7 ms·

I'm glad they halted that. But it reduces the common area we can even discuss anything going on this week in politics. Taking a step back... We've got these

I'm glad they halted that. But it reduces the common area we can even discuss anything going on this week in politics. Taking a step back... We've got these two sides. Regardless of the merits, each side believes they know the truth, and that the other side is delusional. And it is easy enough to engage with your media outlets of choice, and get your beliefs reinforced. How can we have a meaningful discussion as a nation, when there is no apparent common ground? No set of agreed-upon facts? Now I of course have my own very strong opinions and I'm sure I have a good comprehension of the truth. But that isn't going to convince anyone on the other side anymore. To people on one side, the other side's minds appear to be just poisoned. A common tactic to try to get through to the other side is to just yell louder. But that isn't working. What's left? What can be done?

duxup 6y ago
I don't know what to say to people who want someone else killed...
- ansible 6y ago
  Almost everyone (including really terrible people) don't want people killed. That is why it is often necessary to de-humanize the enemy. We give them labels, make them not worthy of the protections of civil society, and then it is justified if they die. Because they are not people anymore.
  - playtriot 6y ago
    That's not quite it either, the truth is actually worse. We know the other side are people, the fact that we insult them acknowledges that. Think of hitler youth forcing a rabbi to scrub the pavement on their hands and knees. The cruelty is intentional, not based on seeing them as less than human.
  - hehehaha 6y ago
    That’s just not true. We have nearly an entire human history to prove otherwise. The only reason why we stopped killing each other is due to nuclear bombs.
    - xnx 6y ago
      You should reread he parent comment. I think you agree. It describe the steps as: 1) Dehumanize the enemy 2) Kill/eliminate the inhuman enemy (no longer considered to be people)
      - loopz 6y ago
        Now we have: 3) Trump designated target as well. Doesn't matter which side you think you're on then. At some point they come for you: Must-see new video shows Capitol riot was way worse than we thought https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/media/reliable-sources-january-8/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/media/reliable-sources-ja...
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    I think your comment is being misunderstood. I interpreted it to mean that most people don't naturally have the capacity to kill others who they identify as equals, and that's why many extremist groups take steps to other their targets. I get the sense that people are reading it to mean that the rioters at the capital hadn't been radicalized like this. Or that dehumanizing people in that way is somehow okay. Perhaps you can clarify. I tend to believe that, thankfully, most people don't have the capacity for extreme violence at a moment's notice. It takes intense conditioning. The US military started to emphasize this [1](paywalled) after it was discovered that even during combat, while people were shooting at them, most soldiers didn't try to kill their enemy or even fire their weapon [2]. So it seems like the highest priority is to re-humanize the "normies" and "communist antifa spies" or whatever nonsense phrase these extremists are using. I have *absolutely* no idea how to do that, but it must be done. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-com... [2] https://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm https://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldier...
  - ipython 6y ago
    That’s no longer the case. Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi were called out specifically on Parler posts. Then again I would also say you’re correct as the people engaging with that violent and vitriolic content probably don’t consider them actual humans.
  - apta_ 6y ago
    Exactly, and both sides are guilty of that: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  You say nothing. You just be happy they are stupid enough to say it in public and see if they end up on LEO radar. I am sure threatening VP is treated with same severity as threatening P.
- apta_ 6y ago
  The far left is equally bad: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...
technothrasher 6y ago
Street Epistemology is the kind of thing I think can ultimately be successful. Instead of yelling at people or telling them their wrong and you're right, discuss with them how and why they come to their beliefs in a non-confrontational way. The hopeful result is that you both come away thinking about how better to examine what you believe.
netcraft 6y ago
What is the two sides exactly? There is a group that has produced no evidence for their claims and is threatening and acting out violence - is that one of the sides? There is a point in which a particular group is no longer acting in good faith, and is taking advantage of the tolerance and ability to have discourse. https://kottke.org/17/08/the-paradox-of-tolerance https://kottke.org/17/08/the-paradox-of-tolerance
- matwood 6y ago
  Yeah, I finally had to stop having discussions with MAGA family members because the complete lack of good faith. Because they are family, I would listen and then spend time reading their sources and gathering facts and information to have a real discussion around, and as soon as their beliefs in a topic were challenged they would fall back to 'what about Hilary's emails' or Hunters laptop. It just became pointless to have a discussion. It's cult like. I can't imagine supporting any side or politician like these people do.
- jvreagan 6y ago
  You just described both sides. Side a: 2016 US election was stolen. 2020 was fair and square. Side b: 2020 US election was stolen. 2016 election was fair and square. Seems that there are a small number of people who think a) both elections were stolen or b) both elections were fair and square. They are being drowned out by sides a and b. If you fit side a or b above, you might want to some logical thinking. Pretty simple to see the two sides are simply opposite sides of the same coin, both deeped in hypocrisy.
  - loopz 6y ago
    More like: 2016 US election had foreign propaganda interference (damn our algos weren't good enough!) 2021 Open violent attack on democratic process to certify president election.
    - jvreagan 6y ago
      2016 also had open violent attacks on democratic process to certify president election, remember? Riots, destruction of property in November and December 2016? Calls for electoral college voters to switch their votes. Ring a bell?
blakesterz 6y ago
> We've got these two sides. Regardless of the merits, each side believes they know the truth, and that the other side is delusional. You're partially right. We have at least two sides. One side is CLEARLY delusional. Fueled by conspiracy theories and lies. We also have other sides, but the two sides that get the most attention are the only sides that matter. We have one side that is most definitely delusional, other sides maybe have members who might be, but one side is DOMINATED by delusion.
- ansible 6y ago
  And I do have a very strong opinion on all that. I just wanted to note that the "other side" that I'm not on, also believes basically the same thing with regards to my side.
  - Renaud 6y ago
    Having an opinion you strongly believe in is not enough to make it true or right. The republicans have espoused a dangerous ideology that not just allows but welcomes factual untruths and a worrying disconnect from rational thought. There is a need for political parties of various philosophical bents to push and pull in different directions based on reasoned and informed decisions. Once you give up that core grounding you basically invite fanatism and I don’t see what possible positive outcome we can expect from this.
    - ansible 6y ago
      > Having an opinion you strongly believe in is not enough to make it true or right. Of course it isn't enough. That's why the media outlets in question will make up facts, or really slant things to appear to carry sufficient factual weight, and then the reasoning from there comes out to the desired conclusion. Not that there is usually much reasoning going on, it is mostly emotional arguments.
    - apta_ 6y ago
      > The republicans have espoused a dangerous ideology that not just allows but welcomes factual untruths and a worrying disconnect from rational thought. As if the dems didn't do the same? Let's be honest with ourselves, both extremes are very dangerous, and polarization is continuing. The far left will kill people if left to their accord: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...
skosuri 6y ago
For the last twenty years I thought things would eventually just come back to center. I’m not sure anymore. It’s possible it’s as follows: One side will win. History will be written by those winners. Pick your side and fight for it?
- geofft 6y ago
  I think this is true, and I think this is also the historically precedented answer. The partisanship in Europe in the early 20th century was not resolved by debate or belief, it was resolved by war and more generally political realignment. The vast divide between capitalism and communism was resolved by cold "war," by two superpowers aligning one with each and declaring the opposing ideology a security threat and then trying to starve out the other. I think we can avoid another major war, but I don't think we can avoid one ideology winning and one losing.
- nightski 6y ago
  This is the fight we are being led into but there is another way. Compromise and working together. Truth be told it would be the best for both sides, and both sides are equally as guilty in not achieving it.
drewcon 6y ago
There are most certainly more than two sides.
amluto 6y ago
Try to steer people to the media outlets that are still mostly balanced? NPR comes to mind. Or encourage people to read a leftish and a rightish source? And encourage people to think for themselves? It would also be nice, albeit maybe very hard, to encourage even the less balanced media to try to speak to everyone and to write critically and honestly. For example, I personally lean left, but I find the New York Times to be increasingly vapid and unthinking. In general, if you’re reading news (or Twitter!) just to find people who agree with you, you’re doing it wrong. This is true regardless of political party.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  NPR does a good job of presenting the basic facts in their news segments, but their commentary, editorial, and human interest programming is 100% progressive.
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    Can you give me an example of a story you believe is overtly "progressive"?
    - MontyCarloHall 6y ago
      How about the story that gave serious airtime to the book “In Defense of Looting” [0], which as the title implies, wholeheartedly condoned the looting and rioting that occurred during the summer protests. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
      - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
        First I would point out that the article start with: "This story was updated on Sept. 1, 2020. The original version of this story, which is an interview with an author who holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed." So they are clearly cognizant of the fact that the content is very controversial. I think it's a sensitive and important subject, and one that doesn't really get addressed in a serious, scholarly way. In some ways, it's a perfect example of the kind of heterodox research that conservatives have advocated for in universities and public forums. And it is the job of the media to try to communicate what ideas are out there.
zamfi 6y ago
> How can we have a meaningful discussion as a nation, when there is no apparent common ground? No set of agreed-upon facts? It's worse than this. Even just presenting facts that are inconvenient or go against the desires of beliefs is enough to make you an enemy / part of the other side, no questions asked.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
This dance never ends. Soon enough people's behavior will evolve and the groups will start calling themselves the same ways PACs do ( you know, American Roads, Appleplie And Flag for Orphans Foundation ). We already had an indication with Bogaloo group ( although for them it the name was something of an inside joke ). This is why censorship is effectively self-defeating. If 50% of US population, apparently, thinks that hashtag is valid, you can rest assured it will either surface in some cloaked form ( say, bunnies for adoption ), or worse, it will disappear from the radar where LEOs will not be able to easily track it ( and boy can they easily track it now ). I may be coming across as a free speech fundamentalist, but that is the problem with actual rights. You tend to defend assholes since they are the ones who tend to push the envelope. I don't want to dance this dance. Its trajectory tends to end somewhere around Xi banning Winnie and number 8 ( ie. shit getting ridiculous ). It is not fun in the meantime.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
geofft 6y ago
I think the idea that the "sides" are roughly equally balanced is a false narrative pushed by the smaller side. Obviously "hang Mike Pence" isn't an appealing idea to anywhere near 100% of Republican voters, and I would wager it's appealing to just about 0% of non-Republican voters. What you're seeing is that the amount of yelling is roughly equally balanced, but you can't extrapolate from that to what all people actually believe. Obviously you won't find common ground for every single person, but there is common ground for 80-90% of them. A few more bits of information: - There's Mike Pence himself, the actual vice president of the United States, and his unwillingness to go along with the worldviews of those who have by now concluded he needs to be hanged. - Mitt Romney, the actual Republican presidential candidate in 2012 (who won 47% of the popular vote), has been pretty strongly opposed to the idea that Trump secretly won / would have won, to the coup, etc. Previously he marched in Black Lives Matter protests and voted to convict the President in the impeachment trial last year. (Romney also created Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, even though if you listen to how loudly people yell, it seems like half the country opposes it.) - Georgia elected two Democratic Senators. More generally, the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013 and several states are actively engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. The fact that you see Republicans roughly tied with Democrats doesn't indicate that Republican policies are equally popular. And, again, the "side" that advocates for "hang Mike Pence" is hardly the totality of the Republican Party. So what can be done? I think the highest-impact thing is to help out efforts to re-enfranchise Americans and end gerrymandering. The work coordinated by Stacey Abrams in Georgia is a good place to start, for instance. Regardless of what party or policies you support, if you believe in democracy, getting elections to be more representative can only be a good thing. And in particular, if you're right-leaning but worry that the Republican Party is going too far, making it so that the party has to compete by convincing centrists instead of being able to rely on extremists will be good for the party.
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  It's odd to me how someone could think that there is more hatred for Mike Pence coming from within his own party vs. outside of it. I don't know what social media circles you've participated in for the past 5 years, but it seems clearly the opposite case to me. There is an overwhelmingly large group of people online who equivocate Mike Pence with Nazism, and they regularly call for punching and killing of anyone who has that label. Last August, a Trump supporter was killed at a Portland BLM protest, where afterwards into the microphone the organizer yelled "I am not sad that a f*cking fascist died tonight. He was a f*cking Nazi. Our community held its own and took out the trash." Many young people praised this. I do not believe the remarks would have been different if it were Pence in the same situation.
jimbokun 6y ago
> No set of agreed-upon facts? That's just not true. There are good statistics on the number of deaths and positive tests for Covid. There is a reliable and agreed upon process for counting votes in the states, and plenty of avenues to dispute those counts, and a court system that has heard every single complaint from the losing Presidential candidate and made clear rulings based on the evidence. What is abundantly plain from this week, is there is a very large number of people who clearly just wanted to bash some heads and break a lot of stuff and threaten more violence. They felt untouchable and that no rules applied to them. These people have zero interest in finding objective truths about the world. They just enjoy the feeling of power over other people and they use words in whatever way thinks will increase that power, regardless of any connection to the truth.
- ansible 6y ago
  Let me be very clear, I do wish there was an objective set of facts that are agreed to by both sides. But that doesn't seem to be true anymore. > There are good statistics on the number of deaths and positive tests for Covid. There is a significant segment of the population that believes the virus is a hoax, or not nearly as bad as the media says. Some of these people, even while dying from the virus, are still in denial, and yell at the medical staff about it. Go watch some interviews with doctors and nurses. It will make you very sad and disappointed in humanity.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  > made clear rulings based on the evidence. At least some, maybe most of those challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, lack of standing, etc. They never got to the point of examining the "evidence." Maybe the retort to that is the challengers should have foreseen that. But the people filing these challenges were not unhinged randos from Twitter. They were elected officials, lawyers, educated people. They aren't going to go into court with something they know is frivolous. Given that a sizable minority (and likely unprecedented number) of the voting public thinks there was fraud in the 2020 election, maybe it would have been better to have rebutted the evidence rather than the process. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/11/19/america-speaks-do-they-think-fraud-occurred-2020-p https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
quest88 6y ago
There are more than two sides.
vlunkr 6y ago
I think the problem appears much worse on twitter than it really is. It rewards narcissists and trolls. The far right and far left love fighting online, but in reality most people are somewhere in the center of the two, watching quietly. There is still some good, if not perfect, discussion on HN and other places. I havent seen people calling for public executions here at the very least. The sun will burn out before the twitter mobs learn to be decent to each other, it's best to just disregard them.
beefield 6y ago
To me it looks like the issue is lack of "perceived respect" (more complex than that, but I use a simple word to describe whole thing) from the "other side". Now, one side would need to somehow get the other side convinced that yes, we respect you as human beings even if we disagree on some things. And that respect does not just mean nice words, but also actual policies which make people (not their opinions) thrive. Bad news is that it is not an easy task - for either side. Due to the election results, it is now Democrats' turn to see how they can start to heal the nation. It is imperative that they see that the reason for Trump's success is not racism or misogyny of Trump's supporters. The real reason is that there are lots of people who think that their life is not good. And that needs to be fixed. Bad news again is that it is not easy. Even worse is that if you fail, escalation continues and at some point you are looking at breaking the country or even civil war.
feralimal 6y ago
> No set of agreed-upon facts? This is the core problem. Who do you trust? Fox news or CNN. The answer for me is I trust no one. They are all liars. I verify for myself. All governance (government, legal, media, military, education, etc) is there to foster a divisive situation as that makes us easier to rule. When people are divided they will not see the plans that are being executed and how they are pawns in a larger game. You can call it delusional or conspiracy, but there are plans - you can very easily see these on the WEF's website, or read about them in Klaus Schwabb's book. If you don't want to see what is in store for you, what can I say? Switch the news back on, and have a good life. The truth is that there are a controlling group of people that are entirely unaccountable - governments and voting provide them with a buffer from people - they enact their plans regardless of all that. And further to that, most of us are in an impossible situation that we can do very little about. BLM or MAGA protests - its all the same. If you want to talk about solutions, the only answers are disengagement from the system. And if you go deep into that, the only answer is disengagement from the legal system. If there is one thing that causes the issues we have, its that we believe we are the legal name that we have a birth certificate of. And on it, it says 'this certificate cannot be used as proof of ID'. The only law 'they' are happy for us to break, is the one where we use the legal name. You are not the legal name. You may not know who you are, but you are not that.. It is illegal to use the legal name. When we do so, we are acting with dishonour. And that is where our problems begin. And also where they can end.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> We've got these two sides. No, we don't have two sides. We've got, to reduce the complexity quite a bit but identify some factions with very distinct (though overlapping in various combinations) current interests: progressive Democrats and corporate neoliberal Democrats and moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans unequivocally appalled at the MAGA insurrection and those overtly supportive of the MAGA insurrection and mostly-conservative Republicans overtly opposed to the MAGA insurrection but eager to push it off the radar.
jturpin 6y ago
I have absolutely no idea what can be done. I think the best thing that could most realistically happen is that things "cool off" in the months after Biden is inaugurated and the world continues to spin.
- loopz 6y ago
  Hell will freeze over first. Trump will not show at inauguration, he has not acknowledged Biden as the next President or that fraud was insignificant in the election. Anyways, whatever he says, he's got zero credibility, follows the most pathological path of psychopathy, though is expert in massively duping people for his own crimes and frauds. Though, he's so bad and incompetent in everything else, he relies on enablers around him that he later can backstab for his own mistakes. https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    He has said he will not attend the inauguration. He has said there will be an orderly transition of power, so that implies he acknowledges Biden as the president-elect, or at least realizes that he's out of challenges. True that he has not disavowed the fraud claims, and probably never will.
    - loopz 6y ago
      1. He didn't attend Capitol, but urged his followers to storm it "peacefully" while extorting Congress. 2. He's always lying. 3) He implies nothing, at least nothing predictable. 4) True, he still keeps lying about fraud even though he alleged fraud long before the election process even (before summer). He used anchors and primed his base for months on this. Even got underlings to sabotage effectiveness of the US Postal Service. What he did agree to was "orderly transition" of power, and he most probably has this in mind (another prime): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pompeo+%22to+second+Trump+administration%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pompeo+%22to+second+Trump+administ...
neogodless 6y ago
We do not have "two sides." Many on the two dominate groups believe there is only "the other side" but there are people that believe facts, science, etc. are more important than either side. It would be naive to believe even those that value truth highest are without bias, but it would not be naive to conclude that we are better off trying to combat polarization, and avoid simplifying our labels into "us vs. them", "right vs. wrong", "fact vs. fiction" because these labels are too simple, too broad, and ultimately inaccurate. I do believe that the arguing, the battle... it's a distraction, in a sense. It's an amplifier. It's a self-reinforcing polarization engine. Maybe I'm just saying what you said, but I think it's important to break down the concept of "two sides" if you want to have any hope of finding common ground. How many of you (in the U.S. if not abroad) want the best for the United States? Who among us want it to be a strong nation full of employed, educated, healthy citizens? Who wants to revisit the tenants of our founding fathers, learn lessons from the past while being willing to try new things and accept changes? Who wants this stark divide to be behind us? Who wants to deescalate from violent rhetoric and focus on proven methods of finding and sharing truth?
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>How can we have a meaningful discussion as a nation, when there is no apparent common ground? No set of agreed-upon facts? I think that's the important thing right there. Echo chambers and identity politics have divided the USA greatly. The way forward is not to divide more. For example Biden inferring that Trump is hitler and calling Senator Cruz Goebbels the nazi propaganda minister is not going to heal the divide. >Now I of course have my own very strong opinions and I'm sure I have a good comprehension of the truth. But that isn't going to convince anyone on the other side anymore. To people on one side, the other side's minds appear to be just poisoned. Imagine this for a second. Say you are going to spend all your waking hours reading the news. You could read every major source. You could review videos, pictures, you could have a good knowledge of what's going on in a small part of the world. You wont know what's going in 90%+ of the world. The problem is that you cant do that. You dont have the time to do that and so you only look at a few sources. We then have the problem that the news cant be trusted. It's beyond clear that they publish outright lies. That's why we have these delusion vs reality issues. To fix this problem isn't to give people more time. It certainly isn't to remove opposing viewpoints. When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. -George RR Martin

duxup 6y ago

I don't know what to say to people who want someone else killed...

ansible 6y ago
Almost everyone (including really terrible people) don't want people killed. That is why it is often necessary to de-humanize the enemy. We give them labels, make them not worthy of the protections of civil society, and then it is justified if they die. Because they are not people anymore.
- playtriot 6y ago
  That's not quite it either, the truth is actually worse. We know the other side are people, the fact that we insult them acknowledges that. Think of hitler youth forcing a rabbi to scrub the pavement on their hands and knees. The cruelty is intentional, not based on seeing them as less than human.
- hehehaha 6y ago
  That’s just not true. We have nearly an entire human history to prove otherwise. The only reason why we stopped killing each other is due to nuclear bombs.
  - xnx 6y ago
    You should reread he parent comment. I think you agree. It describe the steps as: 1) Dehumanize the enemy 2) Kill/eliminate the inhuman enemy (no longer considered to be people)
    - loopz 6y ago
      Now we have: 3) Trump designated target as well. Doesn't matter which side you think you're on then. At some point they come for you: Must-see new video shows Capitol riot was way worse than we thought https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/media/reliable-sources-january-8/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/media/reliable-sources-ja...
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  I think your comment is being misunderstood. I interpreted it to mean that most people don't naturally have the capacity to kill others who they identify as equals, and that's why many extremist groups take steps to other their targets. I get the sense that people are reading it to mean that the rioters at the capital hadn't been radicalized like this. Or that dehumanizing people in that way is somehow okay. Perhaps you can clarify. I tend to believe that, thankfully, most people don't have the capacity for extreme violence at a moment's notice. It takes intense conditioning. The US military started to emphasize this [1](paywalled) after it was discovered that even during combat, while people were shooting at them, most soldiers didn't try to kill their enemy or even fire their weapon [2]. So it seems like the highest priority is to re-humanize the "normies" and "communist antifa spies" or whatever nonsense phrase these extremists are using. I have *absolutely* no idea how to do that, but it must be done. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-com... [2] https://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm https://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldier...
- ipython 6y ago
  That’s no longer the case. Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi were called out specifically on Parler posts. Then again I would also say you’re correct as the people engaging with that violent and vitriolic content probably don’t consider them actual humans.
- apta_ 6y ago
  Exactly, and both sides are guilty of that: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
You say nothing. You just be happy they are stupid enough to say it in public and see if they end up on LEO radar. I am sure threatening VP is treated with same severity as threatening P.
apta_ 6y ago
The far left is equally bad: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...

technothrasher 6y ago

Street Epistemology is the kind of thing I think can ultimately be successful. Instead of yelling at people or telling them their wrong and you're right, discuss with them how and why they come to their beliefs in a non-confrontational way. The hopeful result is that you both come away thinking about how better to examine what you believe.

netcraft 6y ago

What is the two sides exactly? There is a group that has produced no evidence for their claims and is threatening and acting out violence - is that one of the sides? There is a point in which a particular group is no longer acting in good faith, and is taking advantage of the tolerance and ability to have discourse. https://kottke.org/17/08/the-paradox-of-tolerance https://kottke.org/17/08/the-paradox-of-tolerance

matwood 6y ago
Yeah, I finally had to stop having discussions with MAGA family members because the complete lack of good faith. Because they are family, I would listen and then spend time reading their sources and gathering facts and information to have a real discussion around, and as soon as their beliefs in a topic were challenged they would fall back to 'what about Hilary's emails' or Hunters laptop. It just became pointless to have a discussion. It's cult like. I can't imagine supporting any side or politician like these people do.
jvreagan 6y ago
You just described both sides. Side a: 2016 US election was stolen. 2020 was fair and square. Side b: 2020 US election was stolen. 2016 election was fair and square. Seems that there are a small number of people who think a) both elections were stolen or b) both elections were fair and square. They are being drowned out by sides a and b. If you fit side a or b above, you might want to some logical thinking. Pretty simple to see the two sides are simply opposite sides of the same coin, both deeped in hypocrisy.
- loopz 6y ago
  More like: 2016 US election had foreign propaganda interference (damn our algos weren't good enough!) 2021 Open violent attack on democratic process to certify president election.
  - jvreagan 6y ago
    2016 also had open violent attacks on democratic process to certify president election, remember? Riots, destruction of property in November and December 2016? Calls for electoral college voters to switch their votes. Ring a bell?

blakesterz 6y ago

> We've got these two sides. Regardless of the merits, each side believes they know the truth, and that the other side is delusional. You're partially right. We have at least two sides. One side is CLEARLY delusional. Fueled by conspiracy theories and lies. We also have other sides, but the two sides that get the most attention are the only sides that matter. We have one side that is most definitely delusional, other sides maybe have members who might be, but one side is DOMINATED by delusion.

ansible 6y ago
And I do have a very strong opinion on all that. I just wanted to note that the "other side" that I'm not on, also believes basically the same thing with regards to my side.
- Renaud 6y ago
  Having an opinion you strongly believe in is not enough to make it true or right. The republicans have espoused a dangerous ideology that not just allows but welcomes factual untruths and a worrying disconnect from rational thought. There is a need for political parties of various philosophical bents to push and pull in different directions based on reasoned and informed decisions. Once you give up that core grounding you basically invite fanatism and I don’t see what possible positive outcome we can expect from this.
  - ansible 6y ago
    > Having an opinion you strongly believe in is not enough to make it true or right. Of course it isn't enough. That's why the media outlets in question will make up facts, or really slant things to appear to carry sufficient factual weight, and then the reasoning from there comes out to the desired conclusion. Not that there is usually much reasoning going on, it is mostly emotional arguments.
  - apta_ 6y ago
    > The republicans have espoused a dangerous ideology that not just allows but welcomes factual untruths and a worrying disconnect from rational thought. As if the dems didn't do the same? Let's be honest with ourselves, both extremes are very dangerous, and polarization is continuing. The far left will kill people if left to their accord: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur%20Chu_1.jpg https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...

skosuri 6y ago

For the last twenty years I thought things would eventually just come back to center. I’m not sure anymore. It’s possible it’s as follows: One side will win. History will be written by those winners. Pick your side and fight for it?

geofft 6y ago
I think this is true, and I think this is also the historically precedented answer. The partisanship in Europe in the early 20th century was not resolved by debate or belief, it was resolved by war and more generally political realignment. The vast divide between capitalism and communism was resolved by cold "war," by two superpowers aligning one with each and declaring the opposing ideology a security threat and then trying to starve out the other. I think we can avoid another major war, but I don't think we can avoid one ideology winning and one losing.
nightski 6y ago
This is the fight we are being led into but there is another way. Compromise and working together. Truth be told it would be the best for both sides, and both sides are equally as guilty in not achieving it.

drewcon 6y ago

There are most certainly more than two sides.

amluto 6y ago

Try to steer people to the media outlets that are still mostly balanced? NPR comes to mind. Or encourage people to read a leftish and a rightish source? And encourage people to think for themselves? It would also be nice, albeit maybe very hard, to encourage even the less balanced media to try to speak to everyone and to write critically and honestly. For example, I personally lean left, but I find the New York Times to be increasingly vapid and unthinking. In general, if you’re reading news (or Twitter!) just to find people who agree with you, you’re doing it wrong. This is true regardless of political party.

jimbokun 6y ago
NPR does a good job of presenting the basic facts in their news segments, but their commentary, editorial, and human interest programming is 100% progressive.
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  Can you give me an example of a story you believe is overtly "progressive"?
  - MontyCarloHall 6y ago
    How about the story that gave serious airtime to the book “In Defense of Looting” [0], which as the title implies, wholeheartedly condoned the looting and rioting that occurred during the summer protests. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
    - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
      First I would point out that the article start with: "This story was updated on Sept. 1, 2020. The original version of this story, which is an interview with an author who holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed." So they are clearly cognizant of the fact that the content is very controversial. I think it's a sensitive and important subject, and one that doesn't really get addressed in a serious, scholarly way. In some ways, it's a perfect example of the kind of heterodox research that conservatives have advocated for in universities and public forums. And it is the job of the media to try to communicate what ideas are out there.

zamfi 6y ago

> How can we have a meaningful discussion as a nation, when there is no apparent common ground? No set of agreed-upon facts? It's worse than this. Even just presenting facts that are inconvenient or go against the desires of beliefs is enough to make you an enemy / part of the other side, no questions asked.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

This dance never ends. Soon enough people's behavior will evolve and the groups will start calling themselves the same ways PACs do ( you know, American Roads, Appleplie And Flag for Orphans Foundation ). We already had an indication with Bogaloo group ( although for them it the name was something of an inside joke ). This is why censorship is effectively self-defeating. If 50% of US population, apparently, thinks that hashtag is valid, you can rest assured it will either surface in some cloaked form ( say, bunnies for adoption ), or worse, it will disappear from the radar where LEOs will not be able to easily track it ( and boy can they easily track it now ). I may be coming across as a free speech fundamentalist, but that is the problem with actual rights. You tend to defend assholes since they are the ones who tend to push the envelope. I don't want to dance this dance. Its trajectory tends to end somewhere around Xi banning Winnie and number 8 ( ie. shit getting ridiculous ). It is not fun in the meantime.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

geofft 6y ago

I think the idea that the "sides" are roughly equally balanced is a false narrative pushed by the smaller side. Obviously "hang Mike Pence" isn't an appealing idea to anywhere near 100% of Republican voters, and I would wager it's appealing to just about 0% of non-Republican voters. What you're seeing is that the amount of yelling is roughly equally balanced, but you can't extrapolate from that to what all people actually believe. Obviously you won't find common ground for every single person, but there is common ground for 80-90% of them. A few more bits of information: - There's Mike Pence himself, the actual vice president of the United States, and his unwillingness to go along with the worldviews of those who have by now concluded he needs to be hanged. - Mitt Romney, the actual Republican presidential candidate in 2012 (who won 47% of the popular vote), has been pretty strongly opposed to the idea that Trump secretly won / would have won, to the coup, etc. Previously he marched in Black Lives Matter protests and voted to convict the President in the impeachment trial last year. (Romney also created Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, even though if you listen to how loudly people yell, it seems like half the country opposes it.) - Georgia elected two Democratic Senators. More generally, the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013 and several states are actively engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. The fact that you see Republicans roughly tied with Democrats doesn't indicate that Republican policies are equally popular. And, again, the "side" that advocates for "hang Mike Pence" is hardly the totality of the Republican Party. So what can be done? I think the highest-impact thing is to help out efforts to re-enfranchise Americans and end gerrymandering. The work coordinated by Stacey Abrams in Georgia is a good place to start, for instance. Regardless of what party or policies you support, if you believe in democracy, getting elections to be more representative can only be a good thing. And in particular, if you're right-leaning but worry that the Republican Party is going too far, making it so that the party has to compete by convincing centrists instead of being able to rely on extremists will be good for the party.

1MachineElf 6y ago
It's odd to me how someone could think that there is more hatred for Mike Pence coming from within his own party vs. outside of it. I don't know what social media circles you've participated in for the past 5 years, but it seems clearly the opposite case to me. There is an overwhelmingly large group of people online who equivocate Mike Pence with Nazism, and they regularly call for punching and killing of anyone who has that label. Last August, a Trump supporter was killed at a Portland BLM protest, where afterwards into the microphone the organizer yelled "I am not sad that a f*cking fascist died tonight. He was a f*cking Nazi. Our community held its own and took out the trash." Many young people praised this. I do not believe the remarks would have been different if it were Pence in the same situation.

jimbokun 6y ago

> No set of agreed-upon facts? That's just not true. There are good statistics on the number of deaths and positive tests for Covid. There is a reliable and agreed upon process for counting votes in the states, and plenty of avenues to dispute those counts, and a court system that has heard every single complaint from the losing Presidential candidate and made clear rulings based on the evidence. What is abundantly plain from this week, is there is a very large number of people who clearly just wanted to bash some heads and break a lot of stuff and threaten more violence. They felt untouchable and that no rules applied to them. These people have zero interest in finding objective truths about the world. They just enjoy the feeling of power over other people and they use words in whatever way thinks will increase that power, regardless of any connection to the truth.

ansible 6y ago
Let me be very clear, I do wish there was an objective set of facts that are agreed to by both sides. But that doesn't seem to be true anymore. > There are good statistics on the number of deaths and positive tests for Covid. There is a significant segment of the population that believes the virus is a hoax, or not nearly as bad as the media says. Some of these people, even while dying from the virus, are still in denial, and yell at the medical staff about it. Go watch some interviews with doctors and nurses. It will make you very sad and disappointed in humanity.
throwaway201103 6y ago
> made clear rulings based on the evidence. At least some, maybe most of those challenges were dismissed on procedural grounds, lack of standing, etc. They never got to the point of examining the "evidence." Maybe the retort to that is the challengers should have foreseen that. But the people filing these challenges were not unhinged randos from Twitter. They were elected officials, lawyers, educated people. They aren't going to go into court with something they know is frivolous. Given that a sizable minority (and likely unprecedented number) of the voting public thinks there was fraud in the 2020 election, maybe it would have been better to have rebutted the evidence rather than the process. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/11/19/america-speaks-do-they-think-fraud-occurred-2020-p https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

quest88 6y ago

There are more than two sides.

vlunkr 6y ago

I think the problem appears much worse on twitter than it really is. It rewards narcissists and trolls. The far right and far left love fighting online, but in reality most people are somewhere in the center of the two, watching quietly. There is still some good, if not perfect, discussion on HN and other places. I havent seen people calling for public executions here at the very least. The sun will burn out before the twitter mobs learn to be decent to each other, it's best to just disregard them.

beefield 6y ago

To me it looks like the issue is lack of "perceived respect" (more complex than that, but I use a simple word to describe whole thing) from the "other side". Now, one side would need to somehow get the other side convinced that yes, we respect you as human beings even if we disagree on some things. And that respect does not just mean nice words, but also actual policies which make people (not their opinions) thrive. Bad news is that it is not an easy task - for either side. Due to the election results, it is now Democrats' turn to see how they can start to heal the nation. It is imperative that they see that the reason for Trump's success is not racism or misogyny of Trump's supporters. The real reason is that there are lots of people who think that their life is not good. And that needs to be fixed. Bad news again is that it is not easy. Even worse is that if you fail, escalation continues and at some point you are looking at breaking the country or even civil war.

feralimal 6y ago

> No set of agreed-upon facts? This is the core problem. Who do you trust? Fox news or CNN. The answer for me is I trust no one. They are all liars. I verify for myself. All governance (government, legal, media, military, education, etc) is there to foster a divisive situation as that makes us easier to rule. When people are divided they will not see the plans that are being executed and how they are pawns in a larger game. You can call it delusional or conspiracy, but there are plans - you can very easily see these on the WEF's website, or read about them in Klaus Schwabb's book. If you don't want to see what is in store for you, what can I say? Switch the news back on, and have a good life. The truth is that there are a controlling group of people that are entirely unaccountable - governments and voting provide them with a buffer from people - they enact their plans regardless of all that. And further to that, most of us are in an impossible situation that we can do very little about. BLM or MAGA protests - its all the same. If you want to talk about solutions, the only answers are disengagement from the system. And if you go deep into that, the only answer is disengagement from the legal system. If there is one thing that causes the issues we have, its that we believe we are the legal name that we have a birth certificate of. And on it, it says 'this certificate cannot be used as proof of ID'. The only law 'they' are happy for us to break, is the one where we use the legal name. You are not the legal name. You may not know who you are, but you are not that.. It is illegal to use the legal name. When we do so, we are acting with dishonour. And that is where our problems begin. And also where they can end.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> We've got these two sides. No, we don't have two sides. We've got, to reduce the complexity quite a bit but identify some factions with very distinct (though overlapping in various combinations) current interests: progressive Democrats and corporate neoliberal Democrats and moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans unequivocally appalled at the MAGA insurrection and those overtly supportive of the MAGA insurrection and mostly-conservative Republicans overtly opposed to the MAGA insurrection but eager to push it off the radar.

jturpin 6y ago

I have absolutely no idea what can be done. I think the best thing that could most realistically happen is that things "cool off" in the months after Biden is inaugurated and the world continues to spin.

loopz 6y ago
Hell will freeze over first. Trump will not show at inauguration, he has not acknowledged Biden as the next President or that fraud was insignificant in the election. Anyways, whatever he says, he's got zero credibility, follows the most pathological path of psychopathy, though is expert in massively duping people for his own crimes and frauds. Though, he's so bad and incompetent in everything else, he relies on enablers around him that he later can backstab for his own mistakes. https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752 https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-99178053752
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  He has said he will not attend the inauguration. He has said there will be an orderly transition of power, so that implies he acknowledges Biden as the president-elect, or at least realizes that he's out of challenges. True that he has not disavowed the fraud claims, and probably never will.
  - loopz 6y ago
    1. He didn't attend Capitol, but urged his followers to storm it "peacefully" while extorting Congress. 2. He's always lying. 3) He implies nothing, at least nothing predictable. 4) True, he still keeps lying about fraud even though he alleged fraud long before the election process even (before summer). He used anchors and primed his base for months on this. Even got underlings to sabotage effectiveness of the US Postal Service. What he did agree to was "orderly transition" of power, and he most probably has this in mind (another prime): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pompeo+%22to+second+Trump+administration%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pompeo+%22to+second+Trump+administ...

neogodless 6y ago

We do not have "two sides." Many on the two dominate groups believe there is only "the other side" but there are people that believe facts, science, etc. are more important than either side. It would be naive to believe even those that value truth highest are without bias, but it would not be naive to conclude that we are better off trying to combat polarization, and avoid simplifying our labels into "us vs. them", "right vs. wrong", "fact vs. fiction" because these labels are too simple, too broad, and ultimately inaccurate. I do believe that the arguing, the battle... it's a distraction, in a sense. It's an amplifier. It's a self-reinforcing polarization engine. Maybe I'm just saying what you said, but I think it's important to break down the concept of "two sides" if you want to have any hope of finding common ground. How many of you (in the U.S. if not abroad) want the best for the United States? Who among us want it to be a strong nation full of employed, educated, healthy citizens? Who wants to revisit the tenants of our founding fathers, learn lessons from the past while being willing to try new things and accept changes? Who wants this stark divide to be behind us? Who wants to deescalate from violent rhetoric and focus on proven methods of finding and sharing truth?

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

>How can we have a meaningful discussion as a nation, when there is no apparent common ground? No set of agreed-upon facts? I think that's the important thing right there. Echo chambers and identity politics have divided the USA greatly. The way forward is not to divide more. For example Biden inferring that Trump is hitler and calling Senator Cruz Goebbels the nazi propaganda minister is not going to heal the divide. >Now I of course have my own very strong opinions and I'm sure I have a good comprehension of the truth. But that isn't going to convince anyone on the other side anymore. To people on one side, the other side's minds appear to be just poisoned. Imagine this for a second. Say you are going to spend all your waking hours reading the news. You could read every major source. You could review videos, pictures, you could have a good knowledge of what's going on in a small part of the world. You wont know what's going in 90%+ of the world. The problem is that you cant do that. You dont have the time to do that and so you only look at a few sources. We then have the problem that the news cant be trusted. It's beyond clear that they publish outright lies. That's why we have these delusion vs reality issues. To fix this problem isn't to give people more time. It certainly isn't to remove opposing viewpoints. When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. -George RR Martin