you simply don’t understand folks on the right.

It’s not a single issue driving votes like abortion or guns but it’s a notable component in the “defender of Christianity” imagery a LOT of right-wingers use to justify why they supported such an un-Christlike person (the King Cyrus comparison being a common choice), and you don’t have to try hard to find people who link it to pedophilia and now the QAnon theories which have a large number of of adherents.

Oh they are way more hateful of transgender people. Same with Trump as evidenced by his policies. He really does represent his supporters. Democracy in action, I suppose.

> how tf is mask wearing a political issue jfc

The most common argument I've heard isn't about the mask itself, it's about the government acting like a parent that knows better than you. Lots of anti-mask people have said they would wear a mask if the government simply treated people like adults and asked instead of mandated it.

This is the most childish excuse I’ve ever heard. Imagine putting yourself and others at risk because you feel like you’re being forced to stay safe in a pandemic.

>there is not one single tribe that is objectively correct when it comes to matter of policy when, in fact, there are correct ways of deciding on policy.

There are objectively correct matters of policy when your goals, values, and assumptions have been specified. But it is these goals, values, and assumptions that separate the population into different factions. It is not simply a matter of we're right and they're wrong when it comes to settling these foundational issues.

> I simply in some kind of "spell" and am I not, objectively speaking, correct, because my opinion on those matters are backed by science?

You are under a spell that maximizing lives saved from the virus is the obviously correct goal, which is why its never even stated out loud. But your policy choices given that goal are objectively correct. The issue is whether maximizing lives saved from the virus is the correct goal. Lockdowns have a cost which is mostly borne by those who do not have the means to go for weeks or months without work or cannot work from home. There's also the mental health costs of extended social distancing. These questions are not answered by simply referencing the science behind controlling pandemics. There are very contentious foundational issues that that must be settled before we can make factual determinations about policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com