Hacker News Reader

Comment by palmfacehn | Hacker News Reader

Specifically, it feels like the lack of discernment goes off the rails and falls into the chasm of derangement where people assume that their opponents do not have that common goal. Anti-natalists and population control advocates excluded, most of us do share that goal. The differences are in the proposed approaches.

There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.

View on HN

There is no way to look at what the republicans have been doing and conclude that they are trying to improve everyone’s well being.

That is a good example of a bad faith presupposition. It assumes intent. You may passionately believe this and it may even be a popular view here at HN. However, it isn't a starting point for a dialogue.

Do you have a good faith presupposition that is congruent with what is currently happening?

This is referring to house and senate republicans, not every unsuspecting voter. Not to say there weren't signs and messaging signalling this.

You're stepping into a distinct issue where you specify politicians or the political classes. Thus far I took the discussion to be about individuals engaging in informal political discussions. The poll itself wasn't limited to politicians.

There are well known malign incentives for politicians and the political classes. Generally speaking these involve the expansion of the purview of the state and the time preferences dictated by electoral cycles. These are realist views around the incentives political actors find themselves subjected to. The extent of how much these incentives are perceived to dictate outcomes might correlate with the observer's cynicism. However, presuming that these incentives would only apply to one political party would be naive at best. At worst it would be divisive partisan tilting. The suggestion that it is specific to Republicans and the devolution of this thread is illustrative of the polling data.

You're making the suggestion that the major contributor to the current issues are those incentives, yet the incentives haven't changed much the last couple of decades, and the last year is wholly unprecedented.

How do you square that?

Yes, many partisans are asserting that it is unprecedented. The selective omissions advance their narrative. They are acting in self-interest. The out-party hate is downstream and symptomatic.

A less partisan view might find that it the actions of the political classes are not unprecedented. It is a progression of the form. Both poles represent false alternatives in this regard. The malign incentives are systemic.

Yes. The politically engaged have become extremely polarized and out forth terrible policies that the normal people then have to make binary decisions on. Both Harris and Trump were symptoms of this. Both were kinda nuts. And the fact that normal people had to choose is ... Wild.

It’s crazy to me that the Democrats can run the most do-nothing centrist candidate twice in a row and people like you will still find a reason to complain.

The do-nothing centrist is the problem. “The politics of joy” doesn’t connect with people who haven’t gotten raises to match increasing productivity for 40 years.

Hey, I agree- but the poster up there was talking like Harris was too polarized, too extreme - which was Not my problem with her lol

My dude, the intent is frequently stated plainly on Temu Twitter by the party leader. Do you need hyperlinks? The GOP is loudly unambiguously trying to hurt its adversaries.

For real.

I (embarrassingly) used to believe that it was just people with different ideas of what’s best. But they’re So So open about wanting to hurt people. I came to it reluctantly but it’s really the only explanation

Oh please. Democrats opened the field to Republicans with their anti police rhetoric (and Republicans are now in the process of self destruction by being anti everyone but their preferred democratic). Polls show most people are pro police. I live in a liberal neighborhood of Portland and if you actually talked to Democrat voters, you'd know they actually want police.

Again, get offline. These extreme positions that have taken over both parties are the result of listening to twitter. Seriously that website is toxic. It causes fear and anxiety and governance by fear is terrible. Online democrats / left leaners seem to fear law enforcement. Meanwhile online Republicans / right leaners seem to fear everyone not exactly like them.

What ends up happening is that the political class ends up fielding candidates that are extreme since the online political class has disproportionate influence over that, and then normal people have to choose the best of two awful candidates.

No one can seriously say last election was a competition between America's best.

There is something particular to the twitter style of website that is toxic. I tried twitter for a month or two and my mental health fell apart. Back to reddit and hn and my life feels better. They are also less addicting. The segregation into interest specific communities helps you context switch.

What about the millions of, for example, Muslims, who have a very particular idea of what "prosperity" means? Especially for your female children.

Do fundamentalist Muslims have a realistic chance of imposing those views on your nation? Because, if not, you Fell For It Again.

(Aside, every western Muslim I've personally met has been chill)

Realistic is a very broad term, but do you think they don’t have an effect?

And where you are from matters a lot, you will probably answer very differently if you are from California or if you are from Birmingham UK.

In western Germany, France, UK? Traditionally catholic countries, core of European enlightenment culture. Yes there is small, but realistic chance.

That's why right shovinism is rising in eu

And the fundamentalist Christians who advocate that women should "Keep Sweet"? Ever wondered where fundie baby voice comes from?

I suspect if you look at it a bit longer you'll see that the issue isn't "Muslim", the issue is "fundamentalism".

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

No, the issue is wider. Everyone has something that can be considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it. It just doesn't feel that way when the value is yours.

I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of the word fundamentalism; it's not just about absolutism, but also the authoritarian aspect, i.e. this issue is "back and white" and "i'm going to force you to to adhere to this black and white framework" (for some mechanism of "force"). My point is that it is the combination of "lack and white" and "forced compliance" that is the issue.

So your point "considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it" either a) directly contradicts the "No, the issue is wider", or b) you didn't understand what I was saying.

Every society will force someone to adher to something against their will.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"; your statement is both a) lacking any nuance (any cost vs any benefit), and b) so lacking in nuance (a tautology even) to border on irrelevance and nihilism (a throw away statement that has the intellectual depth of "everything happens for a reason", a true but largely useless comment that, at least on the surface, is used to shut down any debate).

Every country on earth has laws, law enforcement, and criminals.

Every country has sociopaths and narcissists too, but this doesn't really further the conversation about authoritarianism vs democracy, unless of course the legislative has a plurality of such or in thrall to such.

your statements are true and obvious but lack any reasoning as to why it is the way it is; and hence are largely useless. just about anyone can tell you that the sky is blue, what is more important is why.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com