3 ms·

Bold claims. Do you have any references that support any of them? Inquiring minds want to know.

by saas_sam 6y ago

js2 6y ago
[deleted]
- romwell 6y ago
  Doesn't quite cut it, does it? "Go read some history books" is not a reference. The parent comment made a bunch of statements. Asking the reader to read an entire book to verify the validity of any of them is wrong. References come with page numbers for a reason.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 6y ago
    There was nothing wrong with the parent comment. It would have been better to describe some of what's actually in the book, but it was still helpful information, obviously well-intended. I'm sure you didn't mean to bully js2 into deleting it, but please don't post like that to HN. There are kinder ways to ask for more information. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - romwell 6y ago
      Oh, my apologies, I did not at all intend it to be taken like that. I meant to say that while the book js2 linked is surely welcome information to have in this discussion, this doesn't absolve the OP of the burden to back the claims with something more substantial given how strong these claims are (and, as the thread shows, controversial).
      - dang 6y ago
        Thanks! I'm glad I added that I was sure you didn't mean it that way.
astine 6y ago
I don't think they're that bold. The notion that congress is divided more strictly along sectarian lines today than the past is from this paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... which measures a decrease in cross-party voting over the last few generations. The "common truth" is a bit more subjective, but I've definitely noticed people in my extended social groups having fewer and fewer information sources in common, as well as a smaller and smaller set of common beliefs. I'm not the only person I've come across who's had this impression.

Bold claims. Do you have any references that support any of them? Inquiring minds want to know.

js2 6y ago

[deleted]

romwell 6y ago
Doesn't quite cut it, does it? "Go read some history books" is not a reference. The parent comment made a bunch of statements. Asking the reader to read an entire book to verify the validity of any of them is wrong. References come with page numbers for a reason.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  There was nothing wrong with the parent comment. It would have been better to describe some of what's actually in the book, but it was still helpful information, obviously well-intended. I'm sure you didn't mean to bully js2 into deleting it, but please don't post like that to HN. There are kinder ways to ask for more information. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - romwell 6y ago
    Oh, my apologies, I did not at all intend it to be taken like that. I meant to say that while the book js2 linked is surely welcome information to have in this discussion, this doesn't absolve the OP of the burden to back the claims with something more substantial given how strong these claims are (and, as the thread shows, controversial).
    - dang 6y ago
      Thanks! I'm glad I added that I was sure you didn't mean it that way.

astine 6y ago

I don't think they're that bold. The notion that congress is divided more strictly along sectarian lines today than the past is from this paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... which measures a decrease in cross-party voting over the last few generations. The "common truth" is a bit more subjective, but I've definitely noticed people in my extended social groups having fewer and fewer information sources in common, as well as a smaller and smaller set of common beliefs. I'm not the only person I've come across who's had this impression.