Misperceptions of the opponent fringe and miscalibration of political contempt | Hacker News Reader

Misperceptions of the opponent fringe and miscalibration of political contempt

psyarxiv.com

60 pointsluu221 comments

"In the 1960’s, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats reported that they would be “displeased” if their son or daughter chose to marry a political opponent (Iyengar et al., 2012). By 2010, these numbers had risen tenfold."

When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that.

In the 1960s, more parents opposed different race marriage, and different religion marriage, than different politics marriage.

The difference now is that the "other species" now has a voice in 2-party politics, after previously being silenced.

It wasn't better in the past when Democrats and Republicans worked together to oppress non-WASPs.

Certainly it wasn't. I would like to think that there is not a 'conservation of intolerance' principle here, though, that requires some other kind of intolerance to go up in order for intolerance of race, religion, etc. to go down.

If you look at the last ~40 years of government policy in the USA, and focus on where the Republicans and Democrats are in alignment (neoliberal trade policy & outsourcing of manufacturing, steadily increasing military-industrial budgets, and no-strings-attached bailouts of Wall Street firms), then you get a picture of the country as a corporation where the politicians are essentially little more than corporate middle managers.

The middle manager has a rather unusual job - keep the corporate board and the shareholders wealthy and happy, and keep the rank-and-file employees productive and happy. The former job is done more in private, the latter job is done more in public. (Note how certain politicians notoriously stated the need for having both public and private positions, which fits this model).

Somewhere along the way, the middle managers had a bright idea: if we ensure the rank-and-file employees distrust and hate one another more than either us or the corporate board, we can keep this whole thing rolling along, even while we screw them over and enrich ourselves and the board! Genius. For a while, anyway.

Yeah, I was about to say, I want no parts of this track that you want to get back on. If my kids bring home white people they want to marry, I no longer have to worry about the repercussions.

The 'track' I was referring to, was that it's ok for your kid to marry someone from another part of the political spectrum than yours.

And what I am saying is that you can't separate these two things; the improvements in integration are at least partially the cause of this perceived "polarization."

Back then, Democrats and Republicans alike could be comfortably racist; one might wonder if black folks even got to take the survey. But two things happened, one is the civil rights movement which made people less racist. (yay!) and the other is the radicalization of the Republican party.

Today, Democrat/Republican is a much better proxy/predictor for -- well, let's be PC here and say, potential matches. It's not a bad predictor (and before someone says some nonsense comparing this to prejudice, political party is 100% a choice and nothing like racial discrimination.)

>When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that.

Evolution is a very powerful force; ultimately the genes that make people incline towards having more children will become dominant. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-mor... currently it looks like Republicans are winning the reproduction war.

This same train of thought comes up when talking about environmental conservation. Namely: "If you're worried about the environment, you should have more kids because they'll also be environmentalists".

It's so ridiculous on its face that I'm not sure why I'm typing out this reply, but if there was a simple straight line between genetics and ideology, why would positions like those opposed to the Republicans exist at all? Shouldn't they all have been bred out by now?

And what about the fact that what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat change as well. There used to be a time when the Democrats were the pro-slavery party. So what ideological elements are inherited exactly? Is it the broad party affiliation? Is it beliefs about tax policy? Beliefs about gun rights[1]? Religion?

[1] Incidentally, the left is becoming increasingly pro-second-ammendment: https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism...

Edit: Oh yeah, and anecdotally plenty of kids raised by conservatives grow up to hate their parents' guts. Perhaps because of the authoritarian nature of some conservative households. As you might expect, this is especially true for LGBTQ kids.

If they did, they would had enough votes to win popular ballots. They don't, they need biased electoral system that guves more power to minority.

The 1960s was in the middle of the long overlapping double political realignment between the New Deal and the mid-1990s, so the main ideological divides in the country did not line up with the divide between the major parties.

This resulted in less partisan division, but no less political division, as the large scale political violence of, particularly, the 1950s and 1960s, makes pretty clear.

All the hand-wringing over the fact that we’ve in the last couple decades returned to the normal state where salient ideological divisions actually map reasonably well to the main partisan division is...bizarre.

> it's like we're splitting into two different species.

Or nations. A lot of the turmoil in Eastern Europe since the 90s is related to certain nations considering themselves distinct, and other nations refusing to entertain it. The former group will fight for their liberty and the latter group will try to conquer and absorb them.

Will the same happen in the US? I see the African Americans being their own unique North American nation with associated food, music and culture, but also being part of the dominant American national culture. Not many of them appear to want to be fully separate, black nationalist extremists aside.

If heartland white Americans attempted to distinguish themselves as a separate nation, it would be civil war 2, but fuelled by nationalism as opposed to slavery, traditionalism and states rights.

I firmly believe there are more than 2 parties. France is a good example - reactionary extreme right, centrist/corporatist, and far left. Both the left and right hate the centrist, but also have widely divergent views on how to unseat the centrists.

It's just that in the US, only 2 parties can work given the FPTP system that makes all 3rd parties spoilers.

Keeping it relevant to the paper itself, there is something particularly powerful in amplifying if not creating this effect in the first place: sock-puppetry, known in the MICIMATT world (Military-Industrial-Counter-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank complex) as "persona management"

I saw this really take off around 2010 and tried to warn people. The issue is that the forces that actually control the major political parties need to divide the people, for never forget the thing the oligarchs fear the most is a united proliteriat, and have heavily invested in creating the illusion of a consesus or narrative view from one "side" or the other, reinforcing the division at play.

Three letter grade psyops are at play on an unprecendented scale, and failing to understand that will leave anyone interested in this topic twirling at windmills.

Now that Trump is out of power mistrusting three letter agencies is back in fashion.

When he was in power they were trusted and reliable.

Some of us dont blow with the political winds quite so easily.

I believe you. Unfortunately targeting polarizing figures or unpopular minorities is an easy way for three letter agencies to ensure that that a large percentage of the American public happily and enthusiastically supports their evil.

No so much trusted as seemingly inactive I would say?

I wonder exactly how much of social media are sockpuppets.

Also - perhaps massive disinterest is the goal.

Dividing the people matches the Machiavellian goal of the government to preserve itself as the source of power, so you don't want a populace that could coalesce to overthrow you. Of course, that doesn't help the populace when said government becomes tyrannical in any way.

But I feel like Plato's cave metaphor would suggest that artists (music, TV, movies) are the best sock puppets we've got, and often don't even know they're doing it (e.g., the apathy towards deeper goals that immersion in pop culture cultivates).

Is this really anything new? I think most people who actually talk with their neighbors about various topics can see that most people aren't as extreme as their party is represented to be in the media.

There are hundreds of millions of party members. Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports, or that there are different factions within the party that take opposing stances on specific issues? There's no way we're able to fully map 100M to 1 on an innumerable amount of topics/solutions.

>>Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports?

I see you haven't met my in-laws.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used absolutist language. You're right, there are likely a small minority that agrees with everything that at least their faction of the party says.

(hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist. For existing.

Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.

This is what happens with a first-past-the-post voting system — you agree to band together behind your side’s resident extremist, or you lose :/

I think that’s because you don’t denounce actual extremists within the transgender movement.

I think you’re conflating both groups denouncing those extremists as denouncing you, because those extremists are who represents your group on the mainstream narrative.

So now I'm supposed to spend my time proving that I'm mainstream enough to be acceptable, because my existence makes me guilty by association? This is the "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals" argument.

Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

> Also, transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

I’m not saying it’s fair or right…

But transgender people are a minority whose voice has been appropriated by a political movement to force their radical agenda under euphemisms like “inclusion”.

I’m not saying that you need to be outspoken about it — but if the only exposure most people have is that extremist view from TV, they will associate you with that due to how humans work.

> "Black people should have no issue proving they aren't criminals"

The equivalent would be black people debouncing the neo-racism of Democrats under euphemisms like “equity” and publicly denouncing nonsense done in their name, like de-policing.

Again, I’m not saying it’s fair or right… but I’d tell a black Democrat who was upset about being associated with that idiocy the same thing:

You’re tacitly letting your identity be used to push dumb policies — and you’ll be associated until you stand up and say “no, this doesn’t represent me”.

You're using a thin facade of decorum to push the idea that the oppression of minorities is their own fault, with the strong implication that you have nothing to do with it because that's just the way the world works. How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't?

And again, am I supposed to be out here actively looking for people and views to disavow? Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?

> How am I personally responsible by association for the actions of others, while you aren't?

Whites not associated with racism are expected to denounce it.

Men not associated with misogyny are expected to denounce it.

I’m not holding double-standards, just acknowledging that humans work based on heuristics.

> Do I have to do this in front of everyone I meet, so then they'll be sure I'm one of the good ones and they can treat me like a normal person?

You don’t have to do it at all, but yelling at people because they’re human and their brains react to repeated exposure by finding patterns isn’t going to lead to the outcome you want.

So if you don’t like being associated with that kind of behavior — you probably want to do it some time, in some way.

That perception won’t change until there’s enough people out there denouncing the misappropriation of their identity by politicians to make it clear that they dont represent that group.

Racism and Misogyny are actual forces in this country. Minority activists don't actually have any political power.

Besides, who are you expecting to do the denouncing and what are they supposed to denounce? Before I started this comment was I supposed to do a quick google search and see if there were any fringe activists saying something to denounce? What's the time scale I have to cover before I can reply to your comment. A week? A month? What if I already denounced it in another thread, do I have to do a recap of everything I've denounced in every thread?

I'm not calling you racist, No one asked you to denounce racism or misogyny, so why are you bringing it up?

> there’s enough people out there denouncing the misappropriation of their identity by politicians to make it clear that they don't represent that group

This is laughably unquantifiable and political forces ensure that even if this was happening you wouldn't know about it.

> Minority activists don't actually have any political power.

As Malcolm X explained, minorities are routinely used as a political cudgel in feuds between parties — and the promotion of extremist voices is part of that today.

> political forces ensure that even if this was happening you wouldn't know about it

…which is why it’s important to occasionally share those thoughts in your personal life, to help unwind that narrative for people around you.

>Racism and Misogyny are actual forces in this country

As everybody knows off course, only the things you hate are actual and real, and you're being noble and virtuous by talking about them. While the things your opponents hate are disinformation and a mirage, and they're being hysteric and alarmist by talking about them.

This is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

And you're engaging in it by downplaying and denying the very real power that that transgender ideology holds in US institutions and corporations.

How so?

>> Minority activists don't actually have any political power

No I mean, what 'very real power that that transgender ideology holds in US institutions and corporations'. All the political action is bathroom bills and sports bills coming from the right, what political power is the 'transgender ideology' wielding.

They have the power to make some assholes uncomfortable, by existing.

>All the political action is bathroom bills and sports bills coming from the right

It's hilariously disingenuous and backward how you mention the reaction to the encroaching transgender ideology without mentioning the action itself that prompted it. The bathroom and sports bills are defensive measures against the ideology infiltrating institutions and allowing the easy access of vulnerable spaces to mentally unstable individuals.

>what political power is the 'transgender ideology' wielding.

Other than

- In [1] an academic professor is fired for publishing a book critical of transgender beliefs

- In [2] a school covered for a trans rapist who raped a teenager in the girls bathroom, he was eventually transfered to another school where he raped a second teenager.

- In [3] an. archeologist is fired for trans critical views

- [4] documents several other cases of harassment perpetrated by trans ideology supporters in academia

- In [5], a British political party struggles with the definition of a woman, party representatives repeatedly refused to answer straightforward questions about basic female biology to avoid angering the trans lobby

- In [6], as in [5], a US Supreme Court judge refused to answer the question "What's a woman", citing that "She's not a biologist".

- The social media giants ban any dissenting discussion. Examples too numerous to mention, and can be empirically reproduced for yourself.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/may/22/kathleen-s...

[2] https://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-loudoun-county-teen-13141...

[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-01950-9

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349967840_The_Gende...

[5] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-refusal-to-acce...

[6] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-d...

This is a bunch of stories of people acting individually, this isn't political power. My argument isn't that there aren't people in this world trying to establish their validity in our society, and that those people aren't upsetting other people, just that those people aren't exercising broad systemic political power.

Is your argument that people should just accept their lot in life and not challenge the status quo? Or more that they should do it in a way that doesn't upset anyone.

I see that you have some concerns here, I don't see why your response is to try and ostracize or ban this thing you don't understand.

I think he's pretty clear about his reasons:

"The bathroom and sports bills are defensive measures against the ideology infiltrating institutions and allowing the easy access of vulnerable spaces to mentally unstable individuals."

He considers transgender women to be mentally unstable predators who want access to women's spaces in order to attack them.

What activity/behaviour, anologous to racism and misogyny in your example, do you believe is being done by politicians "in the name of (trans) inclusivity"?

A return to institutional bigotry, under the DIE agenda, of which the misappropriation of transgender voices (or rather, promoting extremist voices) is a piece. Further, using the claim “you’re not being inclusive!” as a club towards people who object to things such as preferential hiring, affinity groups based on protected class, censorship on social media, etc.

For example, WA and CA are attempting to repeal civil rights laws to re-legalize government bigotry.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1000,_Affirmat...

Radical agenda like... being able to safely receive healthcare? Being safe from violence? Being able to grow into a happy and successful human being?

Ah, but yes, you're right, that's preposterous.

"I’m not saying it’s fair or right…"

Good, because concern trolling like this is pretty shitty, and definitely not fair or right.

Certainly not intellectually honest. You attack someone repeatedly for supposedly not standing up against "dumb policies" and "extremist" positions, without your daring to name what you think those are. After all, if you did that, you might have to defend your stance against criticism instead of attacking someone for not preventing the entire Democratic Party from committing unspecified wrongs of "inclusion".

It's not really a matter of "daring". Most online platforms don't permit dissent on transgender issues. If someone attempted to directly argue that they don't think transgenderism is real, they wouldn't face criticism or engage in a robust debate, they'd simply get their comment deleted. (If you turn on showdead you can see that's happened in this very thread, although admittedly the guy was a bit rude about it.)

The fact that transgender people exist is quite settled from a scientific perspective. Most reasonable platforms will not put up with people asserting that trans people are either mentally ill, clout-chasing, or victims of abuse, in the same way that most reasonable platforms will not put up with arguments that Black people are a criminal race because <insert debunked science here>.

Dissent along those lines, no matter how politely framed, is simply an attempt to launder bigotry into "debate".

And that's all reasonable on its own terms, but your opponents don't see it this way at all. I see being trans as more like being a Mormon; it would obviously be obnoxious for me to walk up to random Mormons and say "you don't exist" or "Joseph Smith was a fraud", but it would be equally obnoxious if a Mormon friend told me that studies have proven they hold the Melchizedek priesthood and I need to affirm that or they won't feel comfortable around me.

I don't see any posts by him in this thread with showdead on that I can't see with it off, so I don't buy your complaint. As it is it, looks like what you think is "a bit rude" amounts to some guy facing criticism and working himself up into a lather about how that's everyone saying "shut up white man".

But at any rate, your argument amounts to, "But he has to be disingenuous and chickenshit, because Hacker News is run by the SJWs!", which I find laughable.

The comment I'm referring to is by a different commenter twofornone.

My argument definitely isn't that Hacker News is run by the SJWs, both because I don't think HN moderation is particularly left wing and because I don't think "the SJWs" is a meaningful category. What I would say is that debates about the fundamental legitimacy of transgender stuff get too heated for most platforms to accept, because people have strong, passionate beliefs on the issue which can't easily be compromised on. It's an entirely reasonable moderation decision and I might very well make the same one if I were in charge - but as a consequence, those of us who are transgender skeptical sometimes need to carefully talk around the touchiest issues rather than engaging on them directly.

> It's equally forbidden (and there's also an example of this downthread) to go around saying that if you don't believe the right things about trans people you're committing genocide.

That's a very strange interpretation of my comment. If you think my gender identity is invalid, you're not committing genocide, you're just an asshole. If you think my gender identity makes me a pedophile groomer who needs to be kept away from kids, and want to enforce that via imprisonment, then you're committing genocide. Unfortunately, that is a political position of the governor of at least one US state. It is not the political position of most of the people voting for him, but that's not a ton of consolation.

"The comment I'm referring to is by a different commenter twofornone"

Then you're just being disingenuous, jumping into a thread responding to someone else entirely and talking about dead comments as if the person being responded to had made them.

To be clear, I was attempting to point to external data to explain why people in this thread might be hesitant to explain their views in full detail. Sorry if it came across as misleading.

> I’d tell

It's really at this step where things start to take a wrong turn. I truly believe you're acting in good faith, so please take this as a gentle suggestion. Rather than telling trans/black/etc people anything, pause and really listen.

We are already told how to do everything else in our lives, being told how to stand up for ourselves and how to fight for our rights feels like another example of the same pattern. A better question is, "How can we help?" or "What do you need?"

Like it or not, you are beholden to what your group says and does in public. The group name you identify with strongly biases anybody meeting you into modeling you as the most visible people of your group.

> transgender people aren't a movement. We're people.

Every movement is ultimately a group of people with a purpose.

Sad to say, but I think this is both (1) fairly true, and (2) a sign that the world we live in is fairly f*cked up. I'm free to identify as a white male American, without needing to immediately denounce a laundry list - ..., NAMBLA, Nathaniel Hawthorn's ancestors, Nazi sympathizers, negro slavery, NIN's substance abuse, ... - of notorious positions, people, and practices which are publicly associated with white males Americans.

I have noticed that even the L and G (to say nothing of BTQ+) folks who've come out to me in the past 10 years have added "but I am nothing like those {unfavorable words here} who proclaim themselves L's or G's on the web" - generally so fast that I couldn't have gotten a word in edgewise.

I don't see non extremist anti-trans to condem extremists in their ranks. Ever. Nor conservatives for that matter.

Until that is requirement for then too, then this just amounts to support for anti trans extremists.

It's not clear to me what you're referring to as "extremists" or by "transgender movement", because at this point that could mean a lot of things that almost don't even exist or it could just mean "anything I don't like".

But even if it did refer to actually existing extremism, presuming a trans person should know about a sub-category of extremists that happen to be trans and make unprompted verbal attacks against them just to signal some kind of virtue at is a pretty weird demand of compelled speech on your part.

This kind of shameless bigotry and stereotyping is pretty transparent.

"There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist."

I'm curious, why would these people not be considered extreme for treating you like a loon or treating you as an extremist?

I've seen similar stuff on other issues. For example, there are people who hate guns who treat gun owners as loons and extremists regardless of their actions/positions/etc. Just saying that some people treat others as extremists just because they hold an opposing view. My guess is it's often to prevent cognitive dissonance in examining their own beliefs (most people don't consider themselves extremists even if they hold extreme views).

I think you're on to something here, but my (admittedly anecdotal) experience (in person, not online) is that these people are not generally considered extremist. You make a very good point in your last sentence: this extremist view is held by a lot of people who are otherwise non-extremist, and it's hard for most people to differentiate between "extremist views" and "extremist people". So it ends up being considered much less extremist than it should be, which also means it gets much more mainstream acceptance than it should.

Yeah, you said it better than I did.

And I encourage everyone to keep whatever circles make them happy. But if a devout Christian said she doesn't like anyone who hangs out with atheists, or a meat-eater said he doesn't like anyone who hangs out with vegans, I don't think you'd struggle to identify these as extremist attitudes. The expectation that a person is guaranteed to mistreat me if any of their friends disapproves of me or think I'm a loon seems like a clear example of miscalibrated contempt.

I could say everything you said, as a person hoping the planet will remain habitable for my children.

(Substitute the bit about appearance with "because I think we should immediately stop new fossil fuel exploration / capital investment and institute atmospheric carbon recapture taxes of $1-2 per gallon-of-gasoline-equivalent emissions")

Anyway, I think the premise of the article is flawed:

I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!)

I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things, and this planet is not large enough to let the rest of us escape from their idiocy.

> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things...

Do you care whether this belief (which may have the appearance of knowledge) is objectively and flawlessly true?

The abortion banning part is provably true at this point.

And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not. Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.

The claim was:

>> I don't care whether voters in some red state are queer-bashing, abortion-banning putin apologists that want to strip mine for coal. (Want them for neighbors, or not? Move!)

>> I care that the people they've voted in and appointed to the supreme court are all of those things

> The abortion banning part is provably true at this point.

a) Not comprehensively for all people, as was claimed.

b) It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives.

c) How might one prove it for any given elected representative, short of an explicit confession?

d) Abortion banning wasn't the only claim.

> And it is very fair to guess it was plan from the start, despite pretention not.

"Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things.

> Despite calling those who guesses it 100% correctly exaggerating and hysterical.

Where "100% correctly" refers to perception of reality, but is typically perceived as reality itself.

Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.

> Human beings are silly, I would say without exception - News at 11.

I dont think they are silly. I think that they prefer to good relationship with that political branch over telling truth. They think it makes them sound like smart and rational and dont mind throwing others under the bus in the process.

E.g., they have priorities.

> "Fair to say" and "correct/true" are very different things.

Ok, I will say out loud, it is correct thing to say.

> It is supreme court justices that would be banning it, not elected representatives.

Supreme court did not came out of skies. They were put in place by politicians who picked people guaranteed to make political decisions.

> Abortion banning wasn't the only claim.

No. But it was part I 100% agree with.

> Ok, I will say out loud, it is correct thing to say.

It may be a "correct thing to say" (aka: popular), but this is distinctly different from correct from en epistemology perspective.

> But it was part I 100% agree with.

You are welcome to agree, but I am discussing what is true (and indirectly, the nature of human consciousness, which renders the customized/unique "reality" that each person on this forum experiences, and tends to mistake for reality itself).

> There's no way we're able to fully map 100M to 1 on an innumerable amount of topics/solutions.

There's no way to do it accurately, but the mind "does it" all day err day without breaking a sweat, as it evolved to do. This phenomenon is what this paper is describing, is it not?

Possibly relevant:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/context-and-state-dependent...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31338304

If it’s only the extremes of a group that want a thing, but supporting the group means that the extremes get what they want, there is precisely zero distinction. The group is extreme, on the ground, in reality.

We didn't get Medicare For All, Green New Deal, Housing For All, $15 minimum wage, etc. under Biden, also we never got a federal law protecting abortion under Obama when he had a super majority. Hillary had more opposition to Sanders than to Trump. Manchin and Sinema regularly vote Republican on topics important to Democrat voters. So you could say it's the opposite for Democrats. This is called the Ratchet Effect.

We had a talk where I work by Jamie Druckman who comes to similar conclusions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE78OLNY6JQ

88 pages from 2021 involving Wilfred Laurier social sciences?

You know what's more interesting, in the months since this study it has become much more clear what's really going down.

NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy.

CNN is basically in complete collapse because they were too late. Can't see how they recover without some absolute hail mary.

Rachel Maddow had a bit of a sabbatical and then got rebranded and is on air far less. MSNBC ratings not looking so hot lately.

Meanwhile Fox is in dominant #1 position. There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization. You have star trek discovery a ultra top secret missions best of the best crew... but every character is LGBT. Wtf are they trying to say? Even Trek fell into this same trap as those above.

Has anyone checked out Star Trek Strange New Worlds episode 1 where they literally say second US civil war. The story was intentionally weak as hell to ensure everyone who watches it sees they are talking about the USA. The importance of getting those 2 parties talking together again. That working together for a better future is really the only way.

Even Trek suddenly realized their own mistake. It makes for such an amazing first episode.

Abstract: "Americans’ hostility toward political opponents has intensified to a degree not fully explained by actual ideological polarization. We propose that political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread."

You: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization."

Hmm. Could it be that you're... overestimating?

I don't know how we're defining "an objective measure", but pushing CRT sure looks like "move left." So does "we're going to help your kid transition without telling you" and XYs in women's sports.

Of course, one can argue that none of this is new, that what's new is pushback.

"Pushing CRT" sounds pretty subjective. What measurement are you offering here?

CRT, itself, is a pretty nebulous concept outside of actual legal scholarship. "Pushing CRT" is a common right-fringe talking point. How much do you think the majority of Democratic voters agree with "pushing CRT"?

I didn't say that I was offering a measurement, in fact, I asked how we were defining "an objective measure." Moreover, I have no idea how many Democrat voters go along with the institutional Left.

That said, the institutional left (IL) is pushing Project 1619 and associated materials outside of law schools, whether or not you want to call that CRT. (Shades of "no true Scotsman.")

This is part of a broader "all-in" on DIE by the IL. "Everything" is racism, sexism, etc.

There's also deplatforming and doxxing.

No, I'm not going to provide a scale. I'm not even going to order deplatforming and doxxing. So, the above isn't quantitative measure.

That's a long way from "nothing is happening."

> That's a long way from "nothing is happening."

Who are you quoting? Nobody said that. This seems like a non sequitur.

It's sneer quotes.

I'm claiming that the fact that the original poster didn't provide something like "0.2 units to the left" doesn't actually refute his fundamental point.

Feel free to disagree.

Some relevant quotes from the guidelines:

> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

What you've done is complain about some general stuff that you seem to dislike about "the left" and completely fail to engage with the content of the actual article, which I was trying to bring the discussion back to. But hey, at least you acknowledge ignorance about what most people think. Perhaps you should try exiting your bubble and figure that one out instead of dwelling on what you hate about the fringe.

The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it".

I provided examples of movement by the institutional left. No, those examples don't have numbers, but they do show movement. Besides, how do you apply numbers to this sort of stuff in any reasonable fashion?

Whether or not I like those things or they're "general" has nothing to do with whether they're movement. That's likely why you didn't comment on whether they were in fact movement.

That said, as long as we're lecturing one another on meta-discussion, it's nice of you to provide an opportunity to quote Hannah Arendt: "The elite is not composed of ideologists; its members’ whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between reality and fiction. Their superiority consists in their ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose."

> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it".

No, the original claim was actually this: "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread."

The counterclaim was: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization."

My suggestion was that this counterclaim seems to be exhibiting the same fallacy discussed in the paper.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are very large, and its members have a wide variety of views. If you pay close attention, you'll see that there's quite a bit of infighting, sometimes very bitter, even within each party. Broad generalizations about Democrats or "the left" — and likewise about Republicans or "the right" — are often going to be grossly inaccurate. You can't just treat huge groups as uniform when they're demonstrably not uniform.

The American people — well over 300 million of them — have diverse political views. But we have a political duopoly. Which means that these diverse views held by Americans have to somehow fit mostly within these 2 parties. It's a mistake to overgeneralize about political parties and similar groups.

I personally find the terms "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" to be practically meaningless. They've lost all of their original meaning and become opaque cudgels for the political parties to pretend they have some kind of coherent ideology. But this is a bit of a tangent.

Anyway, I would bet that most Democrats and most Republicans don't even know WTF CRT is. Even the ones who complain about it!

> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it".

Nope. The top-level post claimed the existence of objective measures of "the left" moving "far left", of which I haven't seen evidence.

And, I'd never claim that "the left" hasn't moved. The left/right terminology is rather sloppy, so I've tried to use the language of TFA: Democratic and Republican voters. But, let's look at "progressives" for a moment. The goal of progressives is to identify oppression in the world, and work towards overcoming it. That is to say, the goal of progressives is to change with the times, which is why, for example, today's progressives hate Margaret Sanger but still support Planned Parenthood. The goal of social conservatives is to resist change and as we're seeing with Roe v. Wade, undo past progressive changes (which, I think, is technically "regressive") which is why, for example, we see today's social conservatives rallying around statues of Robert E. Lee.

But that's not what the article about. The article is about how each side sees the other. It's nicely summarized by this SMBC comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

What's going on today is that Democratic voters increasingly identify Republican voters as the nazi-flag bearing Charlottesville rioters, and Republican voters increasingly identify Democratic with murderers like Kermit Gosnell and Christopher Dorner.

This is the same sort of argument-by-definition that gun rights supporters use to dismiss anyone who talks about "assault weapons". A whole lot of parents don't want their children separated by race and have white kids told that they bear personal responsibility for historical racism and anything they accomplish is only possible due to the oppression of others, while black kids are told that society hates them and they'll never get a fair chance to succeed (unless of course we overthrow the racist misogynist capitalist power structure). If your response to that is "well actually CRT only refers to the specific legal theories of Kimberle Crenshaw", you're not addressing the actual point.

Please define what you mean by CRT so that we know what you are discussing. (I don't mean acronym expansion, I mean substance.)

Whites are the oppressors and BIPOC are the oppressed. That anything and everything boils down to the color of your skin. That white Americans in particular are the sole perpetrators of historic slavery. That current white people should atone for the sins of past slave owners regardless of when their family came to the US.

Well, you're absolutely correct, inasmuch as that's a racist tire fire that shouldn't be in schools. But that's not "critical race theory," it's overwrought caricature that mainstream (and, in my bubble, even the quite radical) progressives would disagree with.

CRT is a legal theory taught in colleges that is based on the ideas that are being taught in some elementary and secondary schools. No, CRT proper is not taught to children. Yes, the ideas that CRT is based on are being taught to some children. When the right says CRT is taught in schools this is what they are talking about. When the left and the media says that CRT isn't taught in schools they are talking about the CRT legal theory.

https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/18/yes-children-are-being-t...

1) Areo magazine is a political hack publication.

2) The article about US schools was written by an Australian.

3) The article seems free of any actual empirical examples of its main claim.

4) There have always been groups in the US who want censorship in schools for anything they don't like politically or religiously, most notably, the science of biological evolution. The "oh no, what are they teaching the children in schools" crowd is very hard to take seriously. There are people who don't want slavery mentioned in schools. They don't want the Holocaust mentioned in schools. It's hard to imagine a more "radical agenda" than all of this censorship and denial of facts. Wipe away history? Wipe away science?

The irony is that those who say "just teach the controversy about evolution and the Holocaust" [there's no scientific controversy] would also refuse to "teach the controversy" over CRT.

I've never taught high school, but I did teach (philosophy) at the university level in the past, and the people who complain about what's taught in college typically believe laughably inaccurate caricatures of what actually happens in the classroom. We're not proselytizing students; it's hard enough just to keep them awake during class and prod them to actually do the assigned reading in the first place.

> 3) The article seems free of any actual empirical examples of its main claim.

Yeah, I gave the article an honest read, looking for real evidence, because it runs entirely counter to my experience. I'm a mom of a kid in grade school, and I've talked to a lot of parents and teachers about this topic. I'm in the very liberal Vancouver area, and my same-aged friends are spread across Canada and the US. Nobody I know is seeing anything like the racist trash that tastyfreeze and Areo are spreading.

Ok, how about some other sources?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/12/22/...

https://www.heritage.org/education/report/rescuing-math-and-...

> Ok, how about some other sources?

Heh, let me know when you come up with something that isn't a political hack publication.

As I suspected. Unwilling to read evidence with an open mind because they are from the "other side". Both of those sources quote school district administrators and curriculums.

> As I suspected. Unwilling to read evidence with an open mind because they are from the "other side".

I took the time to read the first link you chose. It did not show what you thought it showed. You thereby lost credibility and the benefit of the doubt in my eyes. So no, I'm not going to waste any more time reading your links unless I have a very good reason, and I also find it suspicious that all of your links are to publications with well-known political agendas. This is why I'm suggesting you find an article, one article, any article, that doesn't come from such a publication.

Your "other side" comment is an incorrect assumption, because I'm not on a side and have no political party. I'm what you might call an "independent".

>Hmm. Could it be that you're... overestimating?

As I said... wilfred social science...

Here's a nice visual graph that I like: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to...

Go put your finger on the republican line and see where it moves.

There has been analysis done by many groups which have confirmed where the political polarization derived heavily starting with gay rights. The republicans who had 'closeted' homosexuals moved left. Trump literally started a fight with russia and the middle east trying to benefit homosexuals. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-adm...

The republicans clearly moved left and it was the right thing to do. Whereas Truman != Obama. It's rather easy to objectively see both parties have moved left.

I feel like this is rather objective fact. The better discussion, why is this the case? Is it perhaps where the democrats have gone is the right place both parties eventually end up? Or are we about to watch 2nd civil war?

> As I said... wilfred social science...

I don't know what the point is supposed to be here.

> Here's a nice visual graph that I like: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to...

> Go put your finger on the republican line and see where it moves.

Ok. I downloaded the gif and went through it frame by frame. What it shows is that the Median Democrat stayed exactly the same during 1998-2011, while the Median Republican moved right the whole period of 2004-2011.

Anyway, this story is from 2014, so it's missing the last 8 years.

> What it shows is that the Median Democrat stayed exactly the same during 1998-2011, while the Median Republican moved right the whole period of 2004-2011.

Now try doing the whole span it's depicting, instead of picking the best years for your viewpoint.

> Anyway, this story is from 2014, so it's missing the last 8 years.

Here's an update that includes 2015 and 2017: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-...

It continues the same trend of median Republican barely moving while come 2017 median Democrat flies off even further left.

> Now try doing the whole span it's depicting, instead of picking the best years for your viewpoint.

What do you think is my viewpoint?

During 1994-1997, both parties were moving left. And during 2012-2014 they were moving in opposite directions. I focused on the period of 1998-2011 because that seemed to be when there was the biggest difference in behavior between the 2 parties.

The claim of incomingpain was that "the democrats moved far left creating the polarization". But this is not supported by the given data. The parties were moving in lockstep prior to 1998, and the Democrats didn't move at all for many years after 1998.

It seems difficult to argue that the polarization was created in 2017, given the data from 1998-2011. Anyway, incomingpain, the one who made the claim, was also the one who linked to the pre-2015 data.

Here's the funny thing: incomingpain said "The republicans clearly moved left and it was the right thing to do." And Republicans did indeed move left 1994-2003... but then they moved back right starting in 2004. They moved right at the same time that Democrats were staying the same. So shouldn't incomingpain argue that backtracking was the wrong thing to do, if moving left was the right thing to do?

I do think that people are so busy being mad about the "Democrats have moved too far left" meme that they haven't really thought about it. The problem being the definition of "too far left". But yeah, I think they've moved to the left because human rights are important.

It would be interesting to go back to Women's suffrage because I'm sure people were having the same discussion. Liberals have moved left while Republicans have stayed where they are. But of course, moving to the left on equal rights for women is not liberals moving too far to the left. It's society course correcting. You don't get to say "Well liberals got women's rights so we get ____" But too many Republicans are saying the equivalent of that (hell some Republicans do https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/22/a... say exactly that.)

Human rights can't be a partisan consideration. It can't be something we compromise over. We just have to evolve as a society, get over it and instead have substantive conversations about the policies that move the needle in people's lives.

The left doesn't equal human rights, it means more government intervention and currently it means using and abusing small portions of society under the guise of human rights and social justice as a false pretense to expand government control. Liberals have also not 'moved left', the democratic party has abandoned liberals in lieu of progressives, socialists and other people who believe in a more involved government instead of individual liberties in order to garner more votes and retain their districts.

> The left doesn't equal human rights, it means more government intervention

Really? Does "legalize abortion" mean more government intervention? Does "abolish the police" mean more government intervention?

It was actually "replace the police with herds of social (government) workers" and the governments ability to allow people to kill unborn kids in order to lessen government burden by eliminating under privileged classes.

Well, that certainly is a massive dollop of contempt.

How dare the left want to replace armed officers executing black people in the streets with therapists and social workers!

I'm pretty sure the point of my comment was the opposite of "left equals human rights".

"I think they've moved to the left because human rights are important."

If that's the part of my comment you're latching onto, and you're not disagreeing with the notion that Repbulicans don't believe in women's rights, than we're in a much worse place than I thought.

Your entire statement was ridiculous and pompous, but the only thing worth replying to was your incorrect belief that the left represents human rights. So no, I'm not going to sit here and bicker about an ann coulter quote who is known for decades as being purposefully inflammatory for the sake of having people with your point of view bookmark and share her stupid statements in order to prove a point.

Anne Coulter aside, there is a core point here and that is that historically, we've gotten it wrong and I think most of us can agree that looking back we had it wrong. Yes, that Anne Coulter quite is ridiculous but was likely more representative of opinions around the time of Women's suffrage. Is it not possible that we can collectively figure out where we continue to get it wrong?

What are human rights? To have an abortion? To own a gun? To have a say in what your children are taught? To get money from the government? It all depends on who you ask. Calling something a "human right" is a rhetorical device used to make disagreeing with your political position immoral and even heretical rather than just plain old wrong.

Despite whatabouting away from the women example, some of those can be classified as human rights, and what we currently have on some of those topics you could call a "reasonable rational compromise", even if I personally disagree, but right now Republicans are planning some interesting totalitarian anti-women, anti-privacy type stuff to tackle abortion.

Sometimes your opponent actually is taking an actual anti-human rights position. It's pretty common.

The pro-choice side would say the by banning abortions you are infringing the right of a woman to choose when to have a child. The pro-life side would contend that by enabling abortions you are infringing the right to life of an unborn human. Both positions are framed in terms of human rights and plenty of "reasonable rational" people argue vigorously for each one while viewing those who disagree with them as basically evil.

Framing the debate in terms of individuals' rights is intended to remove the topic from the realm of political discussion and shut down dissent. It also completely drowns out discussion of the societal effects of allowing/banning abortion, which is just as important as the effect on individuals. The same unproductive dynamic plays out in the debate over e.g. the right to free speech.

I want to add that I believe the way forward in this debate (and others) is to acknowledge that both rights are valid but neither are unlimited. The best compromise is to be found by sounding out the limits of each right. That is a political debate, not a quasi-religious one, and one that should be rekindled from time to time to update the compromise to match contemporary circumstances. In this regard, for either side in the abortion debate to enshrine their preferred right in the constitution would be a disaster.

> Go put your finger on the republican line and see where it moves

This ignores massive societal shilf we've had - which is erosion of worker's rights.

The 'left' used to mean worker's rights, helping the poor, maybe socialism or welfare.

Now you have folks who see themselves as left because they suport trans right, but their solution to 'No parental leave in America' is 'more freee market'

And the left could have had it all. They could have built a coalition of common cause between trans rights and workers rights, with a common philosophical underpinning. Instead, they've shifted to look down on blue-collar workers as "a basket of deplorables".

Contempt for your constituency is not how you build a winning coalition.

> And the left could have had it all. They could have built a coalition of common cause between trans rights and workers rights, with a common philosophical underpinning. Instead, they've shifted to look down on blue-collar workers as "a basket of deplorables".

Is this actually "the left" though? The same people who came up with the insult "basket of deplorables" also came up with the insult "Bernie bros".

Seriously, if the left means Hillary Clinton and does not mean Bernie Sanders, then we might as well just throw all political labels in the trash.

Fair point, but... Is there any significant politician on the left, other than Bernie Sanders, who is actually pro-working-class at the moment?

If so, I haven't paid enough attention to politics to keep track of what's going on. But if not, then I think it's fair to say that the left as a whole abandoned the working class, with Bernie being the exception.

I think most elected politicians tend to betray their constituents.

Bernie has the "luxury" of living in one of the smallest states in the nation, Vermont. He can wage a ground game campaign and not worry about having to raise massive amounts of money for big market TV ads. This makes him less susceptible to corruption than other senators. Also he was never a Democrat in the first place but an independent who decided to run for the Democratic nomination, so he was never fully a part of the the party apparatus.

It's interesting to contrast with how Trump basically waltzed in and took over the Republican party, despite not having been a solid Republican himself in the past. I take this as a sign of how marginalized the left has been from the Democratic party. Sanders has taken over the spot of being the Democratic scapegoat for all their problems, a spot formerly held by Ralph Nader.

In recent surveys, Democrats are found to be far more intolerant of Republicans than vice-versa.

Young Dems more likely to despise the other party https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/poll-political-polarization...

thats because Democrats are largely impotent whereas republicans have let fringe hateful ideas become their platform. If one person in the room smells like shit, can you blame other people for taking a step away?

> republicans have let fringe hateful ideas become their platform.

In 2001, 23% of Republicans/Republican-leaning Americans supported same-sex marraige. By 2019, it was 44%. Among white evangelical protestants specifically, it was 13% and rose to 29%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...

aw thats cute. less than 50% of republicans think gay people can get married

If I may inject a bit of dispassionate analysis here: I think there's a grain of truth to both sides.

It's true that Republicans have moved more toward same-sex marriage.

However, it also seems to be true that the legalization of same-sex marriage has politically activated many Republicans who are still opposed to same-sex marriage.

When same-sex marriage was not legal, those opposed to it could remain fairly complacent. It was the status quo and wasn't an issue where they felt the need to engage in political activism. The most outspoken people were those in favor of same-sex marriage. But when same-sex marriage was legalized, there was an almost complete reversal, in terms of activism.

So today it feels like Republicans are more opposed to same-sex marriage, even if the raw numbers say otherwise. But perhaps the raw poll numbers don't reflect the level of enthusiasm or activism regarding the issue.

I think this is actually a general point: the level of political activism regarding any issue tends to be highest among those who feel threatened. So ironically, the level of activism opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, becomes higher as that view tends to wane in public popularity. A powerful overwhelming majority, on the other hand, doesn't need to make much effort to maintain its status.

Cute? I am challenging your perception that Republicans let their "hateful fringe" take over. The data shows that Republicans have actually been getting more progressive. That this trend isn't fast enough to suit you is beyond the point, republicans trending in this direction at all (let alone doubling) contradicts your stated perception of the trend.

Your statistic is based on the opinion of individual voters. My concern is with the forces in government that have made my friends in Florida fear that they cannot talk about their lives without being branded a pedophile. The sitting members of congress who think trans people are an abomination. The 20-something states that allow for conversion therapy for minors. But sure, I'm glad I can feel safe talking about marriage with 44% of rep. voters.

> The data shows that Republicans have actually been getting more progressive.

That data shows only that republicans’ support of gay marriage follows the same trend as democrats’, at a lower level. That indicates to me a cultural shift for this single issue more than a political one.

The data in the article below paints a different overall picture, though I went to the source and did not find the information on what their metrics were for the liberal / moderate / conservative spectrum. It’s likely in their downloadable data sets but I am on mobile.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/28/what-elon...

Actual laws actually enacted by conservatives are not middle of the road. Nor justices they pushed into supreme court. By that I mean that actual politic of both parties is different.

> 88 pages from 2021 involving Wilfred Laurier social sciences? You know what's more interesting...

So, I take it that you didn't read the article and dismissed it based on its length and source?

> There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization.

Source please?

> You have star trek discovery a ultra top secret missions best of the best crew... but every character is LGBT.

Not even close to every character. There are quite a few romantic entanglements through the story: Burnham/Tyler, Voq/L'Rell, Burnham/Booker, Georgiou/Lorca, Lorca/Cornwell, Pike/Vina, Detmer/(unnamed), Airiam/Stephen, Sarek/Amanda, Burnham's parents, and, yes, one gay couple, Stamets/Culber. There are two trans characters, one bisexual character, and I count three gay characters. The cast list on Wikipedia lists 43 characters in total.

I think you might be misperceiving the opponent fringe here?

>I think you might be misperceiving the opponent fringe here?

Sorry, I wasn't clear, not 'all'. Clearly disproven by just 1 character if you're going evaluate all characters even if they were only on screen for 1 second.

> There are two trans characters, one bisexual character, and I count three gay characters. The cast list on Wikipedia lists 43 characters in total.

12 main characters and 6 lgbt?

Mind you, I LOVE the idea of trill being trans/non-binary. This makes a ton of sense.

What discovery failed at is exactly what is tearing the USA apart. I love they realized why it didnt work and are doing better.

Okay, that's a pretty big goalpost shift. In nearly 60 years of Star Trek, we've now got 4 seasons where some main characters aren't strictly cisgender and straight (but the majority of the couplings are still between straight, cisgender characters). In what regard did Discovery "fail"? As far as I understand, it's been pretty highly acclaimed.

Very curious what objective measures you’re referring to. The downfall of leftish media itself kind of suggests the opposite: mainstream left-leaners are rejecting their more extremist media wings. Meanwhile the right is galvanizing around their most extreme.

All of this is a bit conjecturey too, so I ask again, what’s the objective measure you’re speaking of?

>Very curious what objective measures you’re referring to.

Take this one with pretty graphs. Political polarization in the usa has been ongoing for quite some time. Many groups have been recording it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to...

>The downfall of leftish media itself kind of suggests the opposite: mainstream left-leaners are rejecting their more extremist media wings. Meanwhile the right is galvanizing around their most extreme.

I find it telling you see fox news as 'most extreme'.

To me, the polarization is objective. We need to evaluate to determine if perhaps that is the path. In 50 years from now we might be talking about how ridiculously conservative we all are back in those antiquated 2020s. What we would see is the far left doing really well. They did do pretty well while they pushed various disinformation campaigns.

The evaluation though is obviously the opposite. The polarization has derived largely because of echo chambers and identity politics. Those who are failing discovered this reality and have publicly admitted to this failure.

The USA is now sitting at the choice posed in strange new worlds. We dont need to keep fighting. We need to get back to talking to each other. This is the essence of why elon musk is buying twitter. End the censorship and get everyone talking again.

The linked source does not at all support the claim you're making. I do not say that Fox is the "most extreme," though it is certainly extreme. The growth of OAN, Breitbart, etc. is actually what I was referring to.

Yeah yeah, Musk will save the day. Got it.

> NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy.

Details? I know they've gotten a few people who are outside the progressive orthodoxy and tend to poke holes in it to write opinion columns in the last few months.

> democrats moved far left

I have to wonder if you know what far left means outside of the US. Because even the furthest left of the Democratic party is barely left-leaning in Europe and most other democracies.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think a problem is that within certain bubbles, the extreme viewpoints are genuinely really ubiquotous but if you have certain other cultural preferences it can be hard to escape those other bubbles.

I find just being around a certain group of people, namely young left urban college educated people who are counnterculture, the norms for that group are unbelievably far left. Like the nuances of Maosism vs Lenninism is a more common discussion than the budget of congress amongst this group (percieved to be a right wing issue). It's unbelievably extreme. And yet I never interact with the other side, let's say Mid west evangelicals, and rarely interact with the unengaged center even though those other two groups are combined an order of magnitude bigger.

But based on non political preferences I spend a lot of my time around woke communists and end up having a strong distaste for them even though they are a small minority in the bigger picture.

I think this same group has a very outsized influence in a large number of spheres. So I don't think it's unreasonable to worry about them even if they are a minority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com