4 ms·

Why do such discussions on HN always end in some crude left vs. right fights? Later addition because most answers say that this is normal for politics: Usuall

Why do such discussions on HN always end in some crude left vs. right fights? Later addition because most answers say that this is normal for politics: Usually on HN for other topics such a primitive black and white thinking is in the minority and will be laughed about or just ignored. Why not if it comes to politics?

mikece 7y ago
Funny, I was just wondering how many "one percenters" there are on Hacker News -- it's certainly a place where a lot of aspiring one percenters hang out (I know: startup founders are likely more motivated by building something cool and useful but if it's a hit they'll be in the 1% and I'm rooting for more of y'all to make it!).
- akavi 7y ago
  On an age adjusted basis, pretty much every FAANG employee is a 1%-er, so I imagine quite a few.
  - mikece 7y ago
    Notwithstanding your point, I was referring to aspiring startup founders; some who have hit it big probably used to visit HN, maybe still do.
  - badfrog 7y ago
    What does age adjusted mean? And I think only ~15% of FANG SWEs are at sufficient level to be in the top 1% of income.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      For example, a 24 year old making $135,000 is in the top 1% of income among 24 year olds. I'm sure plenty of tech employees fit that bill. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Discussions in most places end with crude right and left fights. That is the politicization of everything, the hyper partisan thinking that dominates our psyches.
- tobltobs 7y ago
  > Discussions in most places But usually on HN with other topics such a primitive black and white thinking is in the minority and will be laughed about or just ignored. Why not if it comes to politics?
  - fernandotakai 7y ago
    if i had to guess (and it's a huge guess), it's because HN is mostly americans, and american politics are like sports -- if you like one side, you don't like the other. which translates to this kind of black and white rhetoric. it also doesn't help that since the 2016 elections, everything became even more polarized. nowadays, if you vote D and say you like some R policy, people will churn you (and this is valid the other way around too).
    - dang 7y ago
      I haven't noticed any difference between American HN users and others in these respects. Also, HN's community is about 50% in the US, so perhaps not mostly Americans.
      - fernandotakai 7y ago
        as i said, it was a huge guess -- i was basically thinking about all my other interactions with social media in general where i see exactly that. but i do think that politics in general turn HN into something that it's usually the opposite (i.e. a lot of generalizations and name-calling).
        dang 7y ago
        That's true. But I try not to fret about properties of HN that are true of humans in general; not that that's easy.
zimbatm 7y ago
The same is happening a lot in the media as well. The first step is to project the complex problem into 2D space. Then retrofit the arguments so that they fit the narrative. I suspect that somebody who consumes a lot of that type of media will have their reasoning process being influenced. The engineering approach would try and decompose the problem without judgement. Then explore the tree of possibilities, apply weights on all the possible outcomes and then take the best possible route, knowing full well that an ideal doesn't exist. I am sure it's possible to apply many more lenses to a problem, each of then bringing more richness and understanding to the world.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >The engineering approach would try and decompose the problem without judgement. The whole point of the existence of poilitical economy and sociology is th at this kind of decomposition is very hard, if not impossible - without judgement implies that those who practice this kind of thinking, or engineering, are able to adopt a view from nowhere, but the fact is that these people belong to groups in society, they are personally affected by the outcome, and absolutely already have pre-existing interests. Furthermore, you automatically figure this as a kind of balancing game with weights, but this implies that the weighting can be done (how do you weigh two qualitative choices?) and further the utilitarian view that all that matters is the maximum weight. Both of these problems are why there is intense debate in moral theory regarding instrumental reason and consequentialism.
  - zimbatm 7y ago
    Weighting is certainly a difficult exercise. Even for engineers where the problems are more concrete, it often relies on building some sort of shared vision that is used to infer a future prediction. In fact most of the disagreements I see is when two engineers have a different view of the future. For sure, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are necessary to build a proper model. Anyways, my point was that by looking at every argument by first placing it on a left vs right scale removes the interesting nuances that could be discussed. I don't know that the engineering approach is necessarily the best tool to solve social inequalities as this is not my topic at all.
izacus 7y ago
Probably because these two poles have completely opposite outlook on income inequality and wealth distribution?
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Opposite to what? There are many possible outlooks on income inequality and wealth distribution. They don't fit in a line.
WilliamEdward 7y ago
Because generally speaking, not taking a side on politics is a bad thing. This is a consensus among both the right and left. In essence, they want you to join their side and so all the discussion will be a presentation through the lens of their beliefs. And frankly, you should take a side. (hint: one side is better than the other)
- tobltobs 7y ago
  What about politics as the art of compromises? What you are describing will lead eventually to a civil war. But maybe you forgot the sarcasm tag.

mikece 7y ago

Funny, I was just wondering how many "one percenters" there are on Hacker News -- it's certainly a place where a lot of aspiring one percenters hang out (I know: startup founders are likely more motivated by building something cool and useful but if it's a hit they'll be in the 1% and I'm rooting for more of y'all to make it!).

akavi 7y ago
On an age adjusted basis, pretty much every FAANG employee is a 1%-er, so I imagine quite a few.
- mikece 7y ago
  Notwithstanding your point, I was referring to aspiring startup founders; some who have hit it big probably used to visit HN, maybe still do.
- badfrog 7y ago
  What does age adjusted mean? And I think only ~15% of FANG SWEs are at sufficient level to be in the top 1% of income.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    For example, a 24 year old making $135,000 is in the top 1% of income among 24 year olds. I'm sure plenty of tech employees fit that bill. https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-age-calculator/

Dumblydorr 7y ago

Discussions in most places end with crude right and left fights. That is the politicization of everything, the hyper partisan thinking that dominates our psyches.

tobltobs 7y ago
> Discussions in most places But usually on HN with other topics such a primitive black and white thinking is in the minority and will be laughed about or just ignored. Why not if it comes to politics?
- fernandotakai 7y ago
  if i had to guess (and it's a huge guess), it's because HN is mostly americans, and american politics are like sports -- if you like one side, you don't like the other. which translates to this kind of black and white rhetoric. it also doesn't help that since the 2016 elections, everything became even more polarized. nowadays, if you vote D and say you like some R policy, people will churn you (and this is valid the other way around too).
  - dang 7y ago
    I haven't noticed any difference between American HN users and others in these respects. Also, HN's community is about 50% in the US, so perhaps not mostly Americans.
    - fernandotakai 7y ago
      as i said, it was a huge guess -- i was basically thinking about all my other interactions with social media in general where i see exactly that. but i do think that politics in general turn HN into something that it's usually the opposite (i.e. a lot of generalizations and name-calling).
      - dang 7y ago
        That's true. But I try not to fret about properties of HN that are true of humans in general; not that that's easy.

zimbatm 7y ago

The same is happening a lot in the media as well. The first step is to project the complex problem into 2D space. Then retrofit the arguments so that they fit the narrative. I suspect that somebody who consumes a lot of that type of media will have their reasoning process being influenced. The engineering approach would try and decompose the problem without judgement. Then explore the tree of possibilities, apply weights on all the possible outcomes and then take the best possible route, knowing full well that an ideal doesn't exist. I am sure it's possible to apply many more lenses to a problem, each of then bringing more richness and understanding to the world.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>The engineering approach would try and decompose the problem without judgement. The whole point of the existence of poilitical economy and sociology is th at this kind of decomposition is very hard, if not impossible - without judgement implies that those who practice this kind of thinking, or engineering, are able to adopt a view from nowhere, but the fact is that these people belong to groups in society, they are personally affected by the outcome, and absolutely already have pre-existing interests. Furthermore, you automatically figure this as a kind of balancing game with weights, but this implies that the weighting can be done (how do you weigh two qualitative choices?) and further the utilitarian view that all that matters is the maximum weight. Both of these problems are why there is intense debate in moral theory regarding instrumental reason and consequentialism.
- zimbatm 7y ago
  Weighting is certainly a difficult exercise. Even for engineers where the problems are more concrete, it often relies on building some sort of shared vision that is used to infer a future prediction. In fact most of the disagreements I see is when two engineers have a different view of the future. For sure, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are necessary to build a proper model. Anyways, my point was that by looking at every argument by first placing it on a left vs right scale removes the interesting nuances that could be discussed. I don't know that the engineering approach is necessarily the best tool to solve social inequalities as this is not my topic at all.

izacus 7y ago

Probably because these two poles have completely opposite outlook on income inequality and wealth distribution?

marcosdumay 7y ago
Opposite to what? There are many possible outlooks on income inequality and wealth distribution. They don't fit in a line.

WilliamEdward 7y ago

Because generally speaking, not taking a side on politics is a bad thing. This is a consensus among both the right and left. In essence, they want you to join their side and so all the discussion will be a presentation through the lens of their beliefs. And frankly, you should take a side. (hint: one side is better than the other)

tobltobs 7y ago
What about politics as the art of compromises? What you are describing will lead eventually to a civil war. But maybe you forgot the sarcasm tag.