4 ms·

Americans Increasingly Believe Violence Is Justified If the Other Side Wins

25 points by Reedx 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
Perhaps someone should forward this link to Dick Costolo
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- g42gregory 6y ago
  +1
s1artibartfast 6y ago
Interesting article, I wonder how it compares to prior election cycles and would love to see the data. Anecdotally, the underlying premise rings true to me. I think it comes from a growing rise in cynicism on both sides of the political spectrum.
greenduck 6y ago
At the risk of sounding partisan on HN: the really scary difference here is that left-wing violence is widely denounced by our nation's leaders. On the other hand, POTUS couldn't even muster the strength to properly denounce white supremacy let alone far-right militia groups during the debates. BTW, for those that haven't watched the debates (which I personally wouldn't recomend doing while sober), the transcript doesn't do it justice here as the president's entire tone and demeanor changed as soon as he was asked the question. I say this because in our media ecosystem (and on HN) pushing a both sides story is popular. But "both sides are bad" breeds the idea of "all of politics is broken" and so I might as well not participate. Or alternatively: "the other side is just as bad" and so anything I do is justified. In order to start de-polarizing, politically speaking, we have to stop seeing stories that don't push have a both sides spin as being partisan and speak to the facts of the case. In particular, we can't see facts as political and dismiss them out of hand if they don't agree with our ideology or the article we read doesn't get enough of a jab in at our political rivals. It is possible to both hold partisan opinions and respectfully debate and disagree with people that differ from you as long as you stick to that type of principle.
belltaco 6y ago
Even if the Senate apportionment is not fixed, the electoral college needs to be made more representative of the population, it was apportioned based on the number of slaves owned ffs. And either let DC get a senate seat or merge parts of it into MD/VA so they can vote there. Feelings of disenfranchisement among the population is not good.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Maybe it was based on the number of slaves. It hasn't been for 150 years, though, so... what's your point?
  - krapp 6y ago
    At what point do we even begin to consider the possibility that systems intended to serve an eighteenth century slave-owning agrarian society of only a few million people might not be the most effective in representing the interests of a multicultural 300 million strong global superpower in the year of our Lord 2020?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      First, it was intended to serve a half-slave-owning society. Second: When do we begin to consider that? Maybe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified?
      - krapp 6y ago
        > First, it was intended to serve a half-slave-owning society. Semantics. The point is that it was intended to serve a society which no longer exists. The society that is currently American society is not the same in scale, scope, complexity, culture or tenor to American society in the 18th century. It's the same only in the way the Ship of Theseus is the same after having been gradually transformed from a small boat to a modern aircraft carrier, which is to say, fundamentally different in every way that matters. >Second: When do we begin to consider that? Maybe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified? How about now? The Electoral College had one job - to prevent a demagogue like Trump from taking power. He was elected by a fraction of a fraction of the populace, and a minority of those who voted, thanks in no small part to a system in which only a few votes in one or two swing states actually ever matter. In a truly representative democracy, Trump would never have happened.
RickJWagner 6y ago
It should be agreed that no violence should be tolerated. Unfortunately, this years protests/riots have set sort of a bad precedent. In an ideal world, I'd hope they would be roundly condemned from all sides immediately.
- tastygreenapple 6y ago
  +1. The second order effects are really troubling. I've heard that millions of people became first time gun owners. I support the right to keep and bear arms, but there were millions of people who didn't feel the need to own a gun and something changed this year. It doesn't portend well for the future. I hope it really is that case that an armed society is a polite society.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
It seems increasingly obvious we are being set up for violence. Good folks are going to have to stand up to the extremists on their own sides (and the and provocateurs pretending to be.)
mercer 6y ago
I've been hearing that guns and ammo have become scarce(r) in some places (like California). Don't know if that's accurate, and I wouldn't know how to check, but that's what I've heard. Concerning.

25 points by Reedx 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

Perhaps someone should forward this link to Dick Costolo

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
g42gregory 6y ago
+1

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Interesting article, I wonder how it compares to prior election cycles and would love to see the data. Anecdotally, the underlying premise rings true to me. I think it comes from a growing rise in cynicism on both sides of the political spectrum.

greenduck 6y ago

At the risk of sounding partisan on HN: the really scary difference here is that left-wing violence is widely denounced by our nation's leaders. On the other hand, POTUS couldn't even muster the strength to properly denounce white supremacy let alone far-right militia groups during the debates. BTW, for those that haven't watched the debates (which I personally wouldn't recomend doing while sober), the transcript doesn't do it justice here as the president's entire tone and demeanor changed as soon as he was asked the question. I say this because in our media ecosystem (and on HN) pushing a both sides story is popular. But "both sides are bad" breeds the idea of "all of politics is broken" and so I might as well not participate. Or alternatively: "the other side is just as bad" and so anything I do is justified. In order to start de-polarizing, politically speaking, we have to stop seeing stories that don't push have a both sides spin as being partisan and speak to the facts of the case. In particular, we can't see facts as political and dismiss them out of hand if they don't agree with our ideology or the article we read doesn't get enough of a jab in at our political rivals. It is possible to both hold partisan opinions and respectfully debate and disagree with people that differ from you as long as you stick to that type of principle.

belltaco 6y ago

Even if the Senate apportionment is not fixed, the electoral college needs to be made more representative of the population, it was apportioned based on the number of slaves owned ffs. And either let DC get a senate seat or merge parts of it into MD/VA so they can vote there. Feelings of disenfranchisement among the population is not good.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Maybe it was based on the number of slaves. It hasn't been for 150 years, though, so... what's your point?
- krapp 6y ago
  At what point do we even begin to consider the possibility that systems intended to serve an eighteenth century slave-owning agrarian society of only a few million people might not be the most effective in representing the interests of a multicultural 300 million strong global superpower in the year of our Lord 2020?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    First, it was intended to serve a half-slave-owning society. Second: When do we begin to consider that? Maybe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified?
    - krapp 6y ago
      > First, it was intended to serve a half-slave-owning society. Semantics. The point is that it was intended to serve a society which no longer exists. The society that is currently American society is not the same in scale, scope, complexity, culture or tenor to American society in the 18th century. It's the same only in the way the Ship of Theseus is the same after having been gradually transformed from a small boat to a modern aircraft carrier, which is to say, fundamentally different in every way that matters. >Second: When do we begin to consider that? Maybe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified? How about now? The Electoral College had one job - to prevent a demagogue like Trump from taking power. He was elected by a fraction of a fraction of the populace, and a minority of those who voted, thanks in no small part to a system in which only a few votes in one or two swing states actually ever matter. In a truly representative democracy, Trump would never have happened.

RickJWagner 6y ago

It should be agreed that no violence should be tolerated. Unfortunately, this years protests/riots have set sort of a bad precedent. In an ideal world, I'd hope they would be roundly condemned from all sides immediately.

tastygreenapple 6y ago
+1. The second order effects are really troubling. I've heard that millions of people became first time gun owners. I support the right to keep and bear arms, but there were millions of people who didn't feel the need to own a gun and something changed this year. It doesn't portend well for the future. I hope it really is that case that an armed society is a polite society.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

It seems increasingly obvious we are being set up for violence. Good folks are going to have to stand up to the extremists on their own sides (and the and provocateurs pretending to be.)

mercer 6y ago

I've been hearing that guns and ammo have become scarce(r) in some places (like California). Don't know if that's accurate, and I wouldn't know how to check, but that's what I've heard. Concerning.