Attacking another user like this, and taking threads further into flamewar hell like this, is not ok on HN and will get your account banned. Please review the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stick to them in the future. At minimum that means (a) editing out swipes, which help nothing; and (b) making your substantive points thoughtfully.
This divisive rhetoric is what got us here in the first place; a breakdown in civil communication. The blue team mimics the red team in this respect. I wish we could have a more mature dialogue but I wonder if we're past that. Violent communication is normalizing.
> This divisive rhetoric is what got us here in the first place
What you're doing is called "pearl clutching", and is not adding in any constructive way to the conversation.
The way we got here is intentionally by using divisive rhetoric to ellicit "engagement". Traditionally, this has been used politically by identifying wedge issues with the explicit intention to divide people along belief borders.
This has been accelerated and amplified n-fold via social media. Engagement is a proxy for divisive rhetoric, as that is what algorithmically produces the most engagement, thereby triggering the reward function(s).
The cat's out of the bag. Its too late to go back and say "but what about the kids?" etc, (especially since there is so much overwhelming evidence that these themselves are simply rhetorical devices to push a particular argumnent or point of view).
We know these arguments are not in good faith, so why should we give them that due process and respect?
This has been "red team" strategy for a long time. Be insufferably stubborn and immoral, force the "blue team" to talk and talk and talk until they stop making sense or get frustrated, then point out how incoherent/irrational/emotional the blue team is and declare victory.
I thought the original comment at the top of this thread was quite respectful and written in a non-inflammatory way. It may contain an uncomfortable truth, but that doesn't make it divisive, other than to the extent that saying "this this true - and this thing is false" is divisive.
Related: 53% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans see other Americans as being the greatest threat to America's way of life (over foreign threats, economic disaster, and climate forces). [0]
It pains me what's happened to discourse in the last 10 years. I suspect social media has played a role. Many liberals and conservatives frequent these online partisan bubbles where they are exposed to the crazies of the other side (and only the crazies) while dodging the controversies that would make them question their own beliefs.
Surely, if there are foreign propaganda peddlers on social media, then the strategy they follow is not to aid one party or the other, but to pull from both sides until we collapse in the middle.
The people who consider themselves "on the fence" aren't enabling the extremists. They are orphaned and alienated by the extremists in all parts of current politics. They aren't the ones trying to storm the capital or burn down federal court houses.
In any grouping of humans, there are bad actors and good actors. Using the bad actors to characterize the entire group, when they're a minority of that population is how you create stereotypes that break-down discourse. Empowering and encouraging the moderates in your opponents camp is is diplomacy 101. Insulting them empowers your enemies.
That's the same logic used to say all young black men are criminals, all young arab men are terrorists, all white farmers are racist, etc...
To compare from the "other side" (though I'm not actually a Democrat), this is how I feel when I see the people I vote for screech propagandized speaking points for anti-gun stances.
There are 2A Democrats out there that have to tolerate the insane (to them) things their representatives support.
> Can you find an example of dems attacking science/education/free-press in the manner the Republicans have over the last 10+ years
The snowden leaks where in 2013 and the democratic administration and politicians definitely where not supportive of free press in that case. They were actively hostile against both domestic and foreign press.
A vote can go to a bad candidate if other candidates are worse, isn't it common sense? You also got timing wrong: this incident wasn't known at the time of voting.
You've never met the person you've declared them as "EXACTLY" the problem of "on the fence"... How do you know that all your assumptions about this person are true?
dang|4 years ago
thesagan|4 years ago
walls|4 years ago
bjd2385|4 years ago
unsui|4 years ago
What you're doing is called "pearl clutching", and is not adding in any constructive way to the conversation.
The way we got here is intentionally by using divisive rhetoric to ellicit "engagement". Traditionally, this has been used politically by identifying wedge issues with the explicit intention to divide people along belief borders.
This has been accelerated and amplified n-fold via social media. Engagement is a proxy for divisive rhetoric, as that is what algorithmically produces the most engagement, thereby triggering the reward function(s).
The cat's out of the bag. Its too late to go back and say "but what about the kids?" etc, (especially since there is so much overwhelming evidence that these themselves are simply rhetorical devices to push a particular argumnent or point of view).
We know these arguments are not in good faith, so why should we give them that due process and respect?
Cut the BS.
nerdponx|4 years ago
Angostura|4 years ago
pugets|4 years ago
It pains me what's happened to discourse in the last 10 years. I suspect social media has played a role. Many liberals and conservatives frequent these online partisan bubbles where they are exposed to the crazies of the other side (and only the crazies) while dodging the controversies that would make them question their own beliefs.
Surely, if there are foreign propaganda peddlers on social media, then the strategy they follow is not to aid one party or the other, but to pull from both sides until we collapse in the middle.
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
RC_ITR|4 years ago
>In 1995, then-Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey famously referred to Frank as "Barney Fag" in a press interview.
Don't act like the past was some civil utopia.
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
q1w2|4 years ago
In any grouping of humans, there are bad actors and good actors. Using the bad actors to characterize the entire group, when they're a minority of that population is how you create stereotypes that break-down discourse. Empowering and encouraging the moderates in your opponents camp is is diplomacy 101. Insulting them empowers your enemies.
That's the same logic used to say all young black men are criminals, all young arab men are terrorists, all white farmers are racist, etc...
t-writescode|4 years ago
There are 2A Democrats out there that have to tolerate the insane (to them) things their representatives support.
SahAssar|4 years ago
The snowden leaks where in 2013 and the democratic administration and politicians definitely where not supportive of free press in that case. They were actively hostile against both domestic and foreign press.
GoblinSlayer|4 years ago
seneca|4 years ago
IE6|4 years ago
urda|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
jeffy90|4 years ago
totalfaggot|4 years ago
[deleted]