
New research suggests that we’re making ourselves sick over politics - elorant
https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today/article/stressed-out-americans-making-themselves-sick-over-politics/
======
duxup
Just turn on most TV news networks.

It's the Apocalypse about everything all the time. Everything is tied
together. You've got "experts" willing to make dramatic statements about
anything at all. It's always "those people" causing something.

Nobody sets any context. No real information is presented. It's just paranoia
and panic made to hook people into watching more.

I always have this fantasy where I start my own TV news network and it's "just
news". If the topic is complex like something about the separation of powers,
we do a little intro to that, then the news. I'm not sure it would be popular,
but at the same time, i'm not convinced it wouldn't be considering the
competition.

~~~
batty_alex
> It's the Apocalypse about everything all the time.

I just catch-up on the news once a week to avoid thinking about it too much.
Yeah, there's madness, but a lot of it is beyond my reach. So, it's not really
helpful for me to hear about what's going on more than once a week.

> I always have this fantasy where I start my own TV news network and it's
> "just news".

PBS News Hour tends to do this pretty well. The experts they bring on usually
do a good job of just discussing facts and describing common stances on all
sides.

Part of your complaint has to do with the deregulation of the news industry,
historically. In 1987, the FCC fairness doctrine was eliminated:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine)

It's no mistake that it gave rise to a massive number of pundits under the
guise of proper news outlets.

~~~
luckylion
> I just catch-up on the news once a week to avoid thinking about it too much.

For most people, you can probably stretch that. Catch up once a month, then
catch up once every three months, then six, or twelve. Most people I've spoken
too feel much better when they just quit "news".

~~~
52-6F-62
I have mixed thoughts about it, myself. I like to keep up, but it is
refreshing to turn everything off a while.

Also reminded me of this, a Lukas Nelson (of the red-headed stranger stock)
song:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2lild9nfps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2lild9nfps)

~~~
luckylion
Everybody likes to keep up, that's why drugs are addictive ;)

I found that "news" (as in non-local stuff) doesn't matter to me. I cannot do
anything about the things that are happening, whether or not they happen
changes my life very little (i.e. "whatever party is elected, my taxes are
going to go up"), but they do weigh on my mental health. Just like with
cigarettes, knowing that they're not good for you isn't enough to stop smoking
though, and just because I've stopped before doesn't mean that it's easier to
quit this time.

~~~
DollarGuru
Even with the local news there is rarely any actionable information. So that
isn't worth watching either.

If your city was hit with a terrorist attack or mass shooting is your boss
going to let you have time off work because you don't feel safe? I doubt it,
it's back to work as usual.

~~~
luckylion
True, I meant _super_ local news as in "there's going to be repairs on the
street by the church" and what stores are closing down or opening up. I only
get those from our local govt site and some private blogs, the local newspaper
has changed hands a few times and is now just one outlet of a large
corporation that runs the same articles in hundreds of local papers.

~~~
52-6F-62
Oh wow. My local news (CityTV Toronto, disclaimer—have done some work for them
before) covers hyper local stuff like street closures, transit closures, major
construction, other incidents and success stories as well as overs a range of
national and global topics. It’s not bad that way at all.

Sadly a lot of smaller town local papers across Canada have been bought up by
National Post much like Sinclair Media did with small TV stations in the USA.
Some independents still persist but the numbers grow fewer...

~~~
luckylion
I've thrown out the TV years (it'll be decades soon!) ago, so I don't know
whether the local TV channel in the metro area where I live is doing
something, but from what I remember when I still had one, they did not. And I
get it too, the costs to provide hyper local coverage would be immense. Maybe
there's a chance for a mix of citizen journalism with more polished &
professional distribution.

------
ddtaylor
I stopped paying any attention to politics years ago and I'm a person who
coordinated and planned 2 campaigns in my local state.

It saddens me that a large amount of people are stressed and consumed by a
process that they have very very little impact on. Unless you live in a select
few states, your state probably gets 2 electoral votes for your senators and a
few more based on your district size. If you live in Montana, Alaska, North or
South Dakota then you're getting the minimum of 3 electoral votes.

It's really more about outrage culture at this point I think. I actually
wonder how much harm is done by the election process in how it makes people
think problems are being debated or solved when no legitimate debate is taking
place and no real solutions are being implemented.

Also, it doesn't matter which political party you are on.

If you're a "left" leaning person who wants socialized healthcare, we never
really got that. We got something that had some of the same words and ideas,
but in the end nobody could actually go to a doctor without wealth being a
large factor.

If you're a "right" leaning person you probably want a smaller government that
spends less and we never get that. For every reduction in law hundreds are
added. One step forward, 99 steps backwards.

~~~
jrumbut
It's actually the people in the small states whose votes are disproportionally
powerful, since Wyoming voters elect the same number of senators as California
voters and everyone's house district is within an order of magnitude size
wise.

New Hampshire gets ridiculously outsized attention in election years, as a
small state, early primary state, and a swing state. Truly the trifecta and
probably the state where an individual's vote matters the most.

As for the last couple paragraphs, as someone who possesses an ideology I am
disappointed I don't always get my way, and live in my utopia. But as someone
who is aware others possess contrasting ideologies, I am glad I don't live in
their dystopias.

We have a system that encourages compromises, including very ugly and unjust
compromises, as a way to avoid one side winning entirely and establishing a
totalitarian (or anarchist) state.

People seem to appreciate this less than they once did, but haven't done
anything really to change it yet.

~~~
jrs235
People forget the U.S is a democratic constitutional republic. The federal
government is not the humans government. It's the governing body for the
States. Hence the reason for the electoral college and the way States are
represented. Each state [government] has an equal voice in the Senate (and
were represented by the Senators prior to the 17th Amendment). The house had a
proportionate representation because it is ultimately the humans who have to
pay for the running of the federal government.

The president it the head of the day to day operations of the government. They
are supposed to faithfully see that the laws passed by Congress are executed
properly.

~~~
tathougies
And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making
that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative.

But really, the states have _always_ had the authority to do what people
nowadays want the feds to do. Universal healthcare? The states are allowed to
provide that. universal basic income? The states can do that too. Lower the
drinking age? Yup, states can do that.

No one needs to wait for the federal government to 'approve' or 'allow' your
state to do something. The states have ultimate, pretty much absolute
authority.

~~~
smcg
Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can.

Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what
we have now.

Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't
going to lower the age.

~~~
jrs235
>Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't
going to lower the age.

Federal mandates for funds exist because the 17th amendment took away State
governments representation and handed to popular human vote. Few Senators
faithfully representing their State would pass mandates telling their own
government they must comply or not get money. They'd likely get removed or
replaced with someone else by the state government that put them there.

------
ravenstine
One thing that I see making the situation worse is the lack of common cause
and identity. There was always party division, but the other side was still
seen as your fellow Americans. Today, not only is there an opposing side, they
are seen as an enemy that must be totally annihilated. If we continue down
this road it's going to be disastrous because it's going to leave no room for
dissent inside or outside politics.

I'm not saying that Americans never disagreed, war'd with each other, etc.
That's not the point. The point is that we're losing that belief in an
American ideal that helps keep us together while we debate our issues. The
more divided we are, the more we'll be ripe for the picking by those who never
cared about America in the first place.

It's not just TV and social media, but a belief that America should be a hodge
podge of cultures united by nothing but an empty consumerist culture. It's
pretty hard for things like forgiveness, giving the benefit of the doubt, and
seeing each other as human beings to actually work in such a place when there
are political interests that benefit by having those principles eliminated. A
hostile, low trust society clicks more ragebait and gobbles more food to
combat depression.

~~~
delecti
How much camaraderie should someone really be expected to show for an opposing
party that actively opposes their human rights and remove regulations
protecting the environment? A hostile low-trust society might be justified for
the time being, and likely was previously too.

~~~
ravenstine
It _can_ be justified, just as nearly anything can be justified under the
right conditions. Whether present conditions, contrasting our current state
with the state of the past, warrants such political lengths to divide people
is questionable.

Considering that they, _like you_ , think they're right, you can at least
grant other human beings the same dignity you wish to receive. Obviously,
everything is subject to the situation but, from a big picture perspective,
viewing yourself and others as _fallible_ , as opposed to a Hollywood-esque
fight between Good and Evil, is a greater exercise in humility. Like pulling
the trigger on a gun, hostility and rejection should be a weapon reserved
until there isn't an alternative.

If you think there's no hope for a common understanding with Republicans(I
think it's safe to assume that's whom you are referring to), then I guess all
I have to say is that's kind of sad because I'm sure that you have family and
friends who vote Republican(whether they tell you or not); why associate with
them at all if you think a low-trust society is warranted?

Think of it this way. A Republican _might_ say:

"How much comaraderie should one really be expected to show for an opposing
party that actively opposes America as an individual nation, wants to impart
an economic structure that's been disastrous in other parts of the world,
embraces censorship, participated in proxy wars and knowingly murdered
civilians with drones, uses minorities as political tools, hates white people,
expanded the surveillance apparatus, and wants to take our guns away?"

I know some imbecile is probably going to take that hypothetical quote as
being my own position and attempt to argue every one of those points. Save
your breath, whomever you are, because that's not at all what I'm claiming to
believe.

Whether they are _actually_ right or wrong, they are Americans who, _like you_
, care about the destiny of the country. That's where your camaraderie begins.
If it ends there too, then too bad, but not having that common understanding
is dangerous and useful to anyone who wants to control the masses.

~~~
delecti
My response to your comment can probably be summed up by asking if you're
familiar with the paradox of tolerance [1]. I can be civil to people actively
working to remove the rights and safety of people like myself, but I do not
accept that they have earned my camaraderie.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

~~~
olooney
John Rawls provides a vocabulary for talking about these issues. In Rawls
view, society consists of "reasonable citizens" who want to live in a society
built on cooperation and are willing to abide by rules if necessary to do so.
Each reasonable citizen has, as a matter of course, a "comprehensive doctrine"
which is the full set of beliefs and opinions they hold on all kinds of
things: if aliens exist, which TV shows are good, when it's OK to lie.
Reasonable citizens can (and usually do) disagree about many aspects of their
respective comprehensive doctrines; however, they can acknowledge an
"overlapping consensus" formed from just those ideas that almost everyone in
the society agrees upon. For example, Americans generally agree that it should
be legal to watch TV. Now, an reasonable citizen can believe something very
strongly (such as a specific conception God) while acknowledging that since a
large number of of citizens of the same society do not hold the same belief,
it is not part of the "overlapping consensus" of their society. This overlap
consensus must form the foundation for any agreement.

Rawls gives examples of things that should be part of the overlapping
consensus for society to function, such as public standards of inquiry and
public values. He proposes the following rule:

> Citizens engaged in certain political activities have a duty of civility to
> be able to justify their decisions on fundamental political issues by
> reference only to public values and public standards.

All of that is just background. You can read a summary of Rawls on SEP[1], or
his book A Theory of Justice.[2]

Given all that, we can see how things might break down. In order:

1\. A citizen may not be reasonable. Jeffery Dahmer would qualify. He does not
want to live in a society with rules and justice: he wants to rape and eat
people.

2\. The citizens of a society may differ so much that their overlapping
consensus is empty, or too small to serve as a foundation of anything. If all
we agree on is that the sky is blue, but disagree on democracy vs. monarchy or
which end of the egg to eat, then we will not be able to form a society.

3\. We may agree on much, but not on those key topics like public standards of
inquiry. If one person believes that matters of fact should be decided by a
unanimous decision by a jury of peers, while the other believes that only
confession under torture can be trusted, the two will have a difficult time
agreeing on a legal system.

When things do breakdown for one of the above reasons, "civil discourse" is
not really possible. Other kinds of discourse are still possible, but these
will be more like hostage negotiations or the arguments that precede a divorce
than any kind of idealized notion of civil discourse. Which is to say, the
tools required for understanding these conflicts are rhetoric, game theory,
and psychology, and not political theory or ethics.

[1]:
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#ReaCit](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#ReaCit)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Since you seem highly educated, may I posit a question, and this isn't a
challenge but a genuine exploration into your commentary. What happens when we
enter with "identity politics"? For example, how does A and B engage in a
topic about big vs little government if A is nonbinary and takes 'ze'
pronouns, but B continually insists on referring to A as 'he' and believes
that A is mistaking mental illness as gender identity?

Or, similarly, how do A and B discuss going green vs economic prosperity, when
A is wearing a T-shirt espousing that black people were better off as slaves
and B is a black person?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
In both your examples, the offense being given is orthogonal to the discussion
at hand. If the offended party can look past the offense, the conversation can
continue. Otherwise, it can't.

Actually, there's two ways this can go. One is where the offender is being a
jerk; the other is where the offended is being a jerk. Civility and good faith
go a long way, on both sides.

(How, in your first paragraph, would A be the jerk? I have literally never in
my life encountered someone who wishes to use the pronoun ze, and when I do,
I'm probably going to have a hard time remembering to use it for a while. That
doesn't make me a bad person, toxic, or a jerk. It makes me a person with a
lifetime of ingrained habits about how pronouns work, and it may not be easy
to change that after being told once. If A regards that as hostility and
offense - worse, if A is actively _looking_ for offense - then we may have a
hard time having a conversation. If A can recognize good faith in failure, and
just smile at people who take a while to get it, then we're fine.)

~~~
SolaceQuantum
(In my example, I specify that B _refuses_ to use A's requested pronoun.)

My question then becomes what happens then civility has already broken down?
Say, I think "cunt" is a terrible word to call someone, and my cohort in a
discussion is from a region where it's a fairly normal word, like "jerk". As
we discuss, my cohort uses that word as normal, and I take severe offense,
causing the discussion to break down as my cohort also doesn't wish to "cater
to" me. Now what, are we just doomed to never be able to discuss even random
other stuff like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'd say that a reasonable person could say, "Where I come from, that's a
really offensive term. Could you not keep saying that?"

If they just keep saying it, it's clear that they don't care. That tells you
that they aren't a person interested in meeting you halfway. I don't need to
discuss chocolate vs vanilla (or anything else) with someone who's willing to
deliberately offend me.

But if they forget once or twice, and say it, not because they don't care that
it offends you but just because it's become habit, and habits don't change
instantly, then cut them some slack. Your words that you say by habit that
offend others aren't easy to stop saying, either.

But if you're so busy "taking severe offense" that you can't respond like a
reasonable person, then maybe you're the problem. You almost certainly are if
you're _enjoying_ taking severe offense. (I know, nobody ever admits to it.
But I suspect that some people do, and if they were honest with themselves,
they'd know it.)

[Edit: Missed your first paragraph. _Refuses_ is different from _forgets to_.
Again, though, it may not be that simple. If B forgets once, a hypersensitive
A might label that "refuses". Or, B could really refuse, but claim "I keep
forgetting" when called on it. Those two scenarios look fairly similar - you
probably have to read tone of voice, facial expression, and body language to
know.]

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I see, so, pushing to the extremes here and I wholly acnkowledge I'm doing so-
what do you do when A is in a position with B where B informs A that B does
not care if A is offended, but also if A stops engaging, B proclaims that A
isn't listening to them and therefore it's A's fault?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"With those who will not listen, it is useless to have a conversation." A
should say something like "I deny your interpretation of the events of this
conversation" and walk away. There's no point whatsoever in continuing the
conversation. B isn't going to listen; B isn't going to argue in good faith; B
is just there to score points.

Will B regard that as a "victory"? Sure, but there's nothing A can do to
change that. Will B claim that A isn't listening? Sure, _but there 's nothing
A can do to change that._ The only thing A can change is how much aggravation
and abuse A has to put up with. So A should just walk away.

------
nelblu
We dumped the "land of opportunity" precisely because of the political
climate. We both were on H1B visas, and our green card is already filed (for
both of us), but the whole anxiety drove us nuts and we just moved north of
the border where they welcomed us with a red carpet with permanent residency
sent at our doorstep! My friends were saying we were crazy, to leave a great
job, house and all but I couldn't think of myself being a slave to the whims
and fancies of some American politicians. We are so much happier here :). I
used to think I want to move south once there is a immigration friendly
government but the more I live here the less I want to move back.

~~~
yummypaint
Exactly this. I have seen dozens of highly qualified, kind, intelligent people
who wanted to contribute in the US leave in frustration because of asinine
immigration rules.

------
freejulian85
At some point people need to wake up and realize they actually have very
little control over what the government is doing.

How long have we been talking about fixing healthcare? 20 years now? Nothing
changes. And Obamacare was not a fix, just a way to shut up the population.

How long have we been demanding an end to endless wars?

How long have we been demanding actual action on climate change?

What happened when crimes of the government are exposed by Assange and
Snowden? We punish the whistleblowers!

What was the end result of the Panama papers? Nothing.

What about the elite being engaged in pedophilia on a massive scale? What’s
that, Epstein committed suicide and the prison staff won’t cooperate in an
investigation? Carry on fine citizen, nothing to see here.

None of these things will change because the elite are enjoying the status
quo. Now proceed fighting amongst yourselves over <insert social wedge issue
here>.

~~~
rrggrr
No, no, no, no. Most decisions that impact your life in the US start at the
city level. You CAN get involved and make a difference. It all starts there.
Don't check out.

~~~
taborj
Actually, it's even more granular than that. Want to shape the future? Get on
the school board. Then you get to affect what an entire generation learns.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _Then you get to affect what an entire generation learns_

I don't think you've ever been on a school board.

In a lot of places, there are federal and state standards that effectively
dictate what children have to know. So if that state test or whatever has no
relativity theory on it, but lots of low end classical mechanics problems,
then guess which one the high schools in your district will spend pretty much
100% of the time teaching? Everyone from the school board members, to the
school teacher, to the high schools themselves will be evaluated, publicly,
when the results of those tests are released. (Some schools may even be taken
over by the state or shut down if the numbers are too poor.)

Most places they generally don't take chances on spending class time on topics
outside those the tests focus on, it's just too risky the way most states have
structured their laws. I wish I knew some kind of a way to push back against
test centric thinking in education, but it's too ingrained and there's too
much riding on it. At the end of the 12 years the kids have to take the ACT in
most places, and heaven help you if little Jane or Johnny doesn't do well
enough on it.

I always thought that if you really want to influence what the next generation
learns, you should join the company that makes the tests, not the school
board.

------
nickjj
> Politics are impossible to escape

That's a bold claim to put in the title but I believe it's generally true
unless you're in a position to not have to directly deal with paying taxes
(homeless or so rich that someone else deals with it for you).

I would consider myself to be extremely unpolitical. Honestly speaking I don't
even know who my state's mayor is, I never voted and I don't listen to the
news. I simply don't care about any of that stuff because I know as an
individual it's close to impossible to change anything due to how politics
work in the first place (it follows money not popularity).

However, when it comes to paying taxes or health insurance penalties you can't
avoid thinking about or dealing with it and it's stressful even in those short
doses of having to deal with taxes a few times a year (quarterly taxes).

~~~
admax88q
Paying taxes is not politics. Being stressed about that is just the same as
being stressed about any other personal administration task.

~~~
nickjj
> Paying taxes is not politics. Being stressed about that is just the same as
> being stressed about any other personal administration task.

I think it's very much related because as soon as you talk or think about
taxes you immediately correlate it to forcefully giving the government a large
amount of your hard earned money.

And now it becomes political because you might not see directs benefits of
that, so now you wonder why you pay so many hundreds of thousands of dollars
of taxes over your life, but there's potholes in your neighborhood for years
that could break a car's axle and thieves are breaking into houses with police
who don't care enough to solve the mystery, all while you continue to pay some
of the highest state tax in the US (percent wise).

And it snow balls from there. You begin to wonder why so much has to be spent
on things you don't necessarily agree with and before you know it, you're
ruminating on this stuff to the point where your heart is racing and you want
to move to a private ungoverned island.

Thinking about stuff like that is super disappointing / demoralizing to me, so
I try my best to avoid it as much as possible. I know avoiding bad things is
usually terrible advice but this is one case where I'm more than happy to not
play the game or only play the absolute bare minimum to enjoy my life the best
I can.

------
Merrill
The effect of the 24x7 news flow is to cause "learned helplessness" in the
masses.

>"Learned helplessness occurs when an animal is repeatedly subjected to an
aversive stimulus that it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal will stop
trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change
the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned
helplessness will prevent any action."

[https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-learned-
helplessness-27...](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-learned-
helplessness-2795326)

------
wespiser_2018
How did we get here? Is there any evidence that the consolation of old school
media into a few companies is contributing to this problem? Over the last fews
years we've gone from 50 companies owning 90% of the news companies, to only
6. I recently heard about this consolidation, and I can't help but think this
may be contributing to the issue, but I haven't seen any evidence either way!

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-
ownership_in_the_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-
ownership_in_the_United_States)

------
davidw
No kidding. This current situation goes beyond simple policy disagreements,
but goes right to the heart of whether the US president is above the law or
not. As a consequence, are there any checks on his interference in our
elections? How's democracy going to work out if there aren't?

I'd like my kids to grow up in a democracy, and this deterioration is really
f'ing stressful.

(If you're one of those "but it's a Republic, not a Democracy!" people - save
it)

~~~
MaupitiBlue
Take a deep breath. Despite what you may see on TV, it’s not the end of the
world.

“whether the US president is above the law or not”

Think of the situation as a poorly defined edge case. The Constitution does
not say that laws don’t apply to the president. However, the president has
constitutional duties and powers that the other branches have no power to
interfere with. So, in some situations the net result may be that the
president IS effectively above the law.

But don’t get too upset yet. The real check on power is the ballot box.
Presidents only get 4 year terms. And in emergency situations Congress can
impeach.

Let the system work itself out, and don’t become overly emotional. It’s not
something important like baseball or whether your kid can read, it’s just
politics.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
Even though you're getting downvoted it's worth expressing this over and over.
But we're dealing with an entire cross-cutting section of society that
magnifies every problem into a crisis, so it'll almost never be received well.

The constitutional checks and balances are definitely relevant and vital here,
but it's worth noting how distorted they've become. Presidential power has
been elevated in practice, but it's also been mythologized. Most people have
idealized the role beyond it's traditional standing, and this lends itself to
degrading the rules and scope of the role itself.

Congress is supposed to be a body of deliberation, but due to party politics
has devolved into a purely political sphere of battle. So Congress is
complicit with enabling the president to act beyond the circumscribed
boundaries that are constitutionally defined.

------
tristanperry
It's unfortunately very similar here in the UK: whilst most people are
'getting on with it', there's an increasing amount of division and stress due
to the whole Brexit debacle.

~~~
XJ6
Brexit related stress is very real, especially for residents who are EU
citizens who may be very long time residents but haven't ever thought of the
need to get official residency.

"Settled status" is of little comfort when they look and see a PM willing to
act unlawfully.

~~~
upstandingdude
Dunno the brits that live in Germany can just get a unlimited residency permit
without any fuss.

~~~
pjc50
Unconditionally? This is absolutely not the case for the UK "settled status"
fiasco.

------
lanevorockz
I blame the internet media for using easy click baity titles to get clicks.
That's where the money is and one of the reasons we are seeing extremism
happening on both sides.

The internet is allowing long format discussions that are great but the
"legacy press" is struggling to adapt to this. They want to provide simplified
summaries at a premium and on a time without news they have to make them up.

~~~
Nasrudith
While there may be a magnitude difference (I personally suspect not) we have
had click-bait's ancestor just from headlines.

Hard times seem to be a more reliable prediction of extremism really. In the
WW1 eras before, during, and after major nations were having literal radical
element armed revolution attempts.

------
XJ6
> 22.1% admit they care too much about who wins and who loses

Recommendation: Stop framing it as "winning" and "losing".

~~~
macintux
I’d just be grateful if pundits and especially politicians would start
referring to “opponents” instead of “enemies”.

~~~
rb808
I looked up synonyms for opponents and my favorite is "fellow contestant"

------
jhpriestley
I think that the term "politics" makes it very abstract what we're talking
about. If you substitute in some salient issue, like "jailing children", then
it kind of changes the tone.

It's just politics -> It's just jailing children

People are ending friendships over politics -> People are ending friendships
over jailing children

"Team Red" and "Team Blue" -> Team jail children, Team do not jail children

~~~
gojomo
Your desire to replace the meta-discussion of "politics" with reduction to a
highly-emotional framing of a pet issue ("jailing children") is an excellent
example of why the politicize-everything mindset is so corrosive.

~~~
patientplatypus
Disagree.

You can do it with healthcare too.

Team "spent 4 years attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replacing
it with nothing" vs Team "Universal Medical Care for Everyone"

Or tax cuts -

Team "Gave trillions away via a big corporate tax cut" vs Team "Proposal to
fund higher education via Wealth Tax"

Or environmentalism -

Team "denying there's a problem while the permafrost melts" vs Team "Wants to
do something before society literally falls around us"

Or Treason -

Team "Has president in White House that literally asked Ukraine for dirt on
his political opponent" vs Team "Holy Fucking Shit!"

It seems super frustrating dealing with articles that say that "politics" is
stressing me out when really it's that the right has literally driven the
country into the ground. What in god's name are they doing? We have a
president that is literally laughing about killing immigrants days before a
national shooting in Texas, who commits high crimes _via Twitter_ , and worse!
What Republican is speaking out against him? And they own the senate, so we've
had 4 years of deadlock.

And that's just the United States! In the UK you have crazy Boris Johnson
literally doing everything he possibly can to crash the country out of the
European Union because no one was willing to work with Theresa May. God knows
why as the effects for the economy (and Ireland for God's sakes - they have a
border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that would have to go back up -
and it could cause the Troubles again!) would be horrific. Probably because he
has money on it somehow. And he attempted to essentially dissolve parliament
that then unprecedentedly got thrown out by their Supreme Court and the entire
thing is just a shit show.

And then there's Modi, and Bolsonaro is burning down the rain forest. The
thing is the entire planet looks like it's having an attack of conscience and
we could be looking at a breakdown of the global order. Things have been ok
bordering on decent in most parts of the world for the last 50 years, as
compared to the last 500 that preceded them. But we paid for the prosperity by
consuming more than we should, and, as "stuff" starts to run out perhaps
people are just no longer interested in sharing with others or playing nice.

That's a really scary thought.

~~~
gojomo
This compulsion to steer every discussion into simplistic partisan campaign
talking-points is not good for people's mental or physical health, as the
linked study suggests.

I hope you learn to disengage before accumulating too much damage.

~~~
snowron6
Personally, I think it's more damaging that positions like, "Let's not lock
children in cages", or "Let's actually listen to the scientific consensus on
climate change rather than people paid by the oil industry" or considered
partisan viewpoints. I totally get political fatigue, I'm getting really tired
of all the shit going on too, but when pointing out the president blatantly
committed a crime is considered partisan, the issue isn't that people talk
about politics too much.

~~~
rjf72
To see the problem, let me use your exact words, but simply change the issue
to one you presumably disagree with: "Personally, I think it's more damaging
that positions like, "Let's not murder children" is considered a partisan
viewpoint. I totally get political fatigue, I'm getting really tired of all
the shit going on too, but when pointing out literally killing kids is
considered partisan, the issue isn't that people talk about politics too
much."

I'm sure you see the problem now. I'm obviously taking a horribly slanted view
on abortion and then framing the discussion under that slant. It's not only
partisan but rather radically so. In particular, is the underlying _causal_
issue a desire to "lock children in cages", or is it something else? Is the
underlying _causal_ issue a desire to "murder babies", or is it something
else?

Beyond the partisanship problem, I'd also add that this is in no way conducive
to productive discussion. Imagine I opposed abortion and came at you with that
murdering babies nonsense. What is your response going to be? It's likely to
be a mixture of knee-jerk emotion alongside a near complete dismissal of me as
somebody who's probably quite radicalized. In any case it certainly would not
lead to a mutually enlightening and well tempered debate. Yet this sort of
speech is now becoming seen as something normal, and I think it's playing a
very key role in both a lack of progress as well as an increasingly
antagonistically divided nation.

~~~
patientplatypus
Except, in the first case the underlying casual issue to Republicans
separating children from their parents is their hatred and racism of asylum
seeking immigrants. In the second case, the underlying issue to people who
don't believe in abortion are often religious groups that have a history of
persecuting anyone different than them, including the mistreatment of women
and children.

Trying to state there are radicals "on both sides" just isn't true in degree
or kind. We don't have radicalized left wing socialists shooting up schools.
We just don't.

~~~
prepend
Do you think it’s possible that someone doesnt have hatred toward and wasn’t
racist against asylum seeking immigrants yet still supports immigration
control that results in children locked in cages? Do you think all ICE
employees are hateful racists? Are all proponents of a wall hateful racists?

I think it’s hard to understand someone’s position when they are lumped into
caricatures. Maybe there are other reasons. But setting up a world where
people who disagree with me are all racists is a world where the people I call
racist don’t want to talk with me. Yet we live in a world where they vote the
same as I. So if I want them to vote my way, I need to understand them. To
understand them, I have to talk with them.

~~~
patientplatypus
No. Yes, yes.

The New Colossus

 _Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from
land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman
with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of
Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your
storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp
beside the golden door!"_

~~~
rjf72
That poem was penned in 1883. Do you know what the federal tax rate was? No
need to bother with brackets, as it was 0%. And the state tax rate wasn't much
different. How did we pay for our programs for migrants and ensure they were
able to achieve a decent and humane life? We didn't. There were some
independent 'poor houses' which were essentially farms where people could put
in a hard day's work for a hot meal and little bit of cash, but beyond that
people were on their own.

The reason this is relevant is because it radically reshapes migration. It
means that each and every person who came to this country managed to
contribute to society and start earning a living, or they left. As a result of
this each and every migrant was, at worst, a non-negative on society. They
integrated, they contributed, and society was all the better for it.

Today society is much more humane, and that is probably a good thing. But it
also means that each and every person who lives, or comes, to within this
country can now be a net negative on society. And so this rather radically
changes the calculus. It means each and every person who comes to this nation,
if incapable of providing for themselves, stretches our society's finite
resources that much thinner. Consequently, there is need for judiciousness and
restraint if you wish for these programs, and our generosity, to remain
sustainable.

------
pjc50
I'd love to disengage, but at the same time there's a horrifying addictiveness
to the whole thing. It reminds me of the early days of the Iraq war and post
9/11, except with no originating disaster this time. It's not just an online
phenonmenon, talks about Brexit happen daily in my office.

I even got a "prepare for Brexit" ad on Spotify this morning.

~~~
ben_w
Certain aspects of the ongoing soap opera that is Brexit do feel like a two-
minute hate.

I’ve never read 1984, but the Wikipedia page rather unfortunately matches my
own subjective reactions to some of the stories:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate)

I know that you have been rather dismissive of the idea that it could lead to
civil war, but given the rhetorical choices of various celebrities, public
figures, and so on, and given the details of various reports of violent
conduct recently, I think it’s going to be as bad as a population-adjusted
version of the Troubles regardless of which option is ultimately taken.

This is not _why_ I have left the UK, but it does make me glad _that_ I have
left the UK. Even though I’m having difficulty disconnecting, it is definitely
easier than it would be if I was still on the island.

~~~
pjc50
> I think it’s going to be as bad as a population-adjusted version of the
> Troubles regardless of which option is ultimately taken.

I'm not seeing it myself; it's not even as bad as the early 2000s days of
anti-globalisation riots. There's only going to be violence if the government
manage to successfully order it before they get removed, or if they somehow
manage to defy the Benn act and achieve No Deal. It turns out there's even a
limit to how much Farage can openly incite violence before the police finally
agree to take a look: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-
farage-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-news-
latest-investigation-knife-pen-pushers-brexit-a9124286.html)

The key is realising how much Brexit is astroturf. And Farage himself provided
a nice demonstration by quitting UKIP and transferring all the attention to
the Brexit party, thereby proving that it's his personal movement (with the
aid of the newspapers) rather than a broader-based one.

------
blhack
I really hope that soon we can start looking at these media companies in the
same way we look at cigarette companies.

CNN,NyTimes,FOX,Twitter etc. want you addicted to their product, are EXTREMELY
powerful, and are willing to damn your health for it. It’s really sad.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
I've pretty much stopped taking in "the news", TV, internet even my home page
is just a relaxing picture. Honestly, I feel way better and have realized how
little "news" I need to know. Even on HN, I avoid political posts. Any news
that I actually need to know comes to me via friends and family.

------
mfer
Personally, since I started limiting social media to maybe a couple times a
week, stopped watching the news shows, and trying to read long form
investigative pieces of news I've become both much happier and more well
informed. It's also easier to avoid unwittingly becoming part of mobs.

~~~
ddtaylor
Where can I find long-form investigative pieces?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
PBS Frontline is a series of long-form investigative pieces.

------
dougmwne
This is why I've been practicing "strategic disengagement." Mostly, reading
the news is not informative. Modern news is full of talking points pushed by
whichever special interests are the best funded. It does not need to represent
reality or truth especially well. The most important thing is not to tick off
advertisers, owners, and the tribe of people that identify with the outlet.

And even if you could be truthfully and accurately informed? In a country of
tens or hundreds of millions, these decisions are made by an extremely select
few with vast wealth or great influence. I have met a few of these people and
I know how the sausage is made. The rest of us are grist for their mills.

For most people, paying attention to any of this nothing more than rooting for
their favorite sports team.

------
eej2ya1K
Take all of that effort you're pouring into politics, and spend it all on
yourself. Enjoy.

------
dood2002
this is exactly the kind of shit i come to hn to avoid

~~~
AnimalMuppet
On the front page, each article is really small. You can just skip past them.

Clicking on it and leaving a comment is not how you ignore it.

~~~
jpindar
Better than that, each article on the front page has a "hide" button so you
can remove (from your view) any that bother you.

------
bobloblaw45
My observations having lived through Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, is that
it's always the end of the world. You always have people saying they lied or
committed some crime or another and each is always so much worse than the
last.The current one is always the legit criminal and the past ones are always
forgotten.

The only difference now is we're willingly engaging in it 24/7\. If you can
escape it or not is one question but your reaction to it is entirely on you.
You can let it consume you or you can choose for it not to.

------
WilliamEdward
Having exposed myself to a small circle of people on the internet with
particular viewpoints, i've noticed politics is all i can think about lately.
I can only imagine what it must be like to follow social media and have
reactionary news articles thrown at you daily, something i've managed to
avoid. It only makes sense that you chip off bits of your sanity every time
you box yourself in with certain crowds and information feeds.

Don't trap yourself in a bubble, people.

------
asokoloski
I've just recently discovered it, but I'm a big fan of the work that Better
Angels are doing to reduce political polarization in our society and help us
communicate peacefully: [https://www.better-angels.org/our-
story/](https://www.better-angels.org/our-story/)

I think it has a lot of potential to help with this problem.

------
rrggrr
Money.

Both sides raise money by stoking emotions - usually fear. This leads to a LOT
of exaggeration of conduct, risks, etc.

The largest demographic glued to news channels is easily motivated to donate
based on emotion and fear - our aging population. By way of example, most
phone scams have fear-driven messaging and are targeted at this cohort.

Want to reduce your stress AND keep informed? Understand and accept that
politics is foremost about money and getting you to open your wallet. Discount
messaging on both sides as you would advertising for soap, a new phone or
medication.

I don't want to minimize the impact of foreign interference here. Many
countries seek to manipulate messaging, yes. Nevertheless - its the billions
required for elections that drives the ugliness.

------
makerofspoons
Imagine how stressed Americans will be when they finally realize how dire the
climate and ecological crises are due to our inaction.

------
malvosenior
I’m be been alive for six presidents and the only thing that has had a direct
and substantial impact on my life was Obamacare (it cost me _a lot_ of money).

I was glad when Trump got elected as I thought in might cause real change. Not
because he’s competent but because he’s an outsider and prone to doing things
the establishment would never do. He’s delivered a mixed bag on this theory
but I think a lot of legacy corruption has been exposed (as well as his new
corruption).

It all stinks, but if you don’t follow the mainstream outrage machine you can
live a happy life that doesn’t feel like near apocalypse every day.

~~~
Pfhreak
> It all stinks, but if you don’t follow the mainstream outrage machine you
> can live a happy life that doesn’t feel like near apocalypse every day.

Unfortunately this isn't the case for your peers. Queer folks, for instance,
are suffering violence and a steady attack by their government. Latinos
likewise. There are many people whose lives are massively impacted by
politics, even if they never turn on a TV.

~~~
rosterface
I’m Latino and strongly disagree with this. Many I know support Trump and
actually are rather conservative.

~~~
Pfhreak
Sure. I'm queer and have never personally dealt with violence because of who I
am. But my community is definitely stressed by politics. You are saying that
politics has no major impact on the broader Latinx community that could cause
stress?

------
oarabbus_
People are losing sleep over political issues?

Unless your livelihood is directly tied to the issue, that's bizarre to me.

~~~
tboyd47
It's not bizarre if it's affecting their relationships.

------
ForzaBlu
What is the solution?

~~~
asokoloski
I posted a link elsewhere in the comments -- check out the Better Angels
organization. I think they're really on to something. They teach people how to
talk about politics in a way that leads to a respectful conversation and
consideration of each others views rather than a screaming match.

------
zarro
"On a political sickbed a people is usually rejuvenated and rediscovers its
spirit, after having gradually lost it in seeking and preserving power.
Culture owes its peaks to politically weak ages.”

Anyone guess who?

------
MaupitiBlue
Bob Woodward was right. Much of the left is simply “unhinged” over Trump. Some
of the antiObama stuff was bad, but the last few years have been pretty
incredible.

~~~
dawg-
Thus far in my life I have always voted Democrat, and have not been a big fan
of Trump at all. But the word "unhinged" is a perfect descriptor. The cycle of
outrage and self-righteousness is counterproductive. Even worse is that we now
have people _defending_ outrage, saying that "civil discourse" has been used
as a bludgeon in the past to silence minorities and other oppressed groups. I
get it, it has the ring of logic to it. But what's happening on Twitter
nowadays is not the same thing as the sit-in lunches or freedom riders in the
60s. Not at all.

------
sleepysysadmin
It's not politics that people are getting stressed out about. It's fake news.

Let's call it for what it is.

[https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-
live-s...](https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-live-
shot/index.html)

Fake news from ABC being called out by the kings of fake news: CNN.

[https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/20160918_Why_is_Philly_...](https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/20160918_Why_is_Philly_s_homicide_rate_going_up_.html)

[https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/T...](https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/Trump-
said-Phillys-murder-rate-is-terribly-increasing-Its-not.html)

One of these articles is fake news.

Washington Post also likes their fake news.

Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

[https://outline.com/5jBgBU](https://outline.com/5jBgBU)

Sanders’s incorrect claim that Clinton called him ‘not qualified’ for the
presidency

[https://outline.com/urT5KL](https://outline.com/urT5KL)

One of these articles is fake news. It doesn't matter which.

The media is attacking and posting fake news about all sides of politics. This
is not a new. The media has been feeding us lies forever, what has changed is
technology. We are now catching them in their lies. We are holding them to
account for their fake news and this has resulted in the media crumbling.

Fix the fake news, stop giving fake news agencies like CNN or washington post
any attention and your stress will greatly reduce.

------
panny
>It became apparent, especially during the 2016 electoral season, that this
was a polarized nation

This article is quite biased. What today's liberals are feeling is what
conservatives felt for the entire Obama administration. It's not new.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/10/us-
elections-r...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/10/us-elections-
republicans-tea-party-conservatives)

~~~
olooney
According to the Pew Research Center there is evidence that America has become
more more polarized since 2016.[1] This is part of a decades long trend.[2]
This polarization is happening on both a rational[3] and emotional[4] level.
According to some other researchers, political polarization is at its worst
since the civil war.[5]

[1]: [https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-
polariza...](https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-
polarization-1994-2017/)

[2]: [https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-
polarizati...](https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-
in-the-american-public/)

[3]: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/02/05/republicans...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/02/05/republicans-and-democrats-have-grown-further-apart-on-what-
the-nations-top-priorities-should-be/)

[4]: [https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/05/more-now-say-its-
str...](https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/05/more-now-say-its-stressful-to-
discuss-politics-with-people-they-disagree-with/)

[5]: [https://news.usc.edu/110124/political-polarization-at-its-
wo...](https://news.usc.edu/110124/political-polarization-at-its-worst-since-
the-civil-war-2/)

~~~
panny
Yep, same thing. Listen to yourself. You expect me to believe a) there's an
objective measurement of a well defined term "political polarization" and it
has also been happening for more than 100 years or b) US liberals made up some
totally arbitrary subjective standard, applied their bias to it, and came out
with "Thanks Donald."

You simply can't see it because of personal bias.

~~~
olooney
A lot to unpack there, so I'll restrict myself to a single remark: your
suggestion that the polarization metric used in the last paper was developed
_post hoc_ in response to Trump's election doesn't match the publication
timeline.

The method[1] used in the last paper has been around since the 80's and has
been used to study polarization since at least the 00's. It's a popular method
used in many papers; you can even get the raw data and code as an R package if
you'd like to hack on it.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_(scaling_method)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINATE_\(scaling_method\))

[2]:
[https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/wnominate/index.html](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/wnominate/index.html)

