11 ms·

I think that when people "KNOW" that they are "RIGHT", it sometimes brings moral superiority into people. That, in addition to norms of socially acceptable beha

by shklnrj 10y ago

I think that when people "KNOW" that they are "RIGHT", it sometimes brings moral superiority into people. That, in addition to norms of socially acceptable behaviour, pushes people into a corner. For example - If someone goes to Bill Maher's show, anyone clapping on a conservative view point is seen as a criminal, while people with liberal point of view clap "together" as a group, with the smug arrogance of knowing that they are superior. If a debate takes in such an environment, the conservative people has no option but to hide his view point. Liberal ideology should not be used as a fashion statement. Unfortunately it seems to be used that way today. What do you guys think?

mjevans 10y ago
I think the same is true for all of the political parties in the US. Everyone likes to feel that they are correct and refuses to consider that not only their viewpoint, but the calibration of society as a whole, might be (and I believe is, in the case of the US) out of balance and that thus perceptions are even further off than a gut feeling would conclude.
- toss1941 10y ago
  There is a very strong perception that if you are a conservative and you speak out either against left-wing views, someone will try to destroy your career and rob you of your livelihood. Take a look at a recent example of a teacher who made comments on Facebook about the #DayWithoutImmigrants[0]. Those parents who supported amnesty ascribed racism to what was an otherwise completely non-racist comment, and enough of them complained to force the school to act against him. You simply can't ask for the rule of law in America anymore without putting your career at serious jeopardy. [0]http://eagnews.org/teacher-reassigned-after-praising-trump-action-on-immigration/ http://eagnews.org/teacher-reassigned-after-praising-trump-a...
  - dmode 10y ago
    May be that's because left wing areas are indeed safe space to express views. I dare not put a pro-choice bumper sticker in a deep red state.
  - ideonexus 10y ago
    Here's a counterpoint, the website "Professor Watchlist" where Conservatives can report their professors for being liberal: http://professorwatchlist.org/ http://professorwatchlist.org/ What is the point of such a website except to try and ruin people's careers and invite harassment of them? What about all the 4chan and reddit threads dedicated to finding and harassing outspoken liberals?
  - mjevans 10y ago
    That same fear exists whenever /anything/ contrary to the local community's predominant viewpoint is raised. You may think your community is different; you are very likely wrong about the way others perceive it.
dwringer 10y ago
I think that's an inaccurate assessment. If someone at such a show holds a minority viewpoint and doesn't want to be the only person clapping, that is up to them. I have never seen a contemporary domestic example of the attitude you describe, of someone like that being "seen as a criminal", except at Donald Trump rallies.
- shklnrj 10y ago
  Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fault - He supported a guy publicly! Even he was seen as criminal. Forget about the average Joe. That's why people wanted confidentiality agreements!
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? Why shouldn't I be able to call for shklnrj to be fired, so long as I do it through the usual public channels (e.g. are not harassing you or your workplace, etc)? Hopefully, your boss would dismiss me as a nutter. But hey, that's free speech in action.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      I think you're confusing what should be legally allowed with what is moral.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        I'm not saying calling for Thiel's ouster is right. But saying it shouldn't be allowed? Screw that, I like my first amendment.
        edanm 10y ago
        And I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be allowed, legally. We're saying, it's bad for society that this has become normal. E.g. If you lived in a society that found adultery almost totally acceptible, You could think adultery is wrong, you could not like that society considers it acceptible, but you could still be against making it illegal.
tn13 10y ago
Liberals in USA has reached the level of maniacal stupidity. I love politics and participate in events across the political spectrum. But despite my genuine efforts I find the typical left to be completely unfathomable.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jat850 10y ago
  I get the feeling like the idea behind Sam's experiment was to eliminate the notion of "unfathomable". Listen and discuss, acknowledge the views and beliefs of others where possible as valid, through empathy and open-mindedness. Sure, there are some viewpoints which can be written off as too far off the deep end, but "liberals" are humans with thoughts and opinions, and so are all those who voted for Trump and/or continue to support him. The answers in Sam's interviews make this quite clear. Start trying to fathom instead of just saying you can't?
- alexose 10y ago
  Out of curiosity, who do you refer to when you say "liberals"? I think of myself as liberal, and I bet we could find plenty of common ground.
- crikli 10y ago
  It's important to not confuse liberals with leftists. My liberal friends have remained (for the most part) fairly objective and open to dialogue. My friends who identify as leftists...not so much.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    I agree entirely. The Left co-opted the term "liberal" to the detriment of true liberal thinkers in America. Liberals, even if you don't agree with them, are generally interesting people to talk to and (from my experience) often easy to get along with. They, by definition, are willing to entertain alternative ideas and debate them. Leftists, while not all cut from the same cloth, are not a subset of liberals. The BLM and AntiFa movements are clearly illiberal.
Exofunctor 10y ago
I did not vote for Trump, but I couldn't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at the reaction of my mostly very liberal friend group to his win. For months and months, they'd been unfairly denigrating Trump supporters while simultaneously insisting that he was a joke, there was no way he would beat Clinton, etc. and somehow convincing themselves that their political ideology was synonymous with science, truth, and reason. It was very much a form of social posturing rather than careful consideration for many of them. Of course, instead of toning it back after the election, many have doubled down. I'm curious how that will play out for the next election.
- atomi 10y ago
  Liberalism is deterministic in so far as it's required for a civil society. Disagree all you want, but liberal concessions are the result of mass civil rights movements.
- glenda 10y ago
  Both sides are guilty of this and always have been. If you think name calling and teasing are counterproductive then you must realize that race/gender/sexuality based slurs are all part of that as well. Not only are they counterproductive but they are not things based on choice. It was a choice for people to vote for a specific person for president, that is not true with the issue of skin tone or sexuality.
  - mLuby 10y ago
    Though people don't choose their political beliefs as freely as you'd expect; upbringing, profession, region, and even genetics play a role.
    - glenda 10y ago
      At least not initially - and you're right that many will never reconsider the world view passed down to them or some may reconsider and decide it's the best because it's comfortable etc... But ideology is still much easier to change than sexual orientation or race regardless of who you ask. It makes complete sense to me that a group of people can't openly dismiss another and demand their respect at the same time. This is the "golden rule" and is widely regarded as a valid way to approach life by people with all sorts of political beliefs. If someone teaches you something wrong and harmful about another group of people then that is definitely a point of view that needs to be corrected for society to work.
fny 10y ago
To his credit, Bill Maher is incredibly good at creating a safe space for everyone to express their views at least, and frequently seeks out figureheads who disagree with him, much like Bill O'Reilly does. Also, Bill Maher constantly berates liberals for being easily triggered and calling for the suppression of free speech through "chilling effects" of PC culture. Liberals seem to have forgotten the ACLU has defended the KKK, the Confederate flag, and Rush Limbaugh. [0] [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.758edf73ab15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...
- dosgonlogs 10y ago
  Bill Maher is just awful. Horrible interviewer, horrible at pacing things, horrible at listening, don't give a crap what his views are.
sdegutis 10y ago
On the other hand, there's some dangerous censorship happening in the public school system and in the business world and in government, and I think a lot of Trump supporters recognize this and are worried about it.
- splawn 10y ago
  censorship regarding what?
  - sdegutis 10y ago
    You can't say Merry Christmas. You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder. You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she". Do any of these in school, business, or government and you'll be punished.
    - splawn 10y ago
      These are mainly just social norms. I guess I never considered that as "censorship". "You can't say Merry Christmas." First off... yes you can. However, Why would you assume a large group of people in a public setting outside of a Christian context would all want to be wished a Merry Christmas...seems unlikely to me. "You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder." Again.. you can say that, However you would be factually incorrect. Mental disorders are "disorders" because of the negative impacts caused in the sufferer's life.. What has been shown to be the negative impacts of homosexuality? "You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she"." You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored".
      - fireflash38 10y ago
        " You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored"." Basically, imagine having Dr. Cox calling you Shirley every single day, even though you hate being called girl's names. A lot of it boils down to 'Don't be a dick'.
phkahler 10y ago
>> Liberal ideology should not be used as a fashion statement. Unfortunately it seems to be used that way today. What do you guys think? I've often wondered how many people voted for Obama just to prove to the world that they are not racist. Or in other words to show their moral superiority. I think the same dynamic was in play with Hillary - all she talked about is how "we'll make history" meaning "let's show them how forward thinking the nation has become that we can elect a woman president". IMHO backlash against that crap is exactly why Trump won, and I've had several people confirm that.
- spinlock 10y ago
  I'm one of the few people I know who is an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary. I like her because of her track record on children's issues, 9-11 and the Iran deal (among others). I'm also conservative so I like that the last time she lived at 1400 Pensilvania Ave the government was running a surplus.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> I'm also conservative so I like that the last time she lived at 1400 Pensilvania Ave the government was running a surplus. I was scared when Bill Clinton won, but he is now one of my favorite ex-presidents precisely because he didn't make things worse. And yes, the budget was briefly balanced. Too bad that's not actually a core principle of the democratic party - see what happened under Obama, and see how little one of their biggest fiscal mouth pieces (Paul Krugman) cares about debt or deficits. But yes, the late 90's were a good time in the US. I don't credit Hillary with that though.
    - naravara 10y ago
      >Too bad that's not actually a core principle of the democratic party - see what happened under Obama, See what? That he reduced the deficit during his tenure? >and see how little one of their biggest fiscal mouth pieces (Paul Krugman) cares about debt or deficits. Obama took office during an economic depression. This is how macroeconomics works. You spend to goose demand when the economy is down and you tax for the down times when the economy is up. The largest depression since the Great one isn't the time to be worrying about anything but getting us out of it.
clamprecht 10y ago
Paul Graham's "Keep Your Identity Small" (2009) article is relevant here: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html http://paulgraham.com/identity.html
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I think everyone on this thread still arguing about what's right or wrong should really read this essay. I especially found this part interesting: > The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2] Last couple of years I see people come up with all kinds of buzzwords--VR, AR, Bots, "Voice is the future", Drones, AI, etc.--and turn it into their identity. "I'm working on bots", "I'm working on deep learning", etc. I doubt any successful company will come out of these people because these mere concepts have already become their identity and they are unable to accept ideas adjacent to what they're trying to build.
- oligopoly 10y ago
  Unfortunate that Paul Graham didn't follow his own advice. Seeing him attack Trump supporters with all the negative labels Trump has been falsely portrayed by the media and comparing Trump to Hitler in twitter really makes you pause.
scrollaway 10y ago
> What do you guys think? I think this is nothing new. US mentality has been going very sharply that way for years; two sides of a coin becoming more and more extreme and caring more about hating the other side than about what's good for the country. People bending over and accepting absurd things from their presidents, or politicians in general, just because they're "on my team". Roll back a few years. How is it okay that the US ever allowed attack ads between politicians? Presidential election campaigns spanning over a year? "Reelection" campaigns starting a year or two into office? How is it okay that your politicians can sweep atrocious bills under the rug by giving them fancy names like PATRIOT? In fact, how is patriotism so often used as an excuse - why is it even working? The US turned politics into a team game. Us vs. them. American politicians have been using the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric for decades; it then only makes sense that opposition becomes "the enemy". So yes, I completely agree, it's shameful that people on both sides feel superior to the other. It's shameful that people are unable to recognize they flaw because, god forbid, should they start to think that "their team" has flaws then they'll end up in the other team, and the other team is even worse, yknow? I could write more about this but I feel like it'll fall either on deaf ears, or on ears that already know this. The election has been a constant feeling of helplessness against a wave of knee-jerk reactions from a majority of people unwilling to hear the other side out. And this happens on both sides. How do you even begin to fix this, when the attitude is "yeah, but the other guys are doing it too"?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CM30 10y ago
  Don't think this is a US specific problem unfortunately. Attack ads? Seem to be growing in popularity over here in the UK. Atrocious bills are being swept under the rug here too. And if the Brexit situation taught us anything, it's that the political scene here is very much an 'us vs them' situation too. Either way, I suspect these trends are (sadly) becoming more and more normalised across almost all societies and countries now. The US might seem more extreme here, but the general pattern does seem to be getting more common elsewhere too.
794CD01 10y ago
In modern democratic society, this war of ideas is what we've chosen to use instead of wars of violence to control the transition of power in government. It's pretty reasonable that it will evolve over time as traditional war did. That's the entire idea behind Alex Jones' site, and he's been very influential on Trump and his campaign. I see clear information-war analogues to doctrines like guerrilla tactics, total war, etc.
pnutjam 10y ago
I've never lived in a left leaning area, but conservative, "gun-loving", etc has been a fashion statement for at least a decade.
dguaraglia 10y ago
I think that it goes both ways: take Fox and Friends instead of Maher, and you get exactly the same kind of reaction. I'm not sure why you are singling out "liberal ideology" here, when my favorite new joke is a rehash of an old one: "how can you tell if a person is a Trump supporter? Don't worry, they'll tell you!".
- shklnrj 10y ago
  Haha I am amused at your assumption. I am not going to clarify the air too much, except saying that what you seem to be assuming is wrong :)
  - dguaraglia 10y ago
    What assumption? If you think I'm assuming you are a Trump supporter, please state where I said that?
DanBC 10y ago
> What do you guys think? I think that you're operating under a pretty severe cognitive bias.
- shklnrj 10y ago
  Well, I might be. Everyone has some level of cognitive bias.

by shklnrj 10y ago

mjevans 10y ago

I think the same is true for all of the political parties in the US. Everyone likes to feel that they are correct and refuses to consider that not only their viewpoint, but the calibration of society as a whole, might be (and I believe is, in the case of the US) out of balance and that thus perceptions are even further off than a gut feeling would conclude.

toss1941 10y ago
There is a very strong perception that if you are a conservative and you speak out either against left-wing views, someone will try to destroy your career and rob you of your livelihood. Take a look at a recent example of a teacher who made comments on Facebook about the #DayWithoutImmigrants[0]. Those parents who supported amnesty ascribed racism to what was an otherwise completely non-racist comment, and enough of them complained to force the school to act against him. You simply can't ask for the rule of law in America anymore without putting your career at serious jeopardy. [0]http://eagnews.org/teacher-reassigned-after-praising-trump-action-on-immigration/ http://eagnews.org/teacher-reassigned-after-praising-trump-a...
- dmode 10y ago
  May be that's because left wing areas are indeed safe space to express views. I dare not put a pro-choice bumper sticker in a deep red state.
- ideonexus 10y ago
  Here's a counterpoint, the website "Professor Watchlist" where Conservatives can report their professors for being liberal: http://professorwatchlist.org/ http://professorwatchlist.org/ What is the point of such a website except to try and ruin people's careers and invite harassment of them? What about all the 4chan and reddit threads dedicated to finding and harassing outspoken liberals?
- mjevans 10y ago
  That same fear exists whenever /anything/ contrary to the local community's predominant viewpoint is raised. You may think your community is different; you are very likely wrong about the way others perceive it.

dwringer 10y ago

I think that's an inaccurate assessment. If someone at such a show holds a minority viewpoint and doesn't want to be the only person clapping, that is up to them. I have never seen a contemporary domestic example of the attitude you describe, of someone like that being "seen as a criminal", except at Donald Trump rallies.

shklnrj 10y ago
Well there were widespread calls by people to push even Peter Thiel out of silicon valley positions which he holds just because he supported a candidate. His fault - He supported a guy publicly! Even he was seen as criminal. Forget about the average Joe. That's why people wanted confidentiality agreements!
- Frondo 10y ago
  Don't those widespread calls fall under the callers' freedom of speech? Why shouldn't they be able to call for Thiel's ouster? Why shouldn't I be able to call for shklnrj to be fired, so long as I do it through the usual public channels (e.g. are not harassing you or your workplace, etc)? Hopefully, your boss would dismiss me as a nutter. But hey, that's free speech in action.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    I think you're confusing what should be legally allowed with what is moral.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      I'm not saying calling for Thiel's ouster is right. But saying it shouldn't be allowed? Screw that, I like my first amendment.
      - edanm 10y ago
        And I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be allowed, legally. We're saying, it's bad for society that this has become normal. E.g. If you lived in a society that found adultery almost totally acceptible, You could think adultery is wrong, you could not like that society considers it acceptible, but you could still be against making it illegal.

tn13 10y ago

Liberals in USA has reached the level of maniacal stupidity. I love politics and participate in events across the political spectrum. But despite my genuine efforts I find the typical left to be completely unfathomable.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jat850 10y ago
I get the feeling like the idea behind Sam's experiment was to eliminate the notion of "unfathomable". Listen and discuss, acknowledge the views and beliefs of others where possible as valid, through empathy and open-mindedness. Sure, there are some viewpoints which can be written off as too far off the deep end, but "liberals" are humans with thoughts and opinions, and so are all those who voted for Trump and/or continue to support him. The answers in Sam's interviews make this quite clear. Start trying to fathom instead of just saying you can't?
alexose 10y ago
Out of curiosity, who do you refer to when you say "liberals"? I think of myself as liberal, and I bet we could find plenty of common ground.
crikli 10y ago
It's important to not confuse liberals with leftists. My liberal friends have remained (for the most part) fairly objective and open to dialogue. My friends who identify as leftists...not so much.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  I agree entirely. The Left co-opted the term "liberal" to the detriment of true liberal thinkers in America. Liberals, even if you don't agree with them, are generally interesting people to talk to and (from my experience) often easy to get along with. They, by definition, are willing to entertain alternative ideas and debate them. Leftists, while not all cut from the same cloth, are not a subset of liberals. The BLM and AntiFa movements are clearly illiberal.

Exofunctor 10y ago

I did not vote for Trump, but I couldn't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at the reaction of my mostly very liberal friend group to his win. For months and months, they'd been unfairly denigrating Trump supporters while simultaneously insisting that he was a joke, there was no way he would beat Clinton, etc. and somehow convincing themselves that their political ideology was synonymous with science, truth, and reason. It was very much a form of social posturing rather than careful consideration for many of them. Of course, instead of toning it back after the election, many have doubled down. I'm curious how that will play out for the next election.

atomi 10y ago
Liberalism is deterministic in so far as it's required for a civil society. Disagree all you want, but liberal concessions are the result of mass civil rights movements.
glenda 10y ago
Both sides are guilty of this and always have been. If you think name calling and teasing are counterproductive then you must realize that race/gender/sexuality based slurs are all part of that as well. Not only are they counterproductive but they are not things based on choice. It was a choice for people to vote for a specific person for president, that is not true with the issue of skin tone or sexuality.
- mLuby 10y ago
  Though people don't choose their political beliefs as freely as you'd expect; upbringing, profession, region, and even genetics play a role.
  - glenda 10y ago
    At least not initially - and you're right that many will never reconsider the world view passed down to them or some may reconsider and decide it's the best because it's comfortable etc... But ideology is still much easier to change than sexual orientation or race regardless of who you ask. It makes complete sense to me that a group of people can't openly dismiss another and demand their respect at the same time. This is the "golden rule" and is widely regarded as a valid way to approach life by people with all sorts of political beliefs. If someone teaches you something wrong and harmful about another group of people then that is definitely a point of view that needs to be corrected for society to work.

fny 10y ago

To his credit, Bill Maher is incredibly good at creating a safe space for everyone to express their views at least, and frequently seeks out figureheads who disagree with him, much like Bill O'Reilly does. Also, Bill Maher constantly berates liberals for being easily triggered and calling for the suppression of free speech through "chilling effects" of PC culture. Liberals seem to have forgotten the ACLU has defended the KKK, the Confederate flag, and Rush Limbaugh. [0] [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/?utm_term=.758edf73ab15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...

dosgonlogs 10y ago
Bill Maher is just awful. Horrible interviewer, horrible at pacing things, horrible at listening, don't give a crap what his views are.

sdegutis 10y ago

On the other hand, there's some dangerous censorship happening in the public school system and in the business world and in government, and I think a lot of Trump supporters recognize this and are worried about it.

splawn 10y ago
censorship regarding what?
- sdegutis 10y ago
  You can't say Merry Christmas. You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder. You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she". Do any of these in school, business, or government and you'll be punished.
  - splawn 10y ago
    These are mainly just social norms. I guess I never considered that as "censorship". "You can't say Merry Christmas." First off... yes you can. However, Why would you assume a large group of people in a public setting outside of a Christian context would all want to be wished a Merry Christmas...seems unlikely to me. "You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder." Again.. you can say that, However you would be factually incorrect. Mental disorders are "disorders" because of the negative impacts caused in the sufferer's life.. What has been shown to be the negative impacts of homosexuality? "You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she"." You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored".
    - fireflash38 10y ago
      " You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored"." Basically, imagine having Dr. Cox calling you Shirley every single day, even though you hate being called girl's names. A lot of it boils down to 'Don't be a dick'.

phkahler 10y ago

>> Liberal ideology should not be used as a fashion statement. Unfortunately it seems to be used that way today. What do you guys think? I've often wondered how many people voted for Obama just to prove to the world that they are not racist. Or in other words to show their moral superiority. I think the same dynamic was in play with Hillary - all she talked about is how "we'll make history" meaning "let's show them how forward thinking the nation has become that we can elect a woman president". IMHO backlash against that crap is exactly why Trump won, and I've had several people confirm that.

spinlock 10y ago
I'm one of the few people I know who is an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary. I like her because of her track record on children's issues, 9-11 and the Iran deal (among others). I'm also conservative so I like that the last time she lived at 1400 Pensilvania Ave the government was running a surplus.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> I'm also conservative so I like that the last time she lived at 1400 Pensilvania Ave the government was running a surplus. I was scared when Bill Clinton won, but he is now one of my favorite ex-presidents precisely because he didn't make things worse. And yes, the budget was briefly balanced. Too bad that's not actually a core principle of the democratic party - see what happened under Obama, and see how little one of their biggest fiscal mouth pieces (Paul Krugman) cares about debt or deficits. But yes, the late 90's were a good time in the US. I don't credit Hillary with that though.
  - naravara 10y ago
    >Too bad that's not actually a core principle of the democratic party - see what happened under Obama, See what? That he reduced the deficit during his tenure? >and see how little one of their biggest fiscal mouth pieces (Paul Krugman) cares about debt or deficits. Obama took office during an economic depression. This is how macroeconomics works. You spend to goose demand when the economy is down and you tax for the down times when the economy is up. The largest depression since the Great one isn't the time to be worrying about anything but getting us out of it.

clamprecht 10y ago

Paul Graham's "Keep Your Identity Small" (2009) article is relevant here: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html http://paulgraham.com/identity.html

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I think everyone on this thread still arguing about what's right or wrong should really read this essay. I especially found this part interesting: > The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2] Last couple of years I see people come up with all kinds of buzzwords--VR, AR, Bots, "Voice is the future", Drones, AI, etc.--and turn it into their identity. "I'm working on bots", "I'm working on deep learning", etc. I doubt any successful company will come out of these people because these mere concepts have already become their identity and they are unable to accept ideas adjacent to what they're trying to build.
oligopoly 10y ago
Unfortunate that Paul Graham didn't follow his own advice. Seeing him attack Trump supporters with all the negative labels Trump has been falsely portrayed by the media and comparing Trump to Hitler in twitter really makes you pause.

scrollaway 10y ago

> What do you guys think? I think this is nothing new. US mentality has been going very sharply that way for years; two sides of a coin becoming more and more extreme and caring more about hating the other side than about what's good for the country. People bending over and accepting absurd things from their presidents, or politicians in general, just because they're "on my team". Roll back a few years. How is it okay that the US ever allowed attack ads between politicians? Presidential election campaigns spanning over a year? "Reelection" campaigns starting a year or two into office? How is it okay that your politicians can sweep atrocious bills under the rug by giving them fancy names like PATRIOT? In fact, how is patriotism so often used as an excuse - why is it even working? The US turned politics into a team game. Us vs. them. American politicians have been using the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric for decades; it then only makes sense that opposition becomes "the enemy". So yes, I completely agree, it's shameful that people on both sides feel superior to the other. It's shameful that people are unable to recognize they flaw because, god forbid, should they start to think that "their team" has flaws then they'll end up in the other team, and the other team is even worse, yknow? I could write more about this but I feel like it'll fall either on deaf ears, or on ears that already know this. The election has been a constant feeling of helplessness against a wave of knee-jerk reactions from a majority of people unwilling to hear the other side out. And this happens on both sides. How do you even begin to fix this, when the attitude is "yeah, but the other guys are doing it too"?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CM30 10y ago
Don't think this is a US specific problem unfortunately. Attack ads? Seem to be growing in popularity over here in the UK. Atrocious bills are being swept under the rug here too. And if the Brexit situation taught us anything, it's that the political scene here is very much an 'us vs them' situation too. Either way, I suspect these trends are (sadly) becoming more and more normalised across almost all societies and countries now. The US might seem more extreme here, but the general pattern does seem to be getting more common elsewhere too.

794CD01 10y ago

In modern democratic society, this war of ideas is what we've chosen to use instead of wars of violence to control the transition of power in government. It's pretty reasonable that it will evolve over time as traditional war did. That's the entire idea behind Alex Jones' site, and he's been very influential on Trump and his campaign. I see clear information-war analogues to doctrines like guerrilla tactics, total war, etc.

pnutjam 10y ago

I've never lived in a left leaning area, but conservative, "gun-loving", etc has been a fashion statement for at least a decade.

dguaraglia 10y ago

I think that it goes both ways: take Fox and Friends instead of Maher, and you get exactly the same kind of reaction. I'm not sure why you are singling out "liberal ideology" here, when my favorite new joke is a rehash of an old one: "how can you tell if a person is a Trump supporter? Don't worry, they'll tell you!".

shklnrj 10y ago
Haha I am amused at your assumption. I am not going to clarify the air too much, except saying that what you seem to be assuming is wrong :)
- dguaraglia 10y ago
  What assumption? If you think I'm assuming you are a Trump supporter, please state where I said that?

DanBC 10y ago

> What do you guys think? I think that you're operating under a pretty severe cognitive bias.

shklnrj 10y ago
Well, I might be. Everyone has some level of cognitive bias.