18 ms·

Watching people argue about politics, or even watching people get into politics, reminds me of people arguing about their favourite sports teams. It always come

Watching people argue about politics, or even watching people get into politics, reminds me of people arguing about their favourite sports teams. It always comes down to the other team is bad and immoral or whatever, our team is the best, go chosen sports team, you can do no wrong. Honestly, the way people have been dehumanizing each other over politics kind of scares me. It reminds me of the way propaganda dehumanizes 'the enemy' in war time. It's not a good way to look at other people, especially not over which political party they voted for.

braythwayt 7y ago
> Watching people argue about politics, or even watching people get into politics, reminds me of people arguing about their favourite sports teams. So let me get this right: Arguing about whether children should be locked in cages is like arguing about sports teams? Arguing about whether people of colour are humans or vermin is like arguing about sports teams? Arguing about whether women are entitled to a vote, or to own property, or to equal pay for work of equal value, is like argguing about sports teams? --- I'd say that you are articulating a very distinct political slant, and that slant is that nothing really matters, there is no absolute truth or morality, everything is about tribalism. If you look around more carefully, you'll notice that a great many people argue about politics in a way entirely different than they argue about sports teams. While I agree that there are a lot of people who share this point of view, and really all they care about is their tribe and not the thing they're arguing for or against.. I am not one of those people. And let me tell you, when I disagree with that viewpoint, I am absolutely NOT arguing about it the same way I'd argue whether Eddy Merckx or Marianne Vos is the greatest cyclist of all time.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  No, but misrepresenting your opponent's position to make it seem indefensible is very much like arguing about sports teams.
- tnel77 7y ago
  This is the kind of response I think OP was referring to.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  Your comment reminds me of an HN article that was recently posted: "Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic". More seriously, your comment screams of tribalism. I think that you will find that most people, across all political aisles, are decent humans who genuinely mean no ill-will towards others. I would be surprised if any political comment posted online has ever changed the mind of someone else. What does change the minds of others, though, is face-to-face, compassionate, honest dialogue.
  - blix 7y ago
    I think it's possible to change the minds of others through online posting. It has happened to me and I think I've effected change in others. However, all online posts are not equal. Posts like GP I think are likely to have the opposite effect. Bad faith argument tends to let people dismiss any valid content and reinforce existing views and groups. I find the key is to be respectful and to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from. This unfornately appears to be a less and less common tactic.
  - pell 7y ago
    Did the poster say anything that was _untrue_? Your comment isn't nuanced in the slightest. Tribalism it might be, that does not make the assessment incorrect. Where is the proof for both sides being equal?
    - blix 7y ago
      Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? If so, do you happen to live in one of the deeply repressive states that recieves bipartisan support from the USA due to economic convenience? Perhaps the one that the USA helps with the drone strikes? The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. There are real arguments to be made, real strategies to convince people to see another point of view, but this is not it. This is proving that you are on the team of pure good fighting against the team of pure evil. Neither of those teams exist.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  You just proved the point of op and the article.
  - pell 7y ago
    Did the poster say anything that was incorrect?
- campee 7y ago
  It's like you read the article as an instruction manual.
amelius 7y ago
Reminds me of: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646528/the-legacy-of-an-israeli-palestinian-sesame-street https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646528/the-legacy-of-an-is...
zapita 7y ago
What are examples of political topics you see people arguing about in a dehumanizing way? What kind of comments do you mean by “dehumanizing”? I keep hearing this argument that the tone and style of political arguments are getting more vicious and causing harm to society, but nobody can give me concrete examples of what they mean.
- jejones3141 7y ago
  I'd say those who claim that speech is violence (and therefore merits a violent response) would be a really good example.
  - zapita 7y ago
    That’s pretty vague, can you be more specific? What issue do you have in mind? What is an example of someone claiming that “speech merits a violent response”?
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speec... http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad%209-27-17%20Presentation%20(1).pdf http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... Those are just a few.
      - zapita 7y ago
        All I see is a hodge podge of opinion pieces and the raw results of a survey I know nothing about. One opinion piece says that Antifa is too violent. Another argues that threats of violence can be harmful. I don’t see any example of someone saying that “speech merits a violent response”, which is what I was requesting.
ouid 7y ago
I think people agreeing about politics is universally more toxic than people disagreeing. Discussions in which all the involved parties agree, but are obsessively defending themselves against an imagined foe tend to generate a hell of a lot more moral grandstanding than ones in which actual conflict exists.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  I've found myself on the receiving end of this 'obsessive defense' more than once in the past and had to completely halt a conversation in order to firmly but compassionately ask the person if they thought I was disagreeing with them and then show them how through statements we've both made we were in complete agreement. The tenor of the conversation changed almost instantly. It's forced me to be hyper specific when approaching certain topics, but that hasn't come without it's own uncomfortable externalities of conversation.
- mrtaway90210 7y ago
  I agree with you. I've been a life-long progressive and i'm [secretly] voting for Trump and all GOP candidates this time around? Why? because I saw the hipocracy in my own party. I live in NYC and recently, when push came to shove, progressives needed to find a group to bear the cost of their progressive decisions. Instead of bearing the cost equally (as I would have liked) they pushed the cost onto a minority subgroup (asians). I'm speaking about schooling and how they decided to choose the three schools in a city of 7 million to "de-segregate" (and those three schools happened to be majority asian.)
davidw 7y ago
> It always comes down to the other team is bad and immoral or whatever, our team is the best, go chosen sports team, you can do no wrong. That's a pretty superficial view of things. There are a lot of very real issues that matter in real life to a lot of people. To pick an extremely important one from the past: slavery. One side thought it was ok to enslave other human beings. The other did not.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  Did people take their stances for or against slavery as a result of careful consideration the issue, or did people mostly follow the example of those in their social group and choose to support their own "side"? Unfortunately, I suspect it's mostly the later.
- tnel77 7y ago
  Seems like a dramatic example, but you are technically correct.
- baddox 7y ago
  Yes, but the normal political process in wealthy democratic countries simply does not give much influence to the average individual. Obviously government policies can and do have huge consequences for many individuals, civil rights being a very notable example. But when's the last time you got to vote on a civil rights issue, and even if you did, how much effect did your research and vote have on the outcome? The reason people tend to just choose a political "team" and root for that team is that there is individual value to that process. If feels good to be part of a team, to cheer with your team's victories, and to complain about your team's losses. That's a big part of what is so fun about sports fandom. It doesn't depend on your actual individual influence on the outcome, which everyone correctly realizes is nearly negligible.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  You can both be right, if we take the parent comment to mean “often” when they say always. A lot of political discussions I see are quick to point the finger at the other side without realizing the non-partisan nature of the problem.
fold_left 7y ago
A Political Commentator here in Britain refers to this from time to time as the "Footballification" of Politics. https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1153560242908794880 https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1153560242908794...
enjoylife 7y ago
One big difference is in sports there is a common higher order set of rules which are already established and everyone follows. Contrast that with the outside world where many higher beliefs, e.g. religion are no where agreed upon.
lm28469 7y ago
The funny thing is that it happens at every single level, no matter how ridiculous or serious the topic is: football teams, battlefield vs call of duty, right vs left, climate change, pro/anti abortion, religions, &c. Put two people long enough in the same room and they'll find a reason to kill each other. It reminds me of that podcast about tribalism: https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-psychology/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-p...
- catalogia 7y ago
  > "Put two people long enough in the same room and they'll find a reason to kill each other." That's a rather negative perspective. Sometimes they'll become inseparable friends to the very end.
  - indigochill 7y ago
    As I understand, becoming inseparable friends is vastly helped along when there's someone else to hate instead, suggesting there's always got to be a "bad guy". In my course on the EU the instructor asked why the American colonies formed into a cohesive nation while the EU is still largely fragmented. Of course, there are a lot of answers to that, but I pointed out the colonies had to unite to stand against Britain. The EU hasn't had any external entity to unite against, thus the focus remains on the differences between the member states rather than the goals they share.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      Surely at some point in your life you've bonded with somebody over something other than a mutual hatred for another person.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  In politics the opinions actually matter. It makes no lasting difference to the world if Team A wins against Team B in a sports event. But public policy choices are absolutely fundamental to personal opportunity, personal safety, quality of life, and financial stability. There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics. There's also a hierarchy of importance in policy, with some issues making far more of a difference to all of the above than others. Misunderstanding policy cause and effect and picking and promoting the wrong answers will lead to objectively bad outcomes for at least some other people, and very probably for you personally. The toxicity doesn't originate in social media. Social media simply amplifies the toxic effects of industries of dishonesty - from PR, astroturfing, and manipulated academic and media narratives, to calculated and deliberate hostile attempts to focus conversations on low-impact but high-emotion issues, and to split populations along tribal and narrative fault lines.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I am often thinking that people should just stick to sports. Blind faith and false facts are fine if you support a team but politics should be serious business with a lot of consideration before having an opinion.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gnode 7y ago
  I find it interesting that in politics it's generally regarded a truism that everyone with the right to vote should vote. We don't say everyone should make up their mind on whether somebody is guilty of a crime -- we say a few specially informed jurors should make that determination. This makes me wonder whether demarchy / sortition / Athenian democracy (rule by the randomly selected; similar to juries) is superior to elective democracy.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I always counter everybody should vote with make sure you are informed first. A republic is a terrible system of government, but we haven't found anything better.
    - gnode 7y ago
      > A republic is a terrible system of government, but we haven't found anything better. Variations of this quote are often banded about to apologise for and defend the imperfections of given democracies. It shuts down questions of electoral reform with the straw-man of autocracy. Not all democracies are equal.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        I'm asserting a republic is better than a democracy. There are minor variations of republics and how they elect people with resulting variations. However they are all better than alternatives (including democracy).
georgeburdell 7y ago
Then there’s always the smug grandstanding from people who think they’re above the grandstanding
BurningFrog 7y ago
What you're observing is people being tribal, hating their outgroup and loving their ingroup. It's basic human nature, which we should all try to rise above. Maybe the new thing is that political tribe is now our primary identification. Nation, race and class used to be the big ones.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Locality, family, profession were the classics. Its literally how most cultures named people.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
the_gastropod 7y ago
I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. And at the risk of sounding like a partisan, I really don't think the two "sides" in U.S. politics are at all equivalent. There is one party that cares about "winning" at any cost. They absolutely justify this by, as you say, painting the other party—and those in their own party that don't toe the line—as "the enemy". It is terrifying, and I don't know how this gets resolved.
- zaque1213 7y ago
  It appears you have given a perfect illustration of the comment you are replying to.
  - SuperFerret 7y ago
    the_gastropod is right though.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - nathan_compton 7y ago
    I think the gastropod is basically on point. The democrats aren't beacons of virtue or rationality by any stretch of the imagination, but its a strange kind of self-imposed blindness to pretend the two political parties are playing the same game here. We can simultaneously see that partisan politics isn't completely rational and also observe that one side, for various reasons, is working that irrationality harder than the other.
    - insickness 7y ago
      A study at Dartmouth found that 45 percent of Democrats say they would be uncomfortable rooming with a Republican. Comparatively, only 12 percent of Republicans said rooming with a Democrat would make them uncomfortable. My anecdotal evidence bears this out. Progressives tend to be far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than conservatives. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-dartmouth-uncomfortable-living-with-roommate-who-disagrees-on-politics-poll-finds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-...
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Honestly, the way people have been dehumanizing each other over politics kind of scares me. It reminds me of the way propaganda dehumanizes 'the enemy' in war time. It's not a good way to look at other people, especially not over which political party they voted for. It reminds me of this: > And it is triple ultra forbidden to respond to criticism with violence. There are a very few injunctions in the human art of rationality that have no ifs, ands, buts, or escape clauses. This is one of them. Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever. https://www.readthesequences.com/Uncritical-Supercriticality https://www.readthesequences.com/Uncritical-Supercriticality But counterarguments, well, you might not always have one of those. It could be that actually you're wrong about something. And if you're wrong and you still have a big fat angry mob behind you who can shout down anybody who tries to point that out, isn't that better than losing? No. It isn't. It's better to lose when you're wrong. Because it's the only thing that allows you to win when you're right. But it still feels bad, and you still have an angry mob at your disposal, and if you're weak you do the wrong thing. Too many people today are weak. And they, we, should feel bad about that.
- mLuby 7y ago
  This has a lot of explanatory power. Weakness, or more accurately one's perceived vulnerability (inability to weather momentary losses), leads to pre-emption and escalation. To use vitality as an example, a healthy person can handle the odd cold or cut that could be fatal to someone with compromised immune system. Rightly then the vulnerable person will react quickly and intensely to perceived threats that the healthy person may shrug off (or even engage with, like volunteering in a hospital.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    And that's a feedback loop. People feel vulnerable because they're under attack, so they attack others, who then feel vulnerable because they're under attack. Somebody -- better yet, everybody -- has to be a grown up and stop the cycle.
- aeneasmackenzie 7y ago
  Says who? Yudkowsky? Why are you listening to him?
dclowd9901 7y ago
Absolutism is never a good thing (ironically), but you are echoing a tired narrative that seeks to undermine objective moral good by making a false equivalence. Treating people with respect is a good thing. Helping those in need is a good thing. Ensuring a fair chance whenever possible is a good thing. I could go on and on, but I think you know which side of the aisle I stand on. I hate sports for the very reason you describe, but my objection to people who hold opposing views to me is grounded in an understanding of an intrinsic respect and value of humanity, not some ra-ra us vs. them mentality. I'm more than happy to welcome someone with opposing views if it seems they genuinely wish the best for others in their views. But on asking how they might right the wrongs of this world, their answers usually come down to "tough shit."
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
You mean people in the "arguing about politics" team are always worse than the ones in your team? ;oP Not everyone is a knee-jerk go reds/blues/yellows/whatever supporter. Those skilled at propaganda certainly appear to use the idea that everyone is in two camps as a primary tool in their arsenal however.
crooked-v 7y ago
Treating politics as 'just politics' suggests a staggering level of willful blindness to the hardships that many people go through. For some people, these 'just politics' encompass matters literally up to and including life and death [1]. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repeal-deaths-20170623-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repea...
sebow 7y ago
I think you're a little bit overreacting.People don't "dehumanize" each other by talking(yes,even toxicly)to each other about politics,even in partisan ways. This is a very natural behavior of humans that should not be constrained(Our different regions of the brain fight constantly for being first to the result,competition is a good sport).When you try to constrain speech and thought,you will eventually end up with people that only express their frustrations(be them political or not,almost every aspect of human life can referenced to politics) in a violent way. We need more dialogue,of any kind, instead of less.Thus,people that have a certain extreme position will be less reluctant adhering to the position of the many. And even if "the masses" are "stupid,toxic,and backwards",as a more knowledgeable individual in some topics you will have more satisfaction that you helped people understand a position,at least from your understanding. Also when talking about morality,one should try to strip away emotions or at least resume those feelings into rational terms that can be reasonable to anyone.The more you appeal to emotion,the more people feel that morality should be a legitimate reason to support a talking point or a political position.

braythwayt 7y ago

> Watching people argue about politics, or even watching people get into politics, reminds me of people arguing about their favourite sports teams. So let me get this right: Arguing about whether children should be locked in cages is like arguing about sports teams? Arguing about whether people of colour are humans or vermin is like arguing about sports teams? Arguing about whether women are entitled to a vote, or to own property, or to equal pay for work of equal value, is like argguing about sports teams? --- I'd say that you are articulating a very distinct political slant, and that slant is that nothing really matters, there is no absolute truth or morality, everything is about tribalism. If you look around more carefully, you'll notice that a great many people argue about politics in a way entirely different than they argue about sports teams. While I agree that there are a lot of people who share this point of view, and really all they care about is their tribe and not the thing they're arguing for or against.. I am not one of those people. And let me tell you, when I disagree with that viewpoint, I am absolutely NOT arguing about it the same way I'd argue whether Eddy Merckx or Marianne Vos is the greatest cyclist of all time.

boring_twenties 7y ago
No, but misrepresenting your opponent's position to make it seem indefensible is very much like arguing about sports teams.
tnel77 7y ago
This is the kind of response I think OP was referring to.
dlivingston 7y ago
Your comment reminds me of an HN article that was recently posted: "Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic". More seriously, your comment screams of tribalism. I think that you will find that most people, across all political aisles, are decent humans who genuinely mean no ill-will towards others. I would be surprised if any political comment posted online has ever changed the mind of someone else. What does change the minds of others, though, is face-to-face, compassionate, honest dialogue.
- blix 7y ago
  I think it's possible to change the minds of others through online posting. It has happened to me and I think I've effected change in others. However, all online posts are not equal. Posts like GP I think are likely to have the opposite effect. Bad faith argument tends to let people dismiss any valid content and reinforce existing views and groups. I find the key is to be respectful and to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from. This unfornately appears to be a less and less common tactic.
- pell 7y ago
  Did the poster say anything that was _untrue_? Your comment isn't nuanced in the slightest. Tribalism it might be, that does not make the assessment incorrect. Where is the proof for both sides being equal?
  - blix 7y ago
    Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? If so, do you happen to live in one of the deeply repressive states that recieves bipartisan support from the USA due to economic convenience? Perhaps the one that the USA helps with the drone strikes? The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. There are real arguments to be made, real strategies to convince people to see another point of view, but this is not it. This is proving that you are on the team of pure good fighting against the team of pure evil. Neither of those teams exist.
Jamwinner 7y ago
You just proved the point of op and the article.
- pell 7y ago
  Did the poster say anything that was incorrect?
campee 7y ago
It's like you read the article as an instruction manual.

amelius 7y ago

Reminds me of: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646528/the-legacy-of-an-israeli-palestinian-sesame-street https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646528/the-legacy-of-an-is...

zapita 7y ago

What are examples of political topics you see people arguing about in a dehumanizing way? What kind of comments do you mean by “dehumanizing”? I keep hearing this argument that the tone and style of political arguments are getting more vicious and causing harm to society, but nobody can give me concrete examples of what they mean.

jejones3141 7y ago
I'd say those who claim that speech is violence (and therefore merits a violent response) would be a really good example.
- zapita 7y ago
  That’s pretty vague, can you be more specific? What issue do you have in mind? What is an example of someone claiming that “speech merits a violent response”?
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speec... http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad%209-27-17%20Presentation%20(1).pdf http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/NATL%20Undergrad... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-ris... Those are just a few.
    - zapita 7y ago
      All I see is a hodge podge of opinion pieces and the raw results of a survey I know nothing about. One opinion piece says that Antifa is too violent. Another argues that threats of violence can be harmful. I don’t see any example of someone saying that “speech merits a violent response”, which is what I was requesting.

ouid 7y ago

I think people agreeing about politics is universally more toxic than people disagreeing. Discussions in which all the involved parties agree, but are obsessively defending themselves against an imagined foe tend to generate a hell of a lot more moral grandstanding than ones in which actual conflict exists.

dvtrn 7y ago
I've found myself on the receiving end of this 'obsessive defense' more than once in the past and had to completely halt a conversation in order to firmly but compassionately ask the person if they thought I was disagreeing with them and then show them how through statements we've both made we were in complete agreement. The tenor of the conversation changed almost instantly. It's forced me to be hyper specific when approaching certain topics, but that hasn't come without it's own uncomfortable externalities of conversation.
mrtaway90210 7y ago
I agree with you. I've been a life-long progressive and i'm [secretly] voting for Trump and all GOP candidates this time around? Why? because I saw the hipocracy in my own party. I live in NYC and recently, when push came to shove, progressives needed to find a group to bear the cost of their progressive decisions. Instead of bearing the cost equally (as I would have liked) they pushed the cost onto a minority subgroup (asians). I'm speaking about schooling and how they decided to choose the three schools in a city of 7 million to "de-segregate" (and those three schools happened to be majority asian.)

davidw 7y ago

> It always comes down to the other team is bad and immoral or whatever, our team is the best, go chosen sports team, you can do no wrong. That's a pretty superficial view of things. There are a lot of very real issues that matter in real life to a lot of people. To pick an extremely important one from the past: slavery. One side thought it was ok to enslave other human beings. The other did not.

nitwit005 7y ago
Did people take their stances for or against slavery as a result of careful consideration the issue, or did people mostly follow the example of those in their social group and choose to support their own "side"? Unfortunately, I suspect it's mostly the later.
tnel77 7y ago
Seems like a dramatic example, but you are technically correct.
baddox 7y ago
Yes, but the normal political process in wealthy democratic countries simply does not give much influence to the average individual. Obviously government policies can and do have huge consequences for many individuals, civil rights being a very notable example. But when's the last time you got to vote on a civil rights issue, and even if you did, how much effect did your research and vote have on the outcome? The reason people tend to just choose a political "team" and root for that team is that there is individual value to that process. If feels good to be part of a team, to cheer with your team's victories, and to complain about your team's losses. That's a big part of what is so fun about sports fandom. It doesn't depend on your actual individual influence on the outcome, which everyone correctly realizes is nearly negligible.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
You can both be right, if we take the parent comment to mean “often” when they say always. A lot of political discussions I see are quick to point the finger at the other side without realizing the non-partisan nature of the problem.

fold_left 7y ago

A Political Commentator here in Britain refers to this from time to time as the "Footballification" of Politics. https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1153560242908794880 https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1153560242908794...

enjoylife 7y ago

One big difference is in sports there is a common higher order set of rules which are already established and everyone follows. Contrast that with the outside world where many higher beliefs, e.g. religion are no where agreed upon.

lm28469 7y ago

The funny thing is that it happens at every single level, no matter how ridiculous or serious the topic is: football teams, battlefield vs call of duty, right vs left, climate change, pro/anti abortion, religions, &c. Put two people long enough in the same room and they'll find a reason to kill each other. It reminds me of that podcast about tribalism: https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-psychology/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-p...

catalogia 7y ago
> "Put two people long enough in the same room and they'll find a reason to kill each other." That's a rather negative perspective. Sometimes they'll become inseparable friends to the very end.
- indigochill 7y ago
  As I understand, becoming inseparable friends is vastly helped along when there's someone else to hate instead, suggesting there's always got to be a "bad guy". In my course on the EU the instructor asked why the American colonies formed into a cohesive nation while the EU is still largely fragmented. Of course, there are a lot of answers to that, but I pointed out the colonies had to unite to stand against Britain. The EU hasn't had any external entity to unite against, thus the focus remains on the differences between the member states rather than the goals they share.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    Surely at some point in your life you've bonded with somebody over something other than a mutual hatred for another person.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
In politics the opinions actually matter. It makes no lasting difference to the world if Team A wins against Team B in a sports event. But public policy choices are absolutely fundamental to personal opportunity, personal safety, quality of life, and financial stability. There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics. There's also a hierarchy of importance in policy, with some issues making far more of a difference to all of the above than others. Misunderstanding policy cause and effect and picking and promoting the wrong answers will lead to objectively bad outcomes for at least some other people, and very probably for you personally. The toxicity doesn't originate in social media. Social media simply amplifies the toxic effects of industries of dishonesty - from PR, astroturfing, and manipulated academic and media narratives, to calculated and deliberate hostile attempts to focus conversations on low-impact but high-emotion issues, and to split populations along tribal and narrative fault lines.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I am often thinking that people should just stick to sports. Blind faith and false facts are fine if you support a team but politics should be serious business with a lot of consideration before having an opinion.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gnode 7y ago
I find it interesting that in politics it's generally regarded a truism that everyone with the right to vote should vote. We don't say everyone should make up their mind on whether somebody is guilty of a crime -- we say a few specially informed jurors should make that determination. This makes me wonder whether demarchy / sortition / Athenian democracy (rule by the randomly selected; similar to juries) is superior to elective democracy.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I always counter everybody should vote with make sure you are informed first. A republic is a terrible system of government, but we haven't found anything better.
  - gnode 7y ago
    > A republic is a terrible system of government, but we haven't found anything better. Variations of this quote are often banded about to apologise for and defend the imperfections of given democracies. It shuts down questions of electoral reform with the straw-man of autocracy. Not all democracies are equal.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      I'm asserting a republic is better than a democracy. There are minor variations of republics and how they elect people with resulting variations. However they are all better than alternatives (including democracy).

georgeburdell 7y ago

Then there’s always the smug grandstanding from people who think they’re above the grandstanding

BurningFrog 7y ago

What you're observing is people being tribal, hating their outgroup and loving their ingroup. It's basic human nature, which we should all try to rise above. Maybe the new thing is that political tribe is now our primary identification. Nation, race and class used to be the big ones.

Jamwinner 7y ago
Locality, family, profession were the classics. Its literally how most cultures named people.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

the_gastropod 7y ago

I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. And at the risk of sounding like a partisan, I really don't think the two "sides" in U.S. politics are at all equivalent. There is one party that cares about "winning" at any cost. They absolutely justify this by, as you say, painting the other party—and those in their own party that don't toe the line—as "the enemy". It is terrifying, and I don't know how this gets resolved.

zaque1213 7y ago
It appears you have given a perfect illustration of the comment you are replying to.
- SuperFerret 7y ago
  the_gastropod is right though.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nathan_compton 7y ago
  I think the gastropod is basically on point. The democrats aren't beacons of virtue or rationality by any stretch of the imagination, but its a strange kind of self-imposed blindness to pretend the two political parties are playing the same game here. We can simultaneously see that partisan politics isn't completely rational and also observe that one side, for various reasons, is working that irrationality harder than the other.
  - insickness 7y ago
    A study at Dartmouth found that 45 percent of Democrats say they would be uncomfortable rooming with a Republican. Comparatively, only 12 percent of Republicans said rooming with a Democrat would make them uncomfortable. My anecdotal evidence bears this out. Progressives tend to be far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than conservatives. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-dartmouth-uncomfortable-living-with-roommate-who-disagrees-on-politics-poll-finds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-...

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Honestly, the way people have been dehumanizing each other over politics kind of scares me. It reminds me of the way propaganda dehumanizes 'the enemy' in war time. It's not a good way to look at other people, especially not over which political party they voted for. It reminds me of this: > And it is triple ultra forbidden to respond to criticism with violence. There are a very few injunctions in the human art of rationality that have no ifs, ands, buts, or escape clauses. This is one of them. Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever. https://www.readthesequences.com/Uncritical-Supercriticality https://www.readthesequences.com/Uncritical-Supercriticality But counterarguments, well, you might not always have one of those. It could be that actually you're wrong about something. And if you're wrong and you still have a big fat angry mob behind you who can shout down anybody who tries to point that out, isn't that better than losing? No. It isn't. It's better to lose when you're wrong. Because it's the only thing that allows you to win when you're right. But it still feels bad, and you still have an angry mob at your disposal, and if you're weak you do the wrong thing. Too many people today are weak. And they, we, should feel bad about that.

mLuby 7y ago
This has a lot of explanatory power. Weakness, or more accurately one's perceived vulnerability (inability to weather momentary losses), leads to pre-emption and escalation. To use vitality as an example, a healthy person can handle the odd cold or cut that could be fatal to someone with compromised immune system. Rightly then the vulnerable person will react quickly and intensely to perceived threats that the healthy person may shrug off (or even engage with, like volunteering in a hospital.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  And that's a feedback loop. People feel vulnerable because they're under attack, so they attack others, who then feel vulnerable because they're under attack. Somebody -- better yet, everybody -- has to be a grown up and stop the cycle.
aeneasmackenzie 7y ago
Says who? Yudkowsky? Why are you listening to him?

dclowd9901 7y ago

Absolutism is never a good thing (ironically), but you are echoing a tired narrative that seeks to undermine objective moral good by making a false equivalence. Treating people with respect is a good thing. Helping those in need is a good thing. Ensuring a fair chance whenever possible is a good thing. I could go on and on, but I think you know which side of the aisle I stand on. I hate sports for the very reason you describe, but my objection to people who hold opposing views to me is grounded in an understanding of an intrinsic respect and value of humanity, not some ra-ra us vs. them mentality. I'm more than happy to welcome someone with opposing views if it seems they genuinely wish the best for others in their views. But on asking how they might right the wrongs of this world, their answers usually come down to "tough shit."

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

You mean people in the "arguing about politics" team are always worse than the ones in your team? ;oP Not everyone is a knee-jerk go reds/blues/yellows/whatever supporter. Those skilled at propaganda certainly appear to use the idea that everyone is in two camps as a primary tool in their arsenal however.

crooked-v 7y ago

Treating politics as 'just politics' suggests a staggering level of willful blindness to the hardships that many people go through. For some people, these 'just politics' encompass matters literally up to and including life and death [1]. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repeal-deaths-20170623-htmlstory.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-repea...

sebow 7y ago

I think you're a little bit overreacting.People don't "dehumanize" each other by talking(yes,even toxicly)to each other about politics,even in partisan ways. This is a very natural behavior of humans that should not be constrained(Our different regions of the brain fight constantly for being first to the result,competition is a good sport).When you try to constrain speech and thought,you will eventually end up with people that only express their frustrations(be them political or not,almost every aspect of human life can referenced to politics) in a violent way. We need more dialogue,of any kind, instead of less.Thus,people that have a certain extreme position will be less reluctant adhering to the position of the many. And even if "the masses" are "stupid,toxic,and backwards",as a more knowledgeable individual in some topics you will have more satisfaction that you helped people understand a position,at least from your understanding. Also when talking about morality,one should try to strip away emotions or at least resume those feelings into rational terms that can be reasonable to anyone.The more you appeal to emotion,the more people feel that morality should be a legitimate reason to support a talking point or a political position.