Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

Its always staggering to think people forget we only have a two party system. You'd think that would keep both parties in check from abusing their powers considering at some point the party you went after and did suspect things in order to win a few elections? Well, they're going to be back in power and what do you think they're going to do? The same thing you did.

I feel like we're currently in this death spiral where its just a never ending war to get the other parties people out of power by any means necessary. While the entire time, its the people who have to suffer through it and pick sides.

It appears the centrist moderate has evaporated from American politics - which to me was the last group of voters who kept both sides honest. There is no compromise either, its just a scorched earth approach now where nobody wins.

View on HN

>I feel like we're currently in this death spiral where its just a never ending war to get the other parties people out of power by any means necessary. While the entire time, its the people who have to suffer through it and pick sides.

I feel ostracized by both sides. It's maddening. Earlier today someone asked if PBS was left leaning. How low have we come that we watch something like PBS looking for "Left" or "Right" leaning views to confirm our bias and not just watching it to be informed.

PBS news hour is pretty moderate IMHO. But still won't stop people from seeing a story that makes them feel bad and labeling it left or right.

You seem to think two parties means "two sides."

I think it only means "only two parties to buy." They agree whenever the money says to and disagree about real issues that are distractions from what the money wants.

The problem is not a lack of meeting in the middle on culture war issues. The problem is that no one is even allowed to oppose the money. Not really. And when they try to, they're not considered "centrist moderates," but "far right" or "far left."

In my experience on social media, this sort of thinking is typically classified as "both sidesing" (or an assertion of "false equivalence", etc etc etc), and is considered to be highly inappropriate.

And the people that say these things are often otherwise clearly intelligent, it is less common on HN perhaps, but certainly not uncommon.

Yeah, well, knee jerk both sides are the same which completely ignores major differences between those sides is really wrong.

It is mental shortcut that leafs to wrong conclusions and often ends up being a lie.

I think the bigger knee jerk reaction is the need to assign everybody to one side or the other, to the point that nobody perceives any outgroup moderates; anytime they encounter someone with a moderately out-group opinion, they assume the rest of the opinions held by that person must be the most extreme implied by their leaning. Thus people become entrenched in their position as it appears that the out-group is becoming more extreme, ironically leading to a feedback loop that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of increasing polarization. Or at least, it creates the perception of increased polarization, which is what causes the problems.

I like to suggest that you should imagine the most absurd caricature of a member of the out-group that you can think of - whether that's a "leftist" or a "MAGA republican" - and then ask yourself how many people you actually know who fit that description. Are you creating a scarecrow that's an amalgam of all the viewpoints you oppose?

> whether that's a "leftist" or a "MAGA republican"

Funny enough, there are not symmetrical. MAGA republican is a rather specific extreme subgroup with own set of believes and symbols - red Maga hat. Moderate Republicans do not self identify as Maga.

Meanwhile, "leftist" is rather large group with no real definition. It includes people who are vaguely for social system or just democrats or just don't treat LGBT as enemies. It is roughly anyone left of right wing.

But, in a need to create symmetry, you write about these two as if they were the same. And that is exactly an issue with knee jerk centrists. They end up being damagingly and unfairly wrong in their assessments.

I don't think it's it's just a need, under certain topics many people are simply not able to do otherwise than assume... In these cases, the reality they perceive seems to be almost entirely driven by imagination, and any suggestion that the claims may(!) not actually true is simply rejected outright - if you take them at their word it is literally impossible.

Is the real split in this country between liberals and conservatives?

Or is about whether the political contest we observe is mostly genuine or mostly constructed?

Are we watching UFC or WWF?

UFC gives the impression of an authentic contest with real outcomes while WWF is generally understood and portrayed as a form of theater. People who identify in the liberal cluster tend to take the media narratives quite seriously, and despise people who show suspicion of popular media. They call them "conspiracy theorists" pejoratively.

The conservative cluster types are more widely ranging. Many have no objection to individual freedom and expression around things like abortion, drugs, or sexuality because they believe in individual freedom and responsibility: you can do what you like until it harms others AND it isn't my job to help you execute or recover from whatever silly thing you choose to undertake, I can do it if I choose.

This is likely the dominant conservative ideology, and yet it is virtually never portrayed in the media. What we see instead of a paternalistic Christianity presented as conservativism.

Perhaps that is why conservatives tend to distrust the media?

When was the last time New York went red? Or Mississippi blue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com