Interesting in the second graph, the countries which we traditionally consider to be well working societies are those where out-hate has not crossed in-love
kubb 56 minutes ago [-]
Driving polarization is a conscious strategy of leaders and the media (especially a particular large corporate media outlet, which is worldview shaping for a large part of the population), isn’t it?
You could argue that the system rewards it in the short term which is all that matters.
There’s also one party with way less scruples when it comes to the methods it uses, which polarizes the other party against them.
There’s no way to make friends with someone who wants to „take care” of you by violent means.
skrebbel 12 minutes ago [-]
> the system
Which system? This article compares 12 countries, which have wildly varying systems.
kubb 8 minutes ago [-]
The one with the most cultural influence across the western world, whose messaging is parroted by everyone else?
Come on let’s not pretend we don’t have a default.
rapnie 20 minutes ago [-]
Are there good studies on the role of social media in relation to these trends, that people can recommend?
naruhodo 56 minutes ago [-]
No analysis of the association of the mass media owners to the political party in or out of power?
Traditional media are still political thought leaders. In the US, the media is giving cover to the fascist takeover of government.
skrebbel 25 minutes ago [-]
They define in-party and out-party very weirdly for multiparty systems like the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. In NL, if I'm a leftie, I have 3-4 reasonable parties to choose from. Most people voting for any of these parties won't deeply hate any of the other. Similar stuff on the right, or along a conservative/progressive axis. But the authors do this:
> Thus, we follow these studies and define the in-party as the party receiving the highest score among all parties rated by the respondent on the party feeling thermometers.4 The out-party measure is drawn from the average of all other parties’ feeling thermometer scores, weighted by their respective vote shares.
By mixing all the other parties that aren't the in-party, they mix parties the voter is quite OK with, with parties that the voter deeply and passionately detests. I can't imagine this not skewing the graphs enormously.
For example, if you're right wing in NL you get to choose between the anti-Muslim party, the conspiracy theory anti-Muslim party, the farmers-against-immigrants party, the God-wants-the-death-penalty party, and the regular oldschool conservative right wing party (who call themselves "liberals", by the way). Most right-wing voters will have a strong preference among this lot, but at the same time they won't mind deeply if one of the other options wins elections instead.
But they hate hate hate the progressives! A few weeks ago right wing protesters attacked and trashed the HQ of one of the more progressive parties (D66). The hatred is very deep (and mutual), totally unlike what the graphs in this article show you.
gsf_emergency_4 2 hours ago [-]
>The trends reported from our data generally support Gidron et al.’s (2020) conclusion of a gradual decline of in-party liking
anon291 4 hours ago [-]
Get offline. Meet people. Most people want the same thing. This is honestly crazy that we do this to ourselves
cosmicgadget 3 hours ago [-]
What like "prosperity for ourselves and our children"? I think the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that.
anon7000 58 minutes ago [-]
There are a large number of policy issues the average American should be able to agree on, but have been polarized to the point that we don’t solve them.
- Get money out of politics. Everyone complains about corruption, no one tries to do a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United.
- Strong privacy protections for your online data. Does anyone like the fact that your data gets sold and then used against you by car insurance companies?
- Break up big companies that are taking their power too far. Seriously, take your Syscos, Nestles, AB InBevs of the world and break them up. No company deserves to have that much power over consumer markets, and the centralization of that power definitely makes prices higher. My conservative parents definitely don’t like how when Walmart and Rite Aid came to small-town midewest, all the local drug & grocery stores went out of business.
- Every American knows our private health insurance system sucks. I mean every person you meet either doesn’t have good coverage, hasn’t used it much, or has had had a terrible experience with it.
- We need to do away with police overstep like asset forfeiture, where the government can basically just rob you. I’m not talking defund the police, but you could sit the average American down, and probably come to agree that the police state has too much power and not enough accountability in a couple areas.
There are so many stories along these lines which could get republicans and democrats on a similar page, and it comes down to the frustrations we ALL have with the systems we live in. It doesn’t matter who you voted for, when health insurance starts scamming you out of a procedure you need, it’s frustrating on a deeply personal level. And we all feel like we don’t have much control over federal policy — partly because businesses & moneyed interests can protect their interests while everyone else struggles, no matter who’s in charge.
(And btw, this isn’t a elected officials on both sides are the same comment, more of a “we Americans have a lot of shared frustrations regardless of party”
____mr____ 34 minutes ago [-]
1) Despite the quite liberal lobbying laws the US seems to have, corruption is still rampant and illegal donations continue. Cracking down on lobbying would probably remove some of the money in lobbying but not all of it.
Points 2-5 are all "impactful for the average american" but most people will disagree with how and how far these should be implemented. Why did you signal out asset forfeiture as your example of police overstep but not no knock warrants, stop and search laws or the current ICE street gang situation?
The problem with the view that all members of a nation share common struggle and therefore have the same political wants and needs is naive and these seemingly shared frustrations are often oversimplifications that disguise various political interests
38 minutes ago [-]
mock-possum 53 minutes ago [-]
- same sex marriage should be treated equally to heterosexual marriage
- the tradition of gender being strictly tied to genitalia at birth should be abolished, with individuals able to change gender (and genitals) at their whim
Oops Americans don’t agree on queer rights and equality oops
- everyone should be treated equally and afford equal protection under the law, regardless of where they were born or what the colour of the skin is or what their genitals look like
Oops oops
strken 44 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps you could fix the things you all agree are bad before, or even at the same time as, tackling the ones that divide you.
____mr____ 31 minutes ago [-]
And what happens when political actors capitalize on the things that divide you? What makes people vote against their own economical interest for the sake of preventing transgender care being passed or abortions becoming illegal?
dyauspitr 30 minutes ago [-]
Most people even on the left don’t agree with the gender aspect of your points. It’s a pretty minority view.
Other than that we’re still at the point where most people will at least verbally agree with you that everyone should be treated equally (whether they believe it or not internally is another matter).
palmfacehn 2 hours ago [-]
Specifically, it feels like the lack of discernment goes off the rails and falls into the chasm of derangement where people assume that their opponents do not have that common goal. Anti-natalists and population control advocates excluded, most of us do share that goal. The differences are in the proposed approaches.
There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.
anon291 57 minutes ago [-]
There is something particular to the twitter style of website that is toxic. I tried twitter for a month or two and my mental health fell apart. Back to reddit and hn and my life feels better. They are also less addicting. The segregation into interest specific communities helps you context switch.
weregiraffe 2 hours ago [-]
What about the millions of, for example, Muslims, who have a very particular idea of what "prosperity" means? Especially for your female children.
woooooo 1 hours ago [-]
Do fundamentalist Muslims have a realistic chance of imposing those views on your nation? Because, if not, you Fell For It Again.
(Aside, every western Muslim I've personally met has been chill)
febusravenga 38 minutes ago [-]
In western Germany, France, UK? Traditionally catholic countries, core of European enlightenment culture. Yes there is small, but realistic chance.
That's why right shovinism is rising in eu
zpeti 1 hours ago [-]
Realistic is a very broad term, but do you think they don’t have an effect?
And where you are from matters a lot, you will probably answer very differently if you are from California or if you are from Birmingham UK.
37 minutes ago [-]
tankenmate 1 hours ago [-]
And the fundamentalist Christians who advocate that women should "Keep Sweet"? Ever wondered where fundie baby voice comes from?
I suspect if you look at it a bit longer you'll see that the issue isn't "Muslim", the issue is "fundamentalism".
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
weregiraffe 51 minutes ago [-]
No, the issue is wider. Everyone has something that can be considered a "fundamentalist value" by someone else who doesn't share it. It just doesn't feel that way when the value is yours.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> the issues arise when it gets a smidge more nuanced then that
The issues arise when folks get distracted from common prosperity.
I meet so many people in the Rockies and New York who are up in arms about some imaginary problem, or a problem they have no influence over and which cannot affect them, one they solely know about due to social media.
anon291 58 minutes ago [-]
Yeah but when you discuss nuances in person rather than online your natural social chemistry in your brain kicks in and we all behave like actual people instead of mindless savages
3 hours ago [-]
obscurette 2 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately it's not that simple any more. There are already very fundamental issues on which we are already very polarized, online or not. One of these is safety for example – far too many people are ready to give up any freedoms in the name of security. Ideas for EU chatcontrol, camera networks etc don't come from some bureaucrats, there is a very broad social demand for this.
mcny 2 hours ago [-]
> there is a very broad social demand for this
I don't believe you. My guess is the demand comes from manufactured consent, not from people who deeply understand the issue.
ako 1 hours ago [-]
Voters in democracies are usually not people who deeply understand issues. We outsource that to politicians, but politicians have a second agenda, serving the people who paid their campaign.
protocolture 2 hours ago [-]
Lots of people just want to use political processes to hurt their perceived enemies.
hermannj314 2 hours ago [-]
If you see yourself in the hegemon, sure. This strategy has also led to horrible brutality against marginal groups.
weregiraffe 29 minutes ago [-]
>Get offline. Meet people. Most people want the same thing.
A lot of people want more freedom. It's easy to identify with this, until you get into details. For example:
- Lower taxes.
- Easier access to weapons.
- Lower age of consent.
These are all things that increase freedom, by some definition.
rapnie 26 minutes ago [-]
Go for balanced freedom. Against humanity, and place humanity first.
euroderf 4 hours ago [-]
But think of all the faux engagement! Think of all the advertising revenue! Won't someone think of the poor shareholders?
spencerflem 3 hours ago [-]
Gtfo with this. The problem is not ‘polarization’ it’s that so many people are willingly and knowingly cruel when they get the chance.
dmichulke 2 hours ago [-]
Cruel as in
- physically violent,
- destructive to others' property, or
- expressing negative opinions verbally?
jasonsb 2 hours ago [-]
None of the above. Cruel as in manipulating others and taking advantage of others for their own personal gain whenever they get the chance.
mock-possum 49 minutes ago [-]
All of the above, of course! Why should it be otherwise?
spencerflem 51 minutes ago [-]
They are sending the military into cities to shoot people.
ICE prisoners are made to lap water off the floor like dogs.
My trans friends are making plans to flee the country in advance of their existence being criminalized
Muromec 45 minutes ago [-]
EU denies asiel requests already filled by trans people from US citing no real threat to safety.
pavlov 27 minutes ago [-]
German Jews fleeing in 1933-39 couldn’t get asylum in most countries either (including USA).
They say shit isn’t bad enough, until it is, and then it’s too late to leave.
spencerflem 39 minutes ago [-]
Well fuck you too
10 minutes ago [-]
zpeti 1 hours ago [-]
Cruelty is your perceived behaviour of people on the other side sticking up for their values.
I can both argue that it’s cruel to not have housing for everyone,
while also arguing it’s cruel to tax away 40-50% of an entire country’s productivity (people’s actual work) to pay for houses for people who have never worked or paid taxes in their life.
Who’s right? Who’s cruel? Both sides and both. This is why I find this cruelty argument so bad.
spencerflem 50 minutes ago [-]
If your values allow for what ICE is doing, your values suck and I don’t like you
Muromec 43 minutes ago [-]
But if my values allow it, thats just isolated incidents in the execution of otherwise very nicel policy
spencerflem 37 minutes ago [-]
The only explanation for supporting what they’re doing is a desire to know that there’s another group more oppressed. To ‘win’.
foxes 40 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 07:26:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
You could argue that the system rewards it in the short term which is all that matters.
There’s also one party with way less scruples when it comes to the methods it uses, which polarizes the other party against them.
There’s no way to make friends with someone who wants to „take care” of you by violent means.
Which system? This article compares 12 countries, which have wildly varying systems.
Come on let’s not pretend we don’t have a default.
Traditional media are still political thought leaders. In the US, the media is giving cover to the fascist takeover of government.
> Thus, we follow these studies and define the in-party as the party receiving the highest score among all parties rated by the respondent on the party feeling thermometers.4 The out-party measure is drawn from the average of all other parties’ feeling thermometer scores, weighted by their respective vote shares.
By mixing all the other parties that aren't the in-party, they mix parties the voter is quite OK with, with parties that the voter deeply and passionately detests. I can't imagine this not skewing the graphs enormously.
For example, if you're right wing in NL you get to choose between the anti-Muslim party, the conspiracy theory anti-Muslim party, the farmers-against-immigrants party, the God-wants-the-death-penalty party, and the regular oldschool conservative right wing party (who call themselves "liberals", by the way). Most right-wing voters will have a strong preference among this lot, but at the same time they won't mind deeply if one of the other options wins elections instead.
But they hate hate hate the progressives! A few weeks ago right wing protesters attacked and trashed the HQ of one of the more progressive parties (D66). The hatred is very deep (and mutual), totally unlike what the graphs in this article show you.
- Get money out of politics. Everyone complains about corruption, no one tries to do a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United.
- Strong privacy protections for your online data. Does anyone like the fact that your data gets sold and then used against you by car insurance companies?
- Break up big companies that are taking their power too far. Seriously, take your Syscos, Nestles, AB InBevs of the world and break them up. No company deserves to have that much power over consumer markets, and the centralization of that power definitely makes prices higher. My conservative parents definitely don’t like how when Walmart and Rite Aid came to small-town midewest, all the local drug & grocery stores went out of business.
- Every American knows our private health insurance system sucks. I mean every person you meet either doesn’t have good coverage, hasn’t used it much, or has had had a terrible experience with it.
- We need to do away with police overstep like asset forfeiture, where the government can basically just rob you. I’m not talking defund the police, but you could sit the average American down, and probably come to agree that the police state has too much power and not enough accountability in a couple areas.
There are so many stories along these lines which could get republicans and democrats on a similar page, and it comes down to the frustrations we ALL have with the systems we live in. It doesn’t matter who you voted for, when health insurance starts scamming you out of a procedure you need, it’s frustrating on a deeply personal level. And we all feel like we don’t have much control over federal policy — partly because businesses & moneyed interests can protect their interests while everyone else struggles, no matter who’s in charge.
(And btw, this isn’t a elected officials on both sides are the same comment, more of a “we Americans have a lot of shared frustrations regardless of party”
Points 2-5 are all "impactful for the average american" but most people will disagree with how and how far these should be implemented. Why did you signal out asset forfeiture as your example of police overstep but not no knock warrants, stop and search laws or the current ICE street gang situation? The problem with the view that all members of a nation share common struggle and therefore have the same political wants and needs is naive and these seemingly shared frustrations are often oversimplifications that disguise various political interests
Oops Americans don’t agree on queer rights and equality oops
- everyone should be treated equally and afford equal protection under the law, regardless of where they were born or what the colour of the skin is or what their genitals look like
Oops oops
Other than that we’re still at the point where most people will at least verbally agree with you that everyone should be treated equally (whether they believe it or not internally is another matter).
There are legitimate discussions which can be had about those approaches to achieving that common goal. The discussion is no longer in good faith where partisans deny that common goal or assume evil intent.
(Aside, every western Muslim I've personally met has been chill)
That's why right shovinism is rising in eu
And where you are from matters a lot, you will probably answer very differently if you are from California or if you are from Birmingham UK.
I suspect if you look at it a bit longer you'll see that the issue isn't "Muslim", the issue is "fundamentalism".
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
The issues arise when folks get distracted from common prosperity.
I meet so many people in the Rockies and New York who are up in arms about some imaginary problem, or a problem they have no influence over and which cannot affect them, one they solely know about due to social media.
I don't believe you. My guess is the demand comes from manufactured consent, not from people who deeply understand the issue.
A lot of people want more freedom. It's easy to identify with this, until you get into details. For example:
- Lower taxes.
- Easier access to weapons.
- Lower age of consent.
These are all things that increase freedom, by some definition.
- physically violent,
- destructive to others' property, or
- expressing negative opinions verbally?
ICE prisoners are made to lap water off the floor like dogs.
My trans friends are making plans to flee the country in advance of their existence being criminalized
They say shit isn’t bad enough, until it is, and then it’s too late to leave.
I can both argue that it’s cruel to not have housing for everyone,
while also arguing it’s cruel to tax away 40-50% of an entire country’s productivity (people’s actual work) to pay for houses for people who have never worked or paid taxes in their life.
Who’s right? Who’s cruel? Both sides and both. This is why I find this cruelty argument so bad.