Hacker News Reader

Comment by auggierose | Hacker News Reader

This kind of reasoning is exactly the problem that the US faces. "It's not really that bad, it's just a few silly states, overall we do know better". First, Texas is a pretty big state, too. You cannot just discount it as not mattering to the overall picture. Second, you are ONE country, you have ONE president. And what the majority of Americans think, doesn't seem to matter when it comes to the law, or to elections. Keep telling yourself that's it's not that bad because it's so diverse, and soon it will be much less diverse than you can imagine right now.

View on HN

> Second, you are ONE country, you have ONE president.

We also have fifty governors, 100 senators, 435 house reps, nine supreme court justices, and countless state legislators. We do not live in a dictatorship. Yet.

Of these, it's the court that has changed most wildly over the past 8 years.

> soon it will be much less diverse than you can imagine right now.

I think it's possible to say "overturning Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion illegal in California, as your worst case presumption might assume" and still believe that GOP gerrymandering, Supreme Court appointments, and attempted coups are an existential threat to majority rule.

Of course nuance is important when thinking about solutions to the problem. But if a substantial portion of the country (I don't know, is it 30%?) is basically not democratic anymore, you better be quick with coming up and implementing a solution. And how exactly is a solution to look like then without a civil war?

As a point of clarity, those state laws are all passed by democratically elected representatives. Gerrymandering may impact outcomes, but Ds are every bit as good at it as Rs. For example, Oregon's legislative districts are comically gerrymandered by Democrats.

Well said. Definitely agree that it’s a ridiculous to say “well those other states aren’t that big of a deal.”

For the 4.5 million of us in Louisiana, the current laws are a pretty huge deal. But according to him we apparently don’t matter when having a national dialogue.

For the 4.5 million of us in Louisiana, the current laws are a pretty huge deal.

Yes, but the idea that those laws are being imposed on an unwilling population by an extremist minority is wrong. Half of Louisiana residents believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_4973b4e...), and many in the other half likely support restrictions that weren't allowed under Roe/Casey. This is what democracy looks like, and an example of how democracy isn't always a good thing.

The margin of error is 5.8% I.e. the majority could also be in favor of abortion access. And even if we concede most want it gone, a slim majority does not in any way mean it should be denied to other people. We also need to define “most,” that’s a bad phrasing of the question IMO. For instance, we banned in cases of rape or incest. I’m sure plenty of people who are otherwise against it make a provision for that, but the question makes no distinction about some of those more divisive situations.

The GOP controls this state in a wildly disproportionate way. They passed it because of that, not because of a possible slim majority. We’d have legalized weed if that’s all it took.

So you’re saying diversity of opinions is a threat to diversity?

Yes. Certain opinions you cannot allow to exist if you want your democracy to continue to function.

Incorrect. There is no such act as "not allowed to exist". Instead, rather than attempt to bury what is spontaneously manifest, we ought lift these bolstered options up and publicly demonstrate to all how they are torn asunder.

Not allowed to exist is an unfortunate formulation. Marvin above said it better.

Unlimited tolerance must not be extended to the aggressively intolerant, because this will destroy the unlimited tolerance. Central philosophical principle of free society. Karl Popper.

Popper was specifically referring to levels of intolerance that cause people to move from the world of discussion to the world of physical force.

That is, per Popper, tolerating people who will physically harm you as part of the discussion means a discussion cannot be meaningfully held at all.

But people really like to stretch this to whatever edge-case meaning of "intolerant" would be convenient to them at the time...

Well, the law certainly represents physical force.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com