Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway769371 | Hacker News Reader

> It turns out, people can get along in real life, not because we’re exposed to many different ideas and ways of life, but in spite of this fact.

My family's pretty conservative. In 2018, my brother's best friend from high school ran for political office as a democrat and won.

Every Christmas, my mom bakes cookies and takes them to family friends. She had to look past all the headlines, politics, political disagreements, and that guy is everything FOX News told her to hate, to remember she likes the guy and his family.

It's hard enough to look past disagreements normally; it's even harder when your people are telling you that should you hate this guy you've known for 20 years.

On one hand, I'm very encouraged that, when faced with this choice, people can cut through the divisions and look at the person. On the other hand, this doesn't scale, and he's still dead to my dad.

View on HN

It really doesn't help when the institutionally dominant side insists that the only way someone could possibly become conservative/republican/right leaning is by falling victim to Fox news propaganda.

There's far more nuance to the discussions regarding, say, border security, entitlement spending, immigration reform, etc beyond accusations of racism and xenophobia. It's quite possible for two people to look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions because of differing value systems, priorities, risk tolerance, etc.

Maybe part of the problem is this insistence that our platforms are justified in censoring opinions because of this false belief that if two people differ in political opinion, one side must be mislead by "misinformation".

Not-an-American here. Seems to me there's arguably an important difference between (a) being conservative/right leaning and (b) being Republican.

People can, of course, legitimately be found in all sorts of positions on the liberal/left leaning <—> conservative/right leaning spectrum (Jonathan Haidt has some interesting things to say on this [1]).

But from this side of the Atlantic it looks rather as if Trump's Republican party strongly prioritises getting and keeping power over basic democratic principles [2]. I find that very worrying, and I also find I can only really give two explanations for people supporting it: either "they're bad people" or "they're misinformed". I prefer to think that in most cases it's the latter.

[1] e.g. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...

[2] e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/06/republ...

> either "they're bad people" or "they're misinformed".

Maybe they vote for (what they perceive to be) a lesser evil. Like, they know that it's not okay. But they think the alternative is even less okay.

I am not agreeing with them here. Just pointing out that when we talk about our support for groups containing bad people, we excuse it like "a few bad apples". But when we see other people supporting groups containing bad people, we are likely to see it as unambiguous support for those bad people.

Our party's glass is half-full and we keep hoping it gets even fuller; their party's glass is half-empty, how could they vote for it?

>But from this side of the Atlantic it looks rather as if Trump's Republican party strongly prioritises getting and keeping power over basic democratic principles

Only if your definition of "trump's republican party" is excessively reductionist. Which speaks to my point - your point of view lacks nuance, likely because the guardian (and any of the outlets unilaterally labeled as "reliable/authoritative", enforced by tech censorship) is not an unbiased source on the matter. Particularly when they are still referring to jan 6th as some coordinated "attack" (sans guns?) rather than a riot.

When all right leaning sources have been preemptively defined as unreliable then naturally the only possibility is that anyone right of center is misinformed; but this is a toxic manufactured consensus which is at odds with the views and values of about half the country. Indeed you would think that this half is merely some crazed racist minority if your views on the US are informed by a steady stream of blatantly agendad left leaning sources. The logic is effectively circular, and left leaning journalistic interpretations are being paraded as objective facts. Jan 6th is an excellent example.

It looks to me as if the Republican party is broadly still Trump's: he has a powerful voice and as far as I am aware very few Republican politicians have disavowed him. Can you tell me what important nuance I am lacking here? Perhaps you are saying: supporting Republicans doesn't necessarily mean supporting Trump and his allies — but in practical terms, surely it does?

It's obviously difficult to be certain of which information is reliable and which information is not. In my view, the discourse has shifted rightwards such that there aren't any longer any genuinely left-leaning sources in the mainstream media. The Guardian, the NYT, CNN and suchlike all look solidly centrist to me.

The Guardian piece I linked is by an academic, so I have a bit more faith than usual that it will be an intelligent and independent viewpoint. But that Guardian piece is not the only thing I'm relying on, and the events of 6 January are not the only thing I'm relying on either.

In particular, there appears to be gerrymandering, voter suppression, and worse on the Republican side [1]. I'm not aware of Democratic attempts to undermine the democratic system to any similar degree, but perhaps you can point me to some?

[1] e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/podcasts/transcript-ezra-...

> In particular, there appears to be gerrymandering, voter suppression, and worse on the Republican side [1]. I'm not aware of Democratic attempts to undermine the democratic system to any similar degree, but perhaps you can point me to some?

Certain Dem candidates also undermine the democratic process when they make false claims about voter suppression. For example "voter purges" are reported on as if they are voter suppression, but in fact they are routine list-maintenance carried out by state administrators to remove voters who have deceased or moved out of a jurisdiction. Stacy Abrams made unfounded claims that she lost due to some foul play / voter suppression, but this was not the case, she simply lost.

That said, undermining democracy is much more prevalent on the R side.

I would challenge you to find a single article reporting on any of Trump's speeches, actions, or policies in a positive light from any of the "centrist" outlets that you posted.

In fact I would challenge you to find a single topic that was reported on differently by any of those sources. The fact that our primary media outlets consistently report nearly identical information and spin on every story is a glaring indication of political bias. And apparently it is enough to convince millions of viewers that these issues are cut and dry; that republicans are obviously evil, are the only ones engaged in gerrymandering, that the left would never support authoritarian pursuits of power, etc.

I could link you dozens of articles, but I would be downvoted for posting "right wing propaganda". Meanwhile approximately 70MM people voted for Trump a second time, but the fact that none of our major outlets (even Fox was not friendly to trump) represent the views of these people is fine, because they're all ignorant, racist rednecks, right?

> I would challenge you to find a single article reporting on any of Trump's speeches, actions, or policies in a positive light from any of the "centrist" outlets that you posted.

And why would they, when none of his speeches, actions, or policies ever accomplished anything positive for anyone other than his hardcore rightwing base? That's not bias, it's just calling a spade a spade.

How do you not see that your thinking is the problem? Are you really so arrogant as to blindly write off the political opinions of half the country? Just because the media you consume tells you to do so?

Don't you understand that getting your news exclusively from biased sources would make it falsely seem as though they are giving you the whole picture so long as you simply do not seek out alternative perspectives?

Do you genuinely believe that right leaning sources can only report positively on Republicans if they print lies?

> How do you not see that your thinking is the problem?

I would ask you the same question. Are you so arrogant to assume that the only reason I haven't come around to your way of thinking is because I merely haven't seen the same information that you have? That the only reason why someone wouldn't be a conservative is because they've been brainwashed by the big bad mainstream media?

Every time I have tried to dive into the Conservative-leaning mediasphere to make sure that there isn't some hidden truth I've been missing, I come away more certain than ever that that is not the case. And believe me, I've tried. Why do you assume that I haven't, simply because I still disagree with you?

You are not entitled to having your political beliefs validated by everyone you meet.

check the username of the parent comment. safe to assume that was meant to enflame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com