3 ms·

Sample size of one…it feels true to me. Maybe it’s my age or I am somehow blissfully unaware it’s always been like this. It feels very true for me in America th

Sample size of one…it feels true to me. Maybe it’s my age or I am somehow blissfully unaware it’s always been like this. It feels very true for me in America that the moment you like or dislike something or even have an opinion that is a shade of gray instead of black or white, that you immediately get dumped into a binary category. In America this seems to be extremely true regardless of ideology.

joenot443 2y ago
This is in alignment with my past experiences too. After moving to America, I met a friend who told me she would never share a table with someone who voted Republican. I found this super surprising, but the rest of the group agreed. That was a hard rule for them. From what I've been able to gather, most privileged progressive white-collar circles in American cities tend to run almost exclusively Democrat. Has it always been this way? Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? Back in Canada, of my three closest friends, one voted LPC, another Green, and another CPC. This next election I imagine it will be different. The amount of tribalism Americans associate with their two parties has always been so fascinating to me.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  > From what I've been able to gather, most privileged progressive white-collar circles in American cities tend to run almost exclusively Democrat. Has it always been this way? No and it's not always true. They just have different shibboleths and areas you'd see them. Rust Belt and Farm belt come to mind here. > Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? At least in my lifetime, things started to polarize around the GWB vs Kerry election. Opinions on the war/etc caused some people at my college to change some friendships based on political affiliations... most people would just avoid talking politics though (touching on your previous question, someone in collage from a fairly well off family kinda got the wrong message from American dad, yet he just made sure to stop talking about how pretty Ann Coulter was in front of left wing people.) The elections after that amplified the split however. Obama's second election was, in my head, less 'contentious' than the first... but by 2016 I think everything was in full swing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rebeccaskinner 2y ago
  > Has it always been this way? Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? Not to the degree we see today. I think it's something that's really taken off in the last 8 to 10 years, and I remember seeing the first signs of it starting in maybe 2008. The Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements seemed to be the leading indicators of a much more deepening divide. It's not really surprising to me though. I think when you frame it as "allowing voting habits to dictate your choice of friends" it sounds superficial, but there are deep ethical and ideological divides. You're framing like people are saying "You voted for X and so we can't be friends", but I think a more accurate framing would be "X is an abhorrent belief and cannot in good conscience have a relationship with anyone who would support X or any politician who is in favor of X". Believe it or not, this is _very different_ than it was maybe 20 years ago. I used to have good friends who were in the "other" party, and while we had pretty strong disagreements about policy, I never doubted that in the end we all wanted what was best for people, and our views of what the best outcomes would be were pretty aligned even if our ideas of how to get there were very different. Today, that's not the case. There's almost no common ground to find.
- tharmas 2y ago
  Intolerance of the other's point of view seems to be increasing. And I do think that social media is fueling that intolerance. Its easy to be rude to someone online than it is in person. In short, its easier to be intolerant online than in person. Also, seeing the world in Black and White requires less effort than viewing it in shades of grey. And the rational mind seeks certainty and clarity, which makes Black and White an attractive option compared to uncertainty of ambiguous shades of grey. Single Vision, William Blake called it.
lloydatkinson 2y ago
Even about the stupidest and minor things too, I’ve noticed. A few weeks ago I discussed how I’m not a big fan of dark theme UIs, and the comments here on HN were shockingly nasty and out of place.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  It’s not entirely new. I remember some pretty heated, ugly arguments over Xbox v PS2.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    That's really just tribalism. Also see anytime Apple enters the discussion. The comment upthread more applies to how, on certain charged issues, trying to take a more nuanced take or point out that their side is not entirely correct on some minor point is likely to get you virtually shouted down because you're obviously in the pay of the other side. In general, it's better to just close the browser.
    - awfulneutral 2y ago
      Also, on the internet, you can't tell who's a teenager. Social groups in real life are usually divided by age. If a much younger person has an overly extreme or overly argumentative opinion, it's kind of expected.
    - xoa 2y ago
      >That's really just tribalism. I want to gently push back on this, as I've seen the simple explanation you say itself become a black and white accepted truth meme when reality is more complicated. Yes, tribalism does play a role, but the harder truth is there is legitimate, logical self interest and game theory at play too. Game consoles, or computer OSes, are platforms with a significant network effect economic component. People do not generally buy these just for the thing itself, they buy it because of the software it enables them to run (be it games or something else). The more software it has, the more value it offers for the price. And the more it sells, the more economies of scale allows further pushing down the cost, improving the offering, or both. But the existence of any given piece of software depends on there being a critical mass of buyers. If you're the only one to buy into a given platform, it's not going to be supported long and the value of your purchase will be low, and whatever potential you hoped for will not happen. If 10-20% of the market buys in, then it'll likely go along ok, but a lot of what it gets will be ports or down to luck. If it has 30-50%, it's guaranteed to have solid support, as much as anything else. If it has 80%, it's going to have everything, mainstream stuff will be optimized to the max for it, ultra niche stuff only a few percent of the user base is interested in will still be big enough in absolute numbers to get developed. All of this applies to peripheral hardware as well. None of this even touches "networking" as-in multiple people collaborating, which is a whole further thing of course. So it's directly in someone's individual short term interest if as many other people buy into their preferred platform as possible. To go back to GGP's example, anyone who liked the Playstation 2 simply got more bang for their buck over the Xbox or GameCube. There were far more games for it, far more peripherals, developers went the extra mile for it's weird baroque architecture and pushed it to the limit. Xbox and GC both got some really cool games as well, but they were never explored to the same extent. Though platform markets also reveal another aspect related to "short term" above: while within a short period or generation it's good for an individual buyer if their platform dominates, over a medium to longer term it's inevitable that a dominant player will get lazy/greedy and start to abuse what they've got to the detriment of their customers. Further it's not necessarily easy for competition to spring back up. So there's another tension there between short term and medium/long term interests. Still though, I think "tribalism" has come to get thrown around too much, or perhaps alternatively people forget that "tribes" can work, and remain important. Most big things in the world require groups, not individuals. That necessarily means that how other people think and act directly affects others as well. No human is an island. If you think one option is truly the best one for you, that itself isn't necessarily good enough if you can't get enough others to agree. But nobody agrees 100% of the time. So long term banding together, smoothing over some disagreements with some agreement and placing some value on the group collective power itself is a strategy that is proven to get things done and deliver for people. "Just tribalism" is too shallow by far.
holoduke 2y ago
Same in Europe.
wrs 2y ago
During my several decades I would say polarization and tribalism has been a mainstay of American discourse. Think of “communist” as an all-purpose slur in the 50s, the Vietnam and establishment vs. counterculture situation in the 60s/70s, some weak anti-Yuppie stuff in the 80s, etc. But I can’t think of any time this bad. I personally blame not only the algorithms, but the focus of political parties on activating their more extreme constituents rather than on achieving reasonable compromise and effectively governing. It used to be you could have an actual substantive debate, but now at least one side will be either unable or unwilling to participate. The Republicans in particular got so good at energizing the extreme “base” as an electoral strategy that it seems the whole party leadership was inadvertently replaced by the “base”, which makes it very hard to make progress.
jprete 2y ago
As I remember it, it wasn't like this in the period before 2000-2003. The 2000 US Presidential election was very acrimonious; I think that died down because 9/11 was a unifying threat; then controversies about the war in Iraq and WMDs etc. reignited it. And this is also when the Internet became relevant to the public discourse and I think Internet social dynamics fanned a lot of the flames.

joenot443 2y ago

This is in alignment with my past experiences too. After moving to America, I met a friend who told me she would never share a table with someone who voted Republican. I found this super surprising, but the rest of the group agreed. That was a hard rule for them. From what I've been able to gather, most privileged progressive white-collar circles in American cities tend to run almost exclusively Democrat. Has it always been this way? Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? Back in Canada, of my three closest friends, one voted LPC, another Green, and another CPC. This next election I imagine it will be different. The amount of tribalism Americans associate with their two parties has always been so fascinating to me.

to11mtm 2y ago
> From what I've been able to gather, most privileged progressive white-collar circles in American cities tend to run almost exclusively Democrat. Has it always been this way? No and it's not always true. They just have different shibboleths and areas you'd see them. Rust Belt and Farm belt come to mind here. > Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? At least in my lifetime, things started to polarize around the GWB vs Kerry election. Opinions on the war/etc caused some people at my college to change some friendships based on political affiliations... most people would just avoid talking politics though (touching on your previous question, someone in collage from a fairly well off family kinda got the wrong message from American dad, yet he just made sure to stop talking about how pretty Ann Coulter was in front of left wing people.) The elections after that amplified the split however. Obama's second election was, in my head, less 'contentious' than the first... but by 2016 I think everything was in full swing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rebeccaskinner 2y ago
> Has it always been this way? Have Americans always allowed voting habits to dictate their choice of friends? Not to the degree we see today. I think it's something that's really taken off in the last 8 to 10 years, and I remember seeing the first signs of it starting in maybe 2008. The Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements seemed to be the leading indicators of a much more deepening divide. It's not really surprising to me though. I think when you frame it as "allowing voting habits to dictate your choice of friends" it sounds superficial, but there are deep ethical and ideological divides. You're framing like people are saying "You voted for X and so we can't be friends", but I think a more accurate framing would be "X is an abhorrent belief and cannot in good conscience have a relationship with anyone who would support X or any politician who is in favor of X". Believe it or not, this is _very different_ than it was maybe 20 years ago. I used to have good friends who were in the "other" party, and while we had pretty strong disagreements about policy, I never doubted that in the end we all wanted what was best for people, and our views of what the best outcomes would be were pretty aligned even if our ideas of how to get there were very different. Today, that's not the case. There's almost no common ground to find.
tharmas 2y ago
Intolerance of the other's point of view seems to be increasing. And I do think that social media is fueling that intolerance. Its easy to be rude to someone online than it is in person. In short, its easier to be intolerant online than in person. Also, seeing the world in Black and White requires less effort than viewing it in shades of grey. And the rational mind seeks certainty and clarity, which makes Black and White an attractive option compared to uncertainty of ambiguous shades of grey. Single Vision, William Blake called it.

lloydatkinson 2y ago

Even about the stupidest and minor things too, I’ve noticed. A few weeks ago I discussed how I’m not a big fan of dark theme UIs, and the comments here on HN were shockingly nasty and out of place.

bradleyjg 2y ago
It’s not entirely new. I remember some pretty heated, ugly arguments over Xbox v PS2.
- ghaff 2y ago
  That's really just tribalism. Also see anytime Apple enters the discussion. The comment upthread more applies to how, on certain charged issues, trying to take a more nuanced take or point out that their side is not entirely correct on some minor point is likely to get you virtually shouted down because you're obviously in the pay of the other side. In general, it's better to just close the browser.
  - awfulneutral 2y ago
    Also, on the internet, you can't tell who's a teenager. Social groups in real life are usually divided by age. If a much younger person has an overly extreme or overly argumentative opinion, it's kind of expected.
  - xoa 2y ago
    >That's really just tribalism. I want to gently push back on this, as I've seen the simple explanation you say itself become a black and white accepted truth meme when reality is more complicated. Yes, tribalism does play a role, but the harder truth is there is legitimate, logical self interest and game theory at play too. Game consoles, or computer OSes, are platforms with a significant network effect economic component. People do not generally buy these just for the thing itself, they buy it because of the software it enables them to run (be it games or something else). The more software it has, the more value it offers for the price. And the more it sells, the more economies of scale allows further pushing down the cost, improving the offering, or both. But the existence of any given piece of software depends on there being a critical mass of buyers. If you're the only one to buy into a given platform, it's not going to be supported long and the value of your purchase will be low, and whatever potential you hoped for will not happen. If 10-20% of the market buys in, then it'll likely go along ok, but a lot of what it gets will be ports or down to luck. If it has 30-50%, it's guaranteed to have solid support, as much as anything else. If it has 80%, it's going to have everything, mainstream stuff will be optimized to the max for it, ultra niche stuff only a few percent of the user base is interested in will still be big enough in absolute numbers to get developed. All of this applies to peripheral hardware as well. None of this even touches "networking" as-in multiple people collaborating, which is a whole further thing of course. So it's directly in someone's individual short term interest if as many other people buy into their preferred platform as possible. To go back to GGP's example, anyone who liked the Playstation 2 simply got more bang for their buck over the Xbox or GameCube. There were far more games for it, far more peripherals, developers went the extra mile for it's weird baroque architecture and pushed it to the limit. Xbox and GC both got some really cool games as well, but they were never explored to the same extent. Though platform markets also reveal another aspect related to "short term" above: while within a short period or generation it's good for an individual buyer if their platform dominates, over a medium to longer term it's inevitable that a dominant player will get lazy/greedy and start to abuse what they've got to the detriment of their customers. Further it's not necessarily easy for competition to spring back up. So there's another tension there between short term and medium/long term interests. Still though, I think "tribalism" has come to get thrown around too much, or perhaps alternatively people forget that "tribes" can work, and remain important. Most big things in the world require groups, not individuals. That necessarily means that how other people think and act directly affects others as well. No human is an island. If you think one option is truly the best one for you, that itself isn't necessarily good enough if you can't get enough others to agree. But nobody agrees 100% of the time. So long term banding together, smoothing over some disagreements with some agreement and placing some value on the group collective power itself is a strategy that is proven to get things done and deliver for people. "Just tribalism" is too shallow by far.

holoduke 2y ago

Same in Europe.

wrs 2y ago

During my several decades I would say polarization and tribalism has been a mainstay of American discourse. Think of “communist” as an all-purpose slur in the 50s, the Vietnam and establishment vs. counterculture situation in the 60s/70s, some weak anti-Yuppie stuff in the 80s, etc. But I can’t think of any time this bad. I personally blame not only the algorithms, but the focus of political parties on activating their more extreme constituents rather than on achieving reasonable compromise and effectively governing. It used to be you could have an actual substantive debate, but now at least one side will be either unable or unwilling to participate. The Republicans in particular got so good at energizing the extreme “base” as an electoral strategy that it seems the whole party leadership was inadvertently replaced by the “base”, which makes it very hard to make progress.

jprete 2y ago

As I remember it, it wasn't like this in the period before 2000-2003. The 2000 US Presidential election was very acrimonious; I think that died down because 9/11 was a unifying threat; then controversies about the war in Iraq and WMDs etc. reignited it. And this is also when the Internet became relevant to the public discourse and I think Internet social dynamics fanned a lot of the flames.