6 ms·

This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series

This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess.

rayiner 6y ago
> t is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. What are you willing to give up politically to heal societal schisms?
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  I wonder if one of the big issues is that lately control of government is so flip floppy that no one gives up anything because they figure they'll have control soon enough. From the mid 30s to late 70s, Democrats had full control of congress for all but 4 years. The national Republican party had to change A LOT in that time to be relevant. Since HW Bush the longest period has been I dunno, 4 years? 6 years?
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  What is the argument you're trying to make?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
    - enraged_camel 6y ago
      I don't think banning extremism, hate speech and calls for political violence from private platforms constitutes a compromise.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I don't agree. Healing societal schisms is about reestablishing a vision of politics where you argue by saying "here's why this is the best policy" or "here's why this is the most ethical policy", rather than "my movement is very strong and you'd better not get in our way". Making compromises is an important part of effective governance, but it won't by itself heal anything.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        That sort of governance is a luxury for societies that have strong cultural ties and social bonds.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration. Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people. When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        So the answer is, you want to win rather than heal political schisms. Which is a perfectly fine answer! But that's the approach the other side has taken also, and well here we are. Politics isn't about rationality or facts or what one side thinks is "reasonable." Nobody approaches the Israel/Palestine conflict by asking "well who has the more rational argument here?" That would be silly. Politics is about power, and appeasing (or not) different factions.
        6y ago
emphatizer2000 6y ago
What damage to democracy do you expect from the Capitol incident? I think they'll put a few more guards up, and that's it. Or they use it as an excuse for more totalitarian control, but then the Capitol events were not really to blame for it.
mistermann 6y ago
> This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. Oh yes, I very much do know that, it is why I asked the question. > If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. I don't know about that, it depends on the level of precision you would require in predictions. That the future is unknown, and causation is extremely complex, are kind of my regular talking points, for which I am downvoted to negatives on quite literally every single post I make on this website. The reason I ask difficult questions that cut through rhetoric (or "load impossible burdens on" people who engage in rhetoric), is because I actually take these matters seriously. This isn't a game, not entirely at least. The situation at the US Capitol is "a big deal" in my books, and but one of a very long string of big deals. Others proclaim to share this belief. And yet, if they are asked to speak truthfully and precisely, free of rhetoric and framing, they can't bring themselves to do it. There seem to be very few people who are willing or able to respond to simple but precise questions, to state their beliefs in unambiguous and unequivocal terms. You don't put a man on the moon with vagueness and rhetoric, you do it with precise measurement and conformity to reality. Rhetoric can get you a very long ways in politics, but eventually Mother nature will prevent you with a bill for the party. It seems to me that we are nearing that point. It may take another decade or two, but we will pay for our actions, eventually. > It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy I'm open to the idea, I really am. I hear all sorts of people making this claim, but very little of the supporting reasoning. Perhaps starting with a definition of the phrase "damage to democracy" would be a good idea. I have no idea what that means. > and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. Yes indeed! The societal schisms sure have widened because of this, and it was utterly predictable. That a large group of angry, extremist Trump supporters was on its way that day was very well known. And yet for some unknown reason, security was incredibly light that day. Was this an unfortunate oversight? Maybe. Maybe not. Will this be seriously investigated, or will it get the standard circus of rhetoric in the press? We shall see what happens, and we shall see if anyone cares if a proper investigation, that truly seeks The Truth, is performed.
jacquesm 6y ago
This guy is a master troll, check his comment history. That's his whole shtick, and then he'll respond with wall-after-wall of text.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I notice you are never able to defend your confident, evidence-free assertions Mr. Jaquesm, with anything other than rhetoric and insults. If I am so dumb, and you are so smart, why do you never humiliate me? Or, you could even embarrass me right now, at least for fun. Go find our last interaction, and post a link to it right here underneath my comment. I have nothing to hide whatsoever, if I was a dummy in our past interactions, then link to it so others can see for their own eyes what sort of a "master troll" idiot they're dealing with. Or if you won't do it, I will encourage third party readers myself. Click my username, go read some of my "wall-after-walls of text". Get a feel for "my whole shtick". Judge for yourself if what I actually say matches this characterization. Judge for yourself whether asking pointed questions that logically test the childish rhetoric and hyperbolic claims that are becoming an ever larger percentage of the discussion on culture war topics is "a shtick". Judge for yourself whether it makes sense that accuracy and sound logic are considered mandatory for technical threads, but when the topic of discussion is regarding matters like democracy (a sacred institution), then these things are not only not mandatory, but downvoted and outright mocked. A computer program won't run as desired on ambiguity and imprecision, so why do we expect an entire country will? By my estimation, the culture of this website, like that of the country, is going downhill. People seem to be no longer able to speak truthfully, and they certainly won't talk about the abstract notion of truthful speech, something that philosophers have debated very seriously for ages. But here in 2021, on Hacker News, it's like it's become some sort of a taboo. There aren't many people like me around here, but I'm not the only one. You can downvote me and shame me all you want, but to get me to shut up about this apparently uncomfortable topic of The Truth, in high dimensions, you will have to get dang to ban me. Go ahead - push the report button on me. I suspect that day will come eventually, so might as well get it over with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

rayiner 6y ago

> t is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. What are you willing to give up politically to heal societal schisms?

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
I wonder if one of the big issues is that lately control of government is so flip floppy that no one gives up anything because they figure they'll have control soon enough. From the mid 30s to late 70s, Democrats had full control of congress for all but 4 years. The national Republican party had to change A LOT in that time to be relevant. Since HW Bush the longest period has been I dunno, 4 years? 6 years?
enraged_camel 6y ago
What is the argument you're trying to make?
- rayiner 6y ago
  I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    I don't think banning extremism, hate speech and calls for political violence from private platforms constitutes a compromise.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I don't agree. Healing societal schisms is about reestablishing a vision of politics where you argue by saying "here's why this is the best policy" or "here's why this is the most ethical policy", rather than "my movement is very strong and you'd better not get in our way". Making compromises is an important part of effective governance, but it won't by itself heal anything.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      That sort of governance is a luxury for societies that have strong cultural ties and social bonds.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration. Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people. When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      So the answer is, you want to win rather than heal political schisms. Which is a perfectly fine answer! But that's the approach the other side has taken also, and well here we are. Politics isn't about rationality or facts or what one side thinks is "reasonable." Nobody approaches the Israel/Palestine conflict by asking "well who has the more rational argument here?" That would be silly. Politics is about power, and appeasing (or not) different factions.
      - 6y ago

emphatizer2000 6y ago

What damage to democracy do you expect from the Capitol incident? I think they'll put a few more guards up, and that's it. Or they use it as an excuse for more totalitarian control, but then the Capitol events were not really to blame for it.

mistermann 6y ago

> This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. Oh yes, I very much do know that, it is why I asked the question. > If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. I don't know about that, it depends on the level of precision you would require in predictions. That the future is unknown, and causation is extremely complex, are kind of my regular talking points, for which I am downvoted to negatives on quite literally every single post I make on this website. The reason I ask difficult questions that cut through rhetoric (or "load impossible burdens on" people who engage in rhetoric), is because I actually take these matters seriously. This isn't a game, not entirely at least. The situation at the US Capitol is "a big deal" in my books, and but one of a very long string of big deals. Others proclaim to share this belief. And yet, if they are asked to speak truthfully and precisely, free of rhetoric and framing, they can't bring themselves to do it. There seem to be very few people who are willing or able to respond to simple but precise questions, to state their beliefs in unambiguous and unequivocal terms. You don't put a man on the moon with vagueness and rhetoric, you do it with precise measurement and conformity to reality. Rhetoric can get you a very long ways in politics, but eventually Mother nature will prevent you with a bill for the party. It seems to me that we are nearing that point. It may take another decade or two, but we will pay for our actions, eventually. > It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy I'm open to the idea, I really am. I hear all sorts of people making this claim, but very little of the supporting reasoning. Perhaps starting with a definition of the phrase "damage to democracy" would be a good idea. I have no idea what that means. > and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. Yes indeed! The societal schisms sure have widened because of this, and it was utterly predictable. That a large group of angry, extremist Trump supporters was on its way that day was very well known. And yet for some unknown reason, security was incredibly light that day. Was this an unfortunate oversight? Maybe. Maybe not. Will this be seriously investigated, or will it get the standard circus of rhetoric in the press? We shall see what happens, and we shall see if anyone cares if a proper investigation, that truly seeks The Truth, is performed.

jacquesm 6y ago

This guy is a master troll, check his comment history. That's his whole shtick, and then he'll respond with wall-after-wall of text.

mistermann 6y ago
I notice you are never able to defend your confident, evidence-free assertions Mr. Jaquesm, with anything other than rhetoric and insults. If I am so dumb, and you are so smart, why do you never humiliate me? Or, you could even embarrass me right now, at least for fun. Go find our last interaction, and post a link to it right here underneath my comment. I have nothing to hide whatsoever, if I was a dummy in our past interactions, then link to it so others can see for their own eyes what sort of a "master troll" idiot they're dealing with. Or if you won't do it, I will encourage third party readers myself. Click my username, go read some of my "wall-after-walls of text". Get a feel for "my whole shtick". Judge for yourself if what I actually say matches this characterization. Judge for yourself whether asking pointed questions that logically test the childish rhetoric and hyperbolic claims that are becoming an ever larger percentage of the discussion on culture war topics is "a shtick". Judge for yourself whether it makes sense that accuracy and sound logic are considered mandatory for technical threads, but when the topic of discussion is regarding matters like democracy (a sacred institution), then these things are not only not mandatory, but downvoted and outright mocked. A computer program won't run as desired on ambiguity and imprecision, so why do we expect an entire country will? By my estimation, the culture of this website, like that of the country, is going downhill. People seem to be no longer able to speak truthfully, and they certainly won't talk about the abstract notion of truthful speech, something that philosophers have debated very seriously for ages. But here in 2021, on Hacker News, it's like it's become some sort of a taboo. There aren't many people like me around here, but I'm not the only one. You can downvote me and shame me all you want, but to get me to shut up about this apparently uncomfortable topic of The Truth, in high dimensions, you will have to get dang to ban me. Go ahead - push the report button on me. I suspect that day will come eventually, so might as well get it over with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]