I see a lot of animosity between liberals and non-liberals on HN/Reddit. The recent thread about Tesla is a typical example.
Now, one of the principles of dialectics is to finds truths that are common grounds. So, HN-ers, what are these common grounds between liberal and non-liberal among us?
Highly unlikely. It will take a lot more than wanting to have polite discussion on a tech forum to get people to change this base temperament - if it can be changed at all.
It has very little to do with politics/civics per-se. It is an argumentative nature.
I remember when HN/dang ran that no-politics week during Trump and called it a failure. In earnest, political discussions in _any_ thread suck the air out of the it and dominate the thread. It's sad, but such is HN.Reply
Given the state of politics at the moment, the answer is probably “no”. Like religion, politics is more a belief system than a decided position and trying to discuss it yields people talking past each other or an echo chamber. Can try to keep it civil, but even that has degraded over the last 5-10 years. Throw in the trolls getting their jollies and it’s probably a waste of electrons to try.Reply
I think you'd need to start by defining your terms more specifically. What does 'liberal' mean to you?Reply
It’s best to just avoid the political threads. They are of no value.Reply
Maybe? Though this Ask will be downvoted to oblivion.
Politics turns into different interests talking over each other, with outspoken individuals dominating the conversation; not using reason but emotion and authority.
Take something data-driven like science: Just the other day there was a topic about how Alzheimer's research was stymied by the amyloid orthodoxy. What happened is the antithesis of science and the excuses are appalling.
I've often commented (not in HN) that a major hole and Achille's heel in science is funding: It's not science without specifically leaving room for untried or less-explored inquiries and suddenly the dismissive posts will come out in force.
Why? Whose livelihood is threatened by this line of thinking?Reply
We should talk to people before deciding what they believe; instead of assigning them positions based on prejudiced notions of what we're told they stand for.
For example one person I know describes themselves as a "reactionary Democrat: anything the Republicans are for, I'm against!" This person could be presumed (for example) to support $15/hr minimum wage; but as it turns out the reality is they prefer to employ people off the books and pay piecework wages. Amish kids work cheap.
I'm so "Right" that I think the John Birch Society could've got some traction if they'd just dumped their socialists. One might presume I'd be against "gay marriage"; but actually I don't think the state has any place in relationships other than, possibly, formal recognition for clerical purposes. People should have love, and group together to conserve capital and raise children. There's no social value in limiting how those functions happen; there is some value in ensuring abuse is discouraged but that is not a factor in marriage laws; we have other laws to cover those things already.
The common ground truth is that every individual is more complicated and contradictory than any of the comfortable labels we apply to them.Reply
Modern conservatives appear to not be willing to share power, and to seek violence against people who disagree with them. Can conservatives find "common ground" with anyone?Reply