Hacker News Reader

Comment by _verandaguy | Hacker News Reader

I strongly disagree with most of this post.

Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level, that it's important to be able to have conversations about it. It's frankly self-righteous to see yourself as the one person with nuanced opinions in a crowd of simpletons, and while I do think that politics in many liberal democracies has become more polarized, you'll never restore nuanced debate or good-faith disagreement in political discussions by just avoiding the topic.

I'm not advocating for politics being the only thing you talk about with your friends, but if you and your friends are able to have useful discussions about the impact of some policies over others, can have constructive disagreements over reasonable political discourse, and can identify larger problematic trends in politics, a lot of good can come of that.

View on HN

Ideally, one should select friends that are respectful of other's opinions. Certainly, one shouldn't keep someone close who isn't.

But with family and acquaintances, it's not worth getting into. Except when someone isn't being respectful. Then I will certainly speak up and ask why they aren't respecting someone's right to think for themselves.

I don't have a problem with my dad's view that taxes should be low or that we should be responsible with the environment. I don't have a problem with his view that over-regulation is a danger. I don't have a problem with my dad's opinion that capitalism is great, even with my disagreement.

I have a problem with the fact that my dad votes for people who do not do those things, and then gets upset when people point that out to him.

He told me that "I think people just need to have more patience with each other and accept our differences" as a moral to a story he told about being a manager to trans and non-binary folks. IMO it's 100% the right take, and he holds no negative feelings for any trans people or nonbinary people.

Then he votes for the anti-trans candidate.

How do you square that circle?

The reality is that I know my dad's voting history (we have talked about politics) and my dad is not an idealist or a pragmatist or conservative or liberal.

My dad is a populist.

Doesn't a lot of it come down to having to choose between only two parties?

It's unlikely that most people will agree with all the positions of a party, so they choose the one who most closely aligns with their highest priority issues.

Perhaps trans policy is just a lower priority issue for your dad. His voting may be illogical based on your priorities, but may be the rational choice based on his ranking of issues.

> Then he votes for the anti-trans candidate.

> How do you square that circle?

I don't know your dad, maybe he doesn't see that candidate as "anti-trans"?

If you think that some group has unfair benefits you can vouch for stripping those benefits without seeing yourself as "anti". Your drive is not hatred but fairness. You can be misguided but that's a different question.

If you think church must pay taxes, it doesn't make you anti-church. If you want to reduce police funding it doesn't make you anti-police. If you want stricter control of guns that doesn't make you anti-guns.

The whole "anti" split is indeed a sing of the tribalism which in US takes a binary form. You're either with us or against us.

> Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level,

That’s weird because you can live life of total ignorance of what’s happening in the news. Lobbying and marketing make you think things are important that aren’t.

> That’s weird because you can live life of total ignorance of what’s happening in the news.

Being unaware of politics, just like being unaware of biology or physics, doesn't reduce or disprove the degree to which it impacts your life, it just recuces your understanding.

Of course, but I think people tend to overestimate the amount politics, especially federal politics actually impact their lives.

Spending hours a day worrying and reading about cancer risk and fatalities increases your understanding, but it certainly isn't healthy or proportional.

Only if you believe PR and material published by NGOs is equivalent to political understanding.

It’s a nice thought. But it’s kind of like thinking you will become an athlete by watching ESPN talk shows. Or maybe even hoping to learn about physics by watching the Big Bang theory. You might pick up some new words, but It’s two levels removed from the real thing.

You can drive a car blindfolded, too, in ignorance of the wall you're driving into; that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

A marginal understanding of what's happening in the world around you helps you navigate it better.

I don't think I ever make the only-nuanced-opinion claim, the claim I'm making here is many people don't want to have useful discussions, they just want to proselytize

I actually say there are reasons to persevere and encourage debate if it's not just trying to "win":

"However, one reason to persevere is to find the 1% of people that also want to see the world as it is. Aka, finding your own community of anti-tribalists."

"Few things give me greater joy than a discovery-ridden conversation with smart friends, and this is only enhanced if I learn something I previously believed to be true is actually wrong. Seriously, come prove some core belief I have as wrong and you will quite literally make my week."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com