Hacker News Reader

Comment by epicureanideal | Hacker News Reader

Is there some way the two sides could reliably arrive at a truce on the issue of cancellation?

I don’t think they need to. I think they just need to shake hands and say it’s okay to have a different opinion.

There have been a number of studies around the world, plus some real world examples (Utah gubernatorial 2020) where showing your opponents in a sympathetic light can make a big difference in reductions in political polarization.

It’s especially effective when signaled by the “elite”: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00323217241300...

Edit: I hear plenty of stories of people abandoning family members over a difference of political opinion. My MIL won’t talk to a niece of hers after the niece made the same decision. I won’t go so far as to say that’s never warranted, but it seems these days that it’s happening a lot more.

To me, this implies we’re losing acceptability of political “others”.

It's rough when very basic premises, "political violence, no matter who causes it, is abhorrent," are up for debate. The minority people who support, defend, ignore, or rationalize actions which have no place in this country is a major part of the issue.

Turn on the largest mainstream media "news" channel, and you'll hear nothing but mindless hate for 20 hours a day, without consideration for what actual news is occurring.

> support, defend, ignore, or rationalize actions

So up until this point it was perfectly acceptable? Or is this only an issue when the wrong side does it in a fairly moderate way (since the other side regularly and openly embraces and encourages political violence).

For rational people, it has never been acceptable, it will never be acceptable.

However, some people support and vote for, a president who has told his supporters to perform acts of violence against those whose speech he disagrees with, clearly a portion of the population doesn't mind.

> this implies we’re losing acceptability of political “others”.

I think this is being seriously accelerated by Trump. Why should I treat those I disagree with with dignity and respect when the President (who theoretically is a leader for all Americans, not just the people who voted for him) says things like this?

"And when you look at the agitator, you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that’s the left. That’s not the right."

When Trump and Vance start setting a positive example for others to follow, maybe I'll rethink my position, but leadership and accountability start at the top.

Counterpoint: dehumanizing trans people, black people, other minorities, women, is not acceptable. It's not "a different opinion". When Republican politicians or prominent conservative talking heads talk about replacement theory, other conservatives shoot up synagogues or super markets in a minority neighborhood. I don't want to talk to you if this is what you support, unless what you're saying is you've had a change of heart.

Why would they have a change of heart when the only people interested in that happening refuse to engage?

All you’re doing is ensuring the strength of their beliefs.

Edit: You don’t have to like someone to not actively attack them at every opportunity, even if what they believe is reprehensible to you.

Prisoners' dilemma at scale. I don't think a truce is doable unless reporting someone for having what you believe to be unsavory opinions becomes a major social faux pas

Who do you imagine represents the "sides" in negotiations? Do they have names and group bodies which they represent? Are they able to sign and enforce diplomatic agreements?

I think the problem is it’s not the moderate 80% of each party that’s doing it, so all of the people who might be inclined to a truce are already at the table waiting.

Couldn't agree more with this. The majority of Americans think that the "leftest and rightest" people they know are absolute wackos.

The left 'cancelling' a product or a public figure is literally just exercising consumer choice. People get fired because they are bleeding ad dollars over lack of views. I'm not sure how you can prevent that without being even more authoritarian.

Someone was just murdered for his opinions so no, that doesn’t seem likely. I think that’s one cancelation too far, and I don’t think there’s going to be any meaningful coming back from it.

Why is this the turning point and not, say, the attempts (and successful assassination of one) on Minnesota lawmakers a few months ago?

Just a guess, but in that case, very few people really knew who those lawmakers were, and there wasn't camera footage of the murder in that case to be spread virally on social media.

A lot of the media coverage this week begins with an introduction to Mr. Kirk. Do you think he was a household name?

What truce? Sometimes cancelation is good, sometimes it's not. It depends on the why. Also Republican principles these days are just to blindly follow whatever Trump wants including complaining about cancelation and renaming bases to confederate generals and blackmailing companies into firing people

Reply on news.ycombinator.com