3 ms·
The most worrisome in all the notes for me is this sentence: Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their
by lsh123 10y ago
The most worrisome in all the notes for me is this sentence:
Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”.
People are afraid to talk about their views openly. I think this is really bad. Even here in the HN comments I saw a few people saying basically that "it is not worth discussing anything with someone who don't agree with me". This is really really really bad. If there is one thing I wish will change for the next election is that both sides would listen more to the other side (even if they strongly disagree).
- sangnoir 10y ago> People are afraid to talk about their views openly. I think this is really bad. It is very bad, because US institutions (estates, branches of government) are built on the assumption of a level of respect for the opposition - this goes out the window when they are seen as an enemy. Sadly the political polarization in the US has been ongoing for decades now. This is not something that can be "turned off" in one election cycle by "listening" because this did not happen by accident, additionally, incendiary rhetoric can't be disallowed due to the first amendment. I suspect there is a political corollary to Greshams law ("bad rhetoric drives out good rhetoric"?). The right sees the label "liberal" as a slur and a justification to oppose in itself; the left sees the right as idiots who vote against their self-interest. Polarization is the finer-grained human equivalent of gerrymandering - it provides reliably consistent votes by shifting away from the middle. The media certainly isn't helping.