
Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with - robbizorg
http://mest.io
======
okreallywtf
While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far
I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent
experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and
volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to
communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to
happen (or at the very least works best) face to face. Talking to someone over
the phone or maybe with video chat could work but anything that separates you
from the person you are communicating with creates barriers for that
communication (I am convinced). Communicating with people face to face
(whether they agree with you or not) is one of the most basic and satisfying
parts of being human and we're finding more and more ways to not do that.

~~~
losteric
I think modern transportation and communication have contributed to our
increasingly divided society... by extending our interactions over larger
areas, those tools allow us to naively fall into our own physical "filter
bubbles".

Modern transportation contributed towards physical obesity. Technology became
so efficient and so cheap that we became isolated from physical reality... we
have to work out in order to stay physically fit.

I propose that modern communication has had a similar impact. We've been
binging on the conflict-free interactions we enjoy, but we haven't been eating
our veggies or working out. This is a mental "obesity epidemic".

We drive between similarly minded social gatherings. We keep contact with
similarly minded people by calling them. We're in constant communication with
our social groups with little time for disruptive ideas to slip in... each of
us is deeply connected to our pocket of the world, but many of us are equally
disconnected from the rest of the world.

~~~
seanisko
I agree with these statements. Debate has become an offensive action many will
go to great lengths to avoid.

~~~
XaspR8d
I don't avoid "debate" because I fear disagreement or attacks. I avoid
"debate" because so often when I enter one, the person engaging with me
immediately employs ad hominem attacks or strawmen or appeals to emotions or
any number of other unconstructive argumentation techniques. I am tired of
engaging people who cannot argue using logic or rationality. I avoid it
because it will be tedius and draining and there is no hope against someone
not using logic. (Obviously this whole statement is merely an anecdote, and
I'm not trying to explain trends.)

~~~
Retra
People aren't good at rationality and logic. They are too abstract, so they
wield abstract (read: stereotyping) tools to combat it. To successfully debate
people, focus on actions and consequences that are relevant to their life, and
back it up with an understanding of what their life is and _evidence_ that
these considered actions lead to undesirable consequences for them and/or
others.

Debating in the abstract is something you need passion or training for. Our
brains aren't built for it. Logic isn't what you need to wage debate, evidence
is.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
> Logic isn't what you need to wage debate, evidence is.

Depends on your goal and your audience. When talking to people who aren't
particularly interested in the logic of a given argument, evidence won't help
you.

>To successfully debate people, focus on actions and consequences that are
relevant to their life, and back it up with an understanding of what their
life is

However, you nailed it with this!

------
robbizorg
Hi everyone,

Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been
revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another
anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party
will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of
communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle.
I made this app, Mest, to try and get people who hold different opinions
talking to one another. We just have to start doing something to deal with the
ever increasing division in the U.S.

~~~
beatpanda
This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants."
My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that
position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly
removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What
good could that possibly do?

~~~
schoen
I've had what I thought were pretty constructive and interesting conversations
about this topic right here on Hacker News.

Maybe you could talk about smaller and more specific aspects of the issue with
people, like

* How has present-day opposition to immigration in the U.S. developed? Was there always strong anti-immigrant sentiment in this country? How were immigrants viewed in different eras? Were parts of those views accurate or inaccurate?

* What are the moral arguments in favor of people's right to migrate? What are the moral arguments in favor of a nation's right to prevent or limit migration? Is it important what existing citizens of a country think? Is it important why they think it?

* Is the present-day international system of nation-states and borders a good idea? How about various notions of citizenship? Are some criteria for citizenship obviously reasonable or unreasonable? Should criteria for citizenship be decided politically by existing citizens or are some kinds of decisions they might reach clearly unfair or morally wrong?

* Should people who live in a country feel proud that others want to move there? Should they feel proud of allowing or encouraging others to do so?

* Why are so many economists so strongly in favor of unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? Why have other people found the economists' consensus hard to accept?

* How do immigration restrictions interact with policy mechanisms like a welfare state and minimum wage?

* Is it good, bad, or neither for a government to favor the interests or preferences of existing citizens over others' interests? If it's not bad to do so, are there clear limits to how or to what extent the government may neglect or override foreigners' interests?

* What do we think about cultural differences between people living in different parts of the world? Would we like to acculturate as many people as possible to our own culture and way of life if we had the opportunity? Do we think that acculturation of this sort is inherently good? Do we think existing cultural differences are good, bad, or neither, and do we think at least some cultural differences can be placed on a hierarchy where one culture gets something more right than another?

* Are immigration critics right to worry that a culture could be made worse (and in some way less effective) by the arrival of lots of people with different cultural values? Are immigration supporters right to hope that a culture could be enriched by the arrival of lots of people with different ideas and traditions?

* Is there a meaningful moral difference between trying to deport existing residents who entered a territory without following its official migration rules, and trying to prevent other people from doing so in the future?

* What are the differences between population growth through migration and population growth through reproduction? Doesn't this undermine a simple intuition that migrants take away jobs from existing residents?

* How legitimate is it for members of an ethnic or cultural group to want to have their own nation-state and to make that nation-state somehow reflect the character or interests of that group rather than other groups?

* Is it true (as an article recently posted to HN suggested) that migration almost always makes the economy bigger and creates more total employment, but that the benefits of this growth may be quite unequally distributed or captured? Could migration economically benefit most people while economically harming some people?

* To what extent should a country try to assimilate migrants and to what extent should it be proud of having done so? Are there likely problems if large-scale migration happens without a corresponding assimilation? How successful has assimilation been in the past? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of migrants who don't want to assimilate (or only want to assimilate a little bit)? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of people who strongly want migrants to assimilate?

* Is there some kind of hypocrisy in creating or enforcing significantly stronger immigration restrictions today than those that prevailed in the past?

* Are there reasons for migration that are more or less important than others? How much should discussions about immigration address migrants' motivations? Are there motivations that change the moral status or significance of someone's desire to migrate?

* Many governments have created programs that try to draw distinctions among would-be migrants on the basis of their desirability. Have these programs worked well on their own terms? Who proposed them, and who got to create the criteria for desirability?

* What could governments reasonably know or ask about visitors or would-be immigrants?

* How much migration might occur if practical restrictions on it were removed? What might the long-term consequences be?

* If it's legitimate to physically restrict some kinds of immigration, what kinds of enforcement measures are proportionate and should people be punished somehow for circumventing or attempting to circumvent them?

* What if a country allows people to immigrate easily but makes it difficult or impossible for them to acquire citizenship? (How about temporary "non-immigrant" work visas?)

I bet there are about a dozen more things that could be discussed in this
area.

I mention these things because I think it's possible to learn something from
talking about them with people who radically disagree with you (and you don't
have to give up your moral outlook on the situation, nor your political
goals!).

~~~
beatpanda
And if this were a normal election we would have time for genteel debate about
this subject, but currently, the President-elect is preparing a plan to send
armed paramilitary troops into neighborhoods like mine to try to forcibly
remove 11 million people. So those are all real cute cocktail party questions
and all but all of them are meaningless until I can answer the question of how
can I prevent the promised onslaught of violence in communities like mine? How
do I keep my friends and neighbors safe? How do we keep families together?
It's pretty unseemly to be asking abstract, philosophical questions about
immigration generally when, across the street, armed goons with assault rifles
are physically separating families from each other and dragging people off to
detention centers.

~~~
schoen
I respect your commitment to protecting people and I hope you succeed.

Earlier in this thread you were saying that there was no point in talking to
your opponents. The way you phrased it looked to me like you meant that there
was nothing that you could learn from each other and nothing that you could
convince each other about. As you can see, I don't think that's right. Now, it
seems that you meant to make a narrower point that talking to your opponents
won't stop deportations _now_ , which is probably true.

Depending on hard-to-predict factors, there might be conversations you could
have that would convince some people _not to turn their neighbors and
coworkers in for deportation_ even if they strongly disagree with you about
immigration in general.

------
alexrigler
Really like the idea. Messages wouldn't go through though after a few
interactions and couldn't submit a bug.

There is clearly a need for dialogue after such a divisive campaign, it would
be even better before people cast ballots though. The media clearly don't help
facilitate interaction between different elements of society, but rather act
as an echo chambers for a lot of people. Whether it is The Guardian,
Washington Post or Fox News and Breitbart. I'm British and was surprised by
Brexit, however this didn't catch me by surprise. Such a huge disconnect has
formed in both the US and UK. Although there are valid concerns as to how we
implement dialogue the potential is huge. If we don't take these attempts
seriously we risk becoming so polarised that ugly outcomes will be guaranteed.

------
robbizorg
Hey everyone, this has been a pretty crazy day for me, and I'm pretty sure
it's been crazy for everyone else as all. Sorry for only just responding to
everyone on this thread, I've been super busy and have only just gotten a
chance to sit down and get to work.

First off, I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback of gotten on the
project, both positive and negative. As was revealed by the ton of technical
difficulties and ridiculously sized bundle.js file, this was a hashed together
project that was more of a proof of concept rather than a final app. Now that
I know that there's a lot of interest in at least some sort of app developed
along these lines, I'm going to spend a lot of time polishing the site and
exactly how one expresses belief "for" or "against" topics or people. I also
plan to look into research as posted on how to work against polarization in
the country. I pushed a couple changes that should hopefully account for some
of the technical problems people were having earlier, but I won't have time
until the weekend to dive deep into it.

Secondly, I totally agree with okreallywtf that technology like this has the
potential to be great, but so far tech's only made the problem worse. As the
interest from HN shows, I think that there's a lot of room for developers to
actually go out into more bridge-building type projects that work to get
people to interact with those on the "other side." To get moralistic, I think
that there's not only room for development here, but that we have the duty to
explore these options. We have to prevent division from becoming further
entrenched in this country. In this vein, I want to especially point out
comments that highlight other sites that try to bring people together and
become more informed about government like Placecot and pol.is. Maybe there's
still ways that social media and technology can change the ways we interact
with people. Perhaps we just have to be more aware of the forces that keep us
within our own ideological bubbles.

We have a lot to work to do in this country to try and bring everyone together
after this election. Let's see what can be done.

~~~
vehementi
Is there a way I can get in touch with you, just want to bounce some ideas
around

~~~
robbizorg
Not at the moment, I'm going to set up an email for the site over the weekend

------
maloney
Your bundle.js file is 4.4MB and took 30 seconds to load (given several
attempts). I would consider getting that under control, at the very least gzip
the file.

~~~
endless1234
How can a site like this require that much clientside javascript?

~~~
andrewmcwatters
it's 2016

~~~
andrewmcwatters
what compels someone to downvote this?

~~~
inimino
It's not clear what point you're making and it doesn't seem to add much to the
conversation.

------
AndrewKemendo
I'd be interested in a non-binary option.

I am neither for nor against Trump, rather I'm interested in the relative
merits or faults inherent in his policy proposals (where possible to
investigate) and discourse.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
This tool is still very primitive (i'm still working on it) but it does what
you're looking for:

[http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/](http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/)

You construct an argument like a proof, with supporting arguments. People can
share their opinions on each step of your argument.

It doesn't allow direct back and forth yet; you'd ahve to pass the link
around.

------
teleclimber
Came across this paper this AM regarding the attempts to get non-alike people
to mingle:

"In this paper, we hypothesize, first, that previous approaches have not
worked because they have been direct -- they have tried to explicitly connect
people with those having opposing views on sensitive issues."

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481](https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481)

------
xenophon
Love the concept -- I think it is sorely needed -- but my messages didn't post
and I got disconnected after a single exchange.

------
anindha
It doesn't seem to be working for me after I match. I enter some text and
nothing updates.

~~~
anindha
It seems to be working now

Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it
looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).

------
apathy
Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything?

Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!?

It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal
positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely
wrong.

The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd
affiliation.

I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of
interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile
insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly
insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or
curiosity.

HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say
"The other side sucks."

I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems
to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and
exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to
use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they
repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit
which satisfies them they've won the argument.

The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and
quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument.

You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the
people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit.

I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for
one.

~~~
prawn
Can FB/Twitter be somewhat effective if you've broken down a debate to tiny
points, and gradually find common cause or identify real issues?

The alternative is giant blocks of text which are off-putting to many, harder
to parse, hard to find time for, etc.

------
JDiculous
I like the idea, but the chat doesn't work. The first message will send, but
after that it freezes. I press escape twice to disconnect and nothing happens.

~~~
b_bellomo
Same for me. Too bad, the idea is cool.

------
avitzurel
There are two problems I see with this.

I had 3 conversations.

ME: Hi Other side: Hello

That's it. stopped working

------
Daniel_Marcos
Some feedback:

It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation
instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive.

It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big
enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of
awkward.

Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no
feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully.

I like it a lot, though, awesome job!! :)

------
eneifert
I would love to see something like this for broader issues and I see two big
benefits.

1) I think it could be really helpful to bloggers. If I wrote a post on a
divisive topic, I would love to have it reviewed by respected people who are
on the other side (not sure exactly how you would work out the respected
part). When we write it's too easy for us to build up a scarecrow argument
then knock it down to the delight of those who already agree with us. For
example imagine a metric that showed how much people who disagree with the
article respect it anyways. If I saw something like that on my Facebook feed I
would be more likely to read it.

2) A place for us to get experience on how to debate better. There are a
number of principles that a site like this could promote. For example, when
you disagree with someone ask a question you actually want the answer to, then
talk about it. It sounds easy but it can only become a habit with deliberate
practice. I have seen a number of other TED talks that go over these kinds of
things.

~~~
schoen
> There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote.

One list is

[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

I can also recommend

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

although I'm not positive of its educational value. :-)

Edit: This version of the sketch has what I find to be kind of pointless
violence at the end.

~~~
grzm
Also

\- Crocker's Rules:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288)

\- Principle of Charity:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600)

\- Rapaport's Rules:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692)

~~~
schoen
There's also this thing that Eliezer Yudkowsky observed

[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers)

It includes the impulse to suggest that things we favor have no negative
consequences (or reasons to doubt them), while things we oppose have no
positive consequences (or reasons to believe them).

In some forms of high school and college debate, you can lose points if you
don't rebut every single argument raised by your opponent (but your rebuttal
doesn't necessarily have to be _good_ in the ordinary sense of the word!). In
policy debate this can lead to spreading, where people speak absurdly quickly
because they want to be counted as having formally responded to everything the
other side said, or having introduced points that the other side failed to
rebut.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delive...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delivery)

This is kind of wacky because it gets into a stylized activity far removed
from what most listeners would understand as substantively discussing an
issue. And it doesn't seem to admit the possibility that both sides might have
some points to which there is no convincing rebuttal (which Eliezer suggests
is actually a normal state of affairs for talking about real-world issues).

------
neo2006
I'm not US citizen but I follow US politics closely and from where I stand you
guys (democrats) will not be able to do much about the situation now, you lost
and you need to wait for the next election to give it a fight. And let me tell
you, people who voted for Trump in 4 years from here will feel betrailed again
and will flip to the other side (yours). This situation happened before in
other countries and it always have the same outcome. at least 50% of Trump
promisses are populist and infaisable, if you add on top of that his lack of
experience, diplomacy and his bad temper after 4 years no one will want to
vote for him or any other republican. So understanding the other side is not
critical here, they will understand by them selves.

------
antisthenes
It would be nice if it worked for more than 2-3 messages at a time.

------
electic
Another app I would like to suggest is Placecot. It allows you to post to
neighborhoods and places nearby. So post to your local coffee shop or
neighborhood and have a discussion. Better yet, meet those people in person.
Part of the problem with society is we are all in filtered bubbles and no one
meets and talks anymore.

You can find it on the app store here:
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8)

I hope your journey meeting humans is as eye opening as mine has been. P.S. I
am the founder. Feedback welcome.

~~~
Neliquat
Feedback: Apple only? Not interested in walled gardens.

~~~
electic
It will come for Android as well but probably next year. Thanks for the
feedback.

------
Joeboy
It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like
the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment.

I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant
experience.

------
michaeljbishop
It's enough of a challenge to communicate effectively through text-only
discussions with people I like. I like this idea, but wish it were full video
chat so I could get facial expressions and tone.

~~~
astrodust
No, no you really don't. Didn't Chatroulette teach anyone anything?

------
farright
This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In
the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to
vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)

------
stevens32
Great idea! We really have to work on not demonizing the 'other side'. I spent
some time during the primaries trying to read through subreddits of supporters
for the opposite candidate, trying to understand where they were coming from.
That didn't work very well.

Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't
often get a chance to work on.

------
hiven
I start conversations but then it just stops working

~~~
escape_plan
I am using IE Edge, it works there

------
readhn
I think the concept of having a single person - President, being head of the
country is outdated.

We do not need a President. This ancient concept has to go. We have congress,
senate, house of reps, judges, courts. Enough to make decisions and develop
policies.

There would be less drama without President in America.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
Whipped this up, should be more reliable:

[https://tesm.sircmpwn.com](https://tesm.sircmpwn.com)

Code here, feel free to use it for mest:
[https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm](https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm)

~~~
benkaiser
Knew your name looked familiar, thanks for your awesome work on Sway!

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
No problem, I'm glad you like it!

------
pklausler
There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic
facts, and I'm just _done_ with arguing with crazy people who have their own
weird realities.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in
wanting to engage in a rational discourse.

For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the
WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if
I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs
would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying,
then defend _your_ guy when he lies.

The problem with where we are now is that people's _realities_ are too closely
tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts,
it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.

~~~
madamelic
I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational
people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently".

"Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt
anything from it.

"Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it.

Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect
after two years is completely insane.

The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to
corporations isn't going to fix it.

~~~
at-fates-hands
The other thing is that it's the first thing they want to do now that they
have both houses of congress and the white house.

Problem is, they don't have anything to replace it with yet.

I don't think the Republicans want to go back to what it was before. I think
they want to keep some of the good things about it like being covered for
preexisting conditions. I also know Republicans want to allow insurers to sell
across state lines which would increase competition and drive down costs.
People on both sides of the aisle have been saying this for years.

confirmed:

 _Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state
lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any
vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full
competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer
satisfaction will go up._

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-
reform](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform)

There's actually some other good ideas in there too.

~~~
didibus
This always happens, one party rarely destroys the previous party work, what
they often do is claim to completely undo it, but in reality they simply build
on top of it. It's a marketing game. This way, you can claim the previous
party was completly 100% wrong and did nothing good. And we rebuilt from
scratch and deserve all the credit. Then you can say: See, we should have been
the elected party all along.

------
utternerd
How about other topics to debate?

------
alexbanks
I love this idea, but the chat system doesn't appear to work after 1-2
messages.

~~~
Jill_the_Pill
This was also my experience.

------
benmcnelly
Gah! I can't get a conversation to stay connected. So many cool people I would
love to keep talking to. Is there an alternative that is not getting HN
hugged?

------
yetanotherjosh
This concept is a troll haven. Politically motivated trolls have become a
rampant problem online. I think they are the single biggest obstacle to the
progress social media (in the broadest definition, which includes this project
here) can effect towards non-partisan goals like empathy and factuality. How
will you deal with this issue?

------
mirimir
Seems to be no "ambivalent" option on Mest :(

------
loorinm
Great idea, trying to use it but it seems broken. Chat cuts off after two
lines. Have tried it about 10 times. Please fix?

------
kzisme
Neat idea - but messages would not send and hitting escape twice as instructed
didn't end the session.

------
matmann2001
What is the origin of the name Mest? I can't help but think of that emo band
from the 00's.

~~~
jyriand
It means "revenge" in russian.

~~~
clishem
It means "manure" in Dutch :)

------
ywecur
It doesn't work on Firefox

------
d--b
Somehow, I think there's not going to be a lot of trump supporters out there.

~~~
ghufran_syed
Well, there's a lower bound of around 50 million trump supporters in the US
based on last night's election results...

~~~
Mickydtron
Yes, but Hacker News is not exactly a random slice of American voters. I would
expect to find some, but not many, Trump supporters who are going to find and
use a site like this.

~~~
wayn3
I don't think Peter Thiel is trolling Hackernews for ways he can explain why
he's supporting Trump.

------
kristopolous
I've had a far more elaborate idea incubating for at least 8 years... I have
many mockups, some pocs and a bunch of notes if someone is interested.

There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...

~~~
jnicholasp
I'm interested in at least the elevator pitch. What's your basic idea?

~~~
kristopolous
I don't know if you'll see this but email me. Use my hn handle @ yahoo and
I'll write it up. I'll need to write this document eventually if I want it to
be a reality.

------
RankingMember
If the experience I'm having is any indication (very clunky, conversation
works 50% of the time), I think you might want to iron things out a bit more
before a Show HN like this.

------
KiDD
It crashed in latest Safari pretty much soon as the chat started...

------
dudul
Yeah, I'm sure the racist, xenophobic, sexist deplorables can't wait to chat
with those who've been demonizing them for an entire year.

------
kaolti
Great idea, love it!

------
trump4564
I like this idea, but unfortunately the site is broken. Made a throwaway
account - I voted for Trump, want to talk about it?

------
juanmacuevas
wow! last night I got inspired to create exactly this concept while watching
this interview
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal)

------
emmelaich
It requests connections on port 8080 as well.

This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.

------
__BrianDGLS__
Isn't that what the internet is for?

~~~
vinay427
Until most communities naturally dissolve into "subreddit"-esque groups where
users share similar views to enjoy validation and avoid being downvoted.
Explicitly encouraging opposing viewpoints may help alleviate this problem.

~~~
astrodust
Not really. It just encourages people to fight for their team.

You need a place where there are no teams, where it's not A vs. B, but a place
where you're tackling smaller problems and talking solutions which can be
understood and validated.

------
stronsay
Site is a mess while using Tor Browser. Double Esc doesn't work. Messages
aren't going through.

------
glook
Looking for Partner FOR Donald Trump... And looking... and looking... and
looking...

~~~
benmcnelly
...partner found: Whats up man, aer you doing OK?

------
agumonkey
Couldn't connect to a partner. So far it looks like a topic oriented Omegle.

------
obj-g
Ah yes, bringing people together by dividing them into two groups.

------
bArray
Feature request: Need to know when somebody is actively speaking to you.

------
lucaspottersky
its pretty cool. but as for me, i already spend 80% of my interactions talking
to people i disagree with, i think i have enough of it already =)

------
ivm
Sorry but humanity needs more self-understanding, empathy towards others and
non-political activism. Arguing on the Internet does not help or we would be
living in utopia since 90s.

------
dschiptsov
there is 4chan for that.

~~~
ue_
4chan is an echo chamber, especially /pol/. The other echo chamber is 8chan's
/leftypol/. What's good about them is that if you're a rightwinger you can go
to /leftypol/and if you're a leftie you can go to /pol/.

------
Nick_23847
idea: interesting, execution: fail

------
sandworm101
The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and
trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have
failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such
people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family
gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why.

Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they
can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that
they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to
told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.

~~~
crdoconnor
>The racists and _homophones_

Oh dear lord.

~~~
marcv81
Claire and Clare are no longer welcome!

~~~
logfromblammo
Brian and Bryan are out, too.

~~~
dainichi
How about Don and Dawn, though?

~~~
logfromblammo
Depends on the regional accent, I think.

------
beatpanda
Let me tell you why dialogue doesn't work in this case:

Now discussing Donald Trump Now Talking with nigger lyncher nigger lyncher's
Description: i love to lynch niggers

That conversation is over before it can start. I'd rather fight these idiots
in the streets for the next 4 years than make any type of attempt at dialogue.

~~~
yetanotherjosh
You're dealing with a troll there, not an idiot. A troll.

