Hacker News Reader

Comment by nichos | Hacker News Reader

Is there a difference in the 2 major parties anymore? I seriously don't know which parry you're referring to.

GIANT differences and anyone pretending not is usually acting in bad faith.

- abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers

could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is it

support for democracy and the rule of law also comes to mind

It's funny how 15 years ago, if we asked for this study, the perception of which party that description belongs to would likely be flipped.

Well not funny. More sad and terrifying.

No I don't think it would. Republicans always say they are for law and order and democrats aren't. Democrats usually say that they are for some form of light reform to prisons or justice, but often vote for more aggressive policies to not be called "lawless" or some nonesense.

The difference is, republicans have always been lying about being the party of law and order. Whether through Nixon, or Iran-Contra, or everything that happened with trump (which most republicans just pretend didn't happen), they've always said that the law should apply, and then ignored it for their own.

Spot on in terms of the whole ethos of the modern Republican: it's me me me. No capacity for empathy.

No government hand outs. Unless it's fossil fuel subsidies for Mr. Koch.

Socialized medicine is evil. Unless my company is stealing hundreds of millions from our government/medicare (and then I became a US Senator)

Abortion is bad. Except in my instance, but it's ok because I'm not one of those girls. Or my life is in danger!

Copy pasta from Reddit, but it rings true more often than not: any accusation is an admission.

Literally just read an op-ed from conservative crying about Democrats banning books... Seriously

Is clairvoyance "good faith"? Is it optimal?

One supports the Jan 6th insurrection attempt and the other doesn't. One supports bodily autonomy and the other doesn't.

That's only two examples, but enough to make the point that yes, there are indeed differences.

They're both authoritarian but one obviously leans left, and the other, right.

Only one has targeted attacks of human rights of minorities.

The only minority worth protecting beyond reproach of politics are those afflicted with poverty. I have found both parties incompetent in this regard.

800k shacks with outlets in LA for the homeless. The complete dismissal of the responsibility we have as a society to rehabilitate people in the prison system. the absolute abandonment of native americans that ultimately lead to an institution of sexual abuse. Unions run the schools but the worst outcomes happen in urban cities, which leads to violence.

the problems we face are complex. and I think we would do better to lean inwards than rely on looking to the fringes for our philosophical goals.

>The only minority worth protecting beyond reproach of politics are those afflicted with poverty.

>complete dismissal of the responsibility we have as a society to rehabilitate people in the prison system

>absolute abandonment of native americans

>Unions run the schools

I am NOT AT ALL dismissing the problems of poverty, native americans, prisoners nor unions but that is some janky, janky phrasing.

Am I the only one getting a "and you are lynching negros"[1] vibe here?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

And what does: "rely on looking to the fringes for our philosophical goals" even mean, anyway?

> The only minority worth protecting beyond reproach of politics are those afflicted with poverty. I have found both parties incompetent in this regard.

How do you think we, the people, can make a really meaningful impact to change this?

I think a secular/scientific version of some of the ideas contained within religions like Buddhism could move the needle substantially:

https://mindwithcare.com/buddha-teachings-part-one-four-nobl...

elect better people into congress

I would guess cities on average have better schools than rural areas.

Yes, there is a difference between the two parties and you know it.

The only people I ever see asking that are right-wing pundits trying to convince left-leaning voters not to bother voting, and occasionally burned-out centrists who've fallen for it.

I've never seen a serious left-wing voter/activist/politician come out with the claim that "well, the right are just as bad as we are".

"We are not so different, you and I" is always the last-ditch claim of the villain, knowing that they have no moral ground to stand on, trying to drag down the people who are trying to do better for not being perfect. And it's bullshit. Always has been, always will be.

I've noticed there is a tendency among folks on the left (and for all I know it's also true of folks on the right) where people who do as you say are cast out and labeled "centrists", creating a dynamic where internal criticism is silenced.

I speak as someone who self-identified as on the left for many years, but no longer feels comfortable doing so because of how incurious and closed off to criticism the left has become.

"Internal criticism is silenced" is an... interesting view of the left. A more common view is that endless leftist infighting is one of the things that makes leftists ineffectual.

Those are not contradictory. Without the ability to criticize others, different groups can each claim to be "the left", and they don't have the ability to work through their differences to unify.

There would be no need to silence internal criticism if it wasn't there.

Insofar as that infighting takes the form of fighting over who is the most or trueist left, casting their opponents as not actually left, there is no contradiction here. The eagerness to use shibboleths, slips of tongue and anecdotal correlations to identify impostures who are merely pretending to be left for underhanded rhetorical reasons is an example of this. Crypto-fascists are the ultimate boogieman.

BTW it's not hard to find examples of the right doing this too.

> I've noticed there is a tendency among folks on the left (and for all I know it's also true of folks on the right) where people who do as you say are cast out and labeled "centrists", creating a dynamic where internal criticism is silenced.

As to whether the right also does it, Eric Greitens literally released an ad showing him "RINO hunting" with a rifle (RINO meaning "Republican In Name Only"). Leftists may infight, but at least we know how to use our words.

(As compared, for example, to the 1960s and 1970s, where bombing was a much more common tool of the left. I'll definitely take the verbal infighting.)

>As compared, for example, to the 1960s and 1970s, where bombing was a much more common tool of the left.

I'm a youngin, can you provide examples you are thinking of when you say this?

Most prominently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

I think "centrist" and "moderates" are pretty bad terms. They are usually used to capture anyone that doesn't fall cleanly into the two main parties. Which honestly, is a very diverse group. One such issue (of many) with this is that many anti-authoritarian people fall into this camp. It does make sense that these people get burned out as there has been no representation for them in decades and their major concerns have only grown ever stronger and seem nigh impossible now. The right did capture some of these people (re Tea Party) until they typically find out they are hoodwinked. Now the left is capturing some of these people because Trump was the personification of authority. Still, I don't think these people feel represented and I don't think you should dismiss them so easily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com