5 ms·

TL;DR: political polarization in the USA has measurably increased, and this is bad for the country and its citizens. However, some data suggest that that two-t

by jpm_sd 7y ago

TL;DR: political polarization in the USA has measurably increased, and this is bad for the country and its citizens. However, some data suggest that that two-thirds of Americans fall into what they call the "Exhausted Majority", people who are fed up with both major parties, and politics in general.

snarf21 7y ago
Especially since we live in an oligarchy but everyone still thinks in terms of red vs blue or us vs them. It is quite the trick to misdirect blame to people who are just like you.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I find it ironic that you respond to a comment about political polarization increasing with a polarizing extreme of a comment...
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. It is a prominent feature of contemporary life. [I was tempted to respond with something actually "polarizing extreme" and thus actually "ironic", but I've been warned...]
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. See, you and snarf21 keep assuming that we live in an oligarchy (perhaps snarf21 more strongly than you). You keep assuming that everyone can see that. Not only can't I see it, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And I suspect that, if you polled HN, you'd find that about 80% of people believe that we do not actually live in an oligarchy (all numbers made up on the spot with zero statistical evidence). I refuse to allow you to just assume oligarchy as "everyone knows, everyone can see". You don't get to assume it; you have to prove it. The reason I said snarf21's remark was polarizing is because, in terms of conventional left-right divisions, the claim that we live in an oligarchy is almost exclusively a claim of the far left. (Disclaimer: When I claim that we do not, in fact, live in an oligarchy, I am not claiming that the rich don't have too much influence - just that they don't have enough power to qualify as an actual oligarchy.)
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973. If you want to draw a line just this side of "oligarchy" and say we aren't there yet, you can, but you've got to admit that trends are pointing in that direction... Let's ignore all that. ISTM you've made a basic logical error. The topic ITT is "polarization", which is considered a bad thing. GP suggested a way to reduce polarization, by realizing our true interests. How could it be polarizing to suggest a way to reduce polarization?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled" by the few? I would say no. If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be allowed to win? Or do you think that, if she wins, she will never actually do what she says she's going to do? Or do you think that the tax on the rich is really what the few want to do? (At that point, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, because anything that happens is what the few wanted to happen.)
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because they're real in a way that neither Trump nor any opponent he has faced has been. (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  To be fair thinking people "just like you" neccesarily have your interests in mind is also a dangerous and potentially fatal mistake itself, those trying to convince you are potentially engaging in misdirection themselves. Just because others are like you doesn't mean they won't also screw you over whenever convenient. Nor do differences guarantee that they will be bad. There are no guarantees, period.

by jpm_sd 7y ago

snarf21 7y ago

Especially since we live in an oligarchy but everyone still thinks in terms of red vs blue or us vs them. It is quite the trick to misdirect blame to people who are just like you.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I find it ironic that you respond to a comment about political polarization increasing with a polarizing extreme of a comment...
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. It is a prominent feature of contemporary life. [I was tempted to respond with something actually "polarizing extreme" and thus actually "ironic", but I've been warned...]
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy. See, you and snarf21 keep assuming that we live in an oligarchy (perhaps snarf21 more strongly than you). You keep assuming that everyone can see that. Not only can't I see it, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And I suspect that, if you polled HN, you'd find that about 80% of people believe that we do not actually live in an oligarchy (all numbers made up on the spot with zero statistical evidence). I refuse to allow you to just assume oligarchy as "everyone knows, everyone can see". You don't get to assume it; you have to prove it. The reason I said snarf21's remark was polarizing is because, in terms of conventional left-right divisions, the claim that we live in an oligarchy is almost exclusively a claim of the far left. (Disclaimer: When I claim that we do not, in fact, live in an oligarchy, I am not claiming that the rich don't have too much influence - just that they don't have enough power to qualify as an actual oligarchy.)
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973. If you want to draw a line just this side of "oligarchy" and say we aren't there yet, you can, but you've got to admit that trends are pointing in that direction... Let's ignore all that. ISTM you've made a basic logical error. The topic ITT is "polarization", which is considered a bad thing. GP suggested a way to reduce polarization, by realizing our true interests. How could it be polarizing to suggest a way to reduce polarization?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled" by the few? I would say no. If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be allowed to win? Or do you think that, if she wins, she will never actually do what she says she's going to do? Or do you think that the tax on the rich is really what the few want to do? (At that point, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, because anything that happens is what the few wanted to happen.)
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because they're real in a way that neither Trump nor any opponent he has faced has been. (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)
Nasrudith 7y ago
To be fair thinking people "just like you" neccesarily have your interests in mind is also a dangerous and potentially fatal mistake itself, those trying to convince you are potentially engaging in misdirection themselves. Just because others are like you doesn't mean they won't also screw you over whenever convenient. Nor do differences guarantee that they will be bad. There are no guarantees, period.