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.
Say what you want about holiday themed drinks, but the coffee shop, bar, and church are essentially the only mass, small-town American discussion forums. And I'd say only the first tended to really breed in-depth conversations between unlikeminded neighbors.
Coffee chains could give two shits about inspiring conversation. In fact, it's downright bad for business (at best more seating requirement, at worst danger of disagreement). So it's optimized away.
The Fourth Turning -- on the patterns that generations tend to fall into -- might also be interesting.
Instead, most of it is ill-informed, without willingness to learn, and for the last 12 months or so with a good helping of death threats, at least in my interactions.
And so, yes, we start avoiding disagreement, because the pain inflicted upon us is so intense. For better or worse, the Internet is failing miserably at fostering healthy debate. We have inadvertently created the tools that allow bullies to silence on a global level.
Or maybe it's just a regression to the mean - we've been physically disconnected from the rest of the world for most of history.
I tried to explain. Edward Snowden said to ask people to give you their phones unlocked for half an hour. I extend the metaphors, I give concrete examples, but emotional bias trumps anything I bring up. I get angry, nobody wins anything.
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.
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!
My guess is that open-mindedness must be cultivated from a young age by exposing kids to a wide-variety of cultures/ideas.
I agree. People are much more civil face to face. It also helps in a disagreement to see body language and facial expressions. If I'm trying to argue a point and see someone getting visibly upset then I may change my tact or soften the moment for a bit. This is so much harder to do over the internet.
Our body language reading machinery is weak and ignorable when a person is reduced to a small 2 dimensional image, let alone text. And it's the signals that this machinery produces that trigger empathy. Without it, and especially when talking to strangers, it's easy to slip into a mild kind of psychopathy.
I think this statement is completely untrue. Compare to how people were divided around the world a hundred years ago.
Technology has gathered people together, but it also makes differences clearer to see.
Doesn't the last part of your comment contradict your entire comment? Imagine gathering a hundred people together and making the differences between each person clear. Instead of uniting everyone, what will ensue is hatred. Shouldn't the point be to find a common ground and not focus on our differences?
Standing in long lines at the DMV in Virginia in 2000-something, a man says to me, "See what happens when you let the Democrats run things?"
Watching the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, a woman told me, "My grandmother said this would happen. She said the economy always collapses under Republicans."
Working IT at the Coast Guard for ten years, people talked politics all the time. All of that talk about as informed as the quotes above, but I try not to think less of people who are misinformed. Politics is hard. It's complicated, but we are all expected to participate in it and try to stay informed while most of us are unaware of how much or cognitive biases cause us to misunderstand and misremember the things we learn about the whole complex morass that is almost entirely run by lawyers.
For me, this election is now an exercise in compassion. I overheard two coworkers talking yesterday about how they both voted for Trump because they hated Clinton so much. What surprised me was the tone of fear and uncertainty in their voices at having won. They want what's best for America, just like their political opponents do, and they honestly thought their candidate was the better choice--with strong reservations. My life is great at the moment, so I sincerely hope their candidate delivers what they feel is missing in their own lives.
I'm not saying any of this to detract from this tool or any of the other interesting tools linked here, I think its great to try to find as many solutions as possible but its just been my observation recently that humans interact best face to face, hopefully we can find a more scalable solution though.
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.
It's mainly geared toward single-issue consultations and discussions, but definitely worth understanding.
I know some folks who facilitate municipal consultations in one of the largest Canadian cities, a job for which helping often divided participants to arrive at meaningful consensus is high-priority. Their comment after the demo was "My mind is honestly reeling right now. Never in my life did I think any part of my job could be automated and democratized, because what I do is synthesize fuzzy participant feelings in a very unscalable way. But this tool just might automate away some of what we do."
If you want more than 2 polarizing parties to emerge, you have to use an alternative voting system which allows ranking, such as IRV, and thus encourages third parties instead of disincentivizing them (due to spoiler effect).
The best system seems to be approval voting. You just are allowed to vote multiple times if you want. And the candidate with the most votes wins like normal. See http://rangevoting.org
Your concerns just don't play out.
The problem with IRV is demonstrated in more detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8
I think it's still better than FPTP, and it does let third parties at least get some attention. But there are other, better, systems. IRV has been adopted in a few places in the US, and then abandoned shortly after. I think systems like approval voting have a better chance of catching on.
But you can get more third party candidates winning (in single winner districts), leading to coalitions within parliament, which is probably what the parent means.
Unless I misunderstand IRV, there is no "vote stealing" due to your vote automatically dropping off to your next-preferred candidate.
> Eventually they would steal enough votes to cause them to be eliminated.
I assume by "them" you're referring to a (previous) major party. In that case, I don't see an issue at all. This will simply mean that the voters get better options and the top two parties will be pulled more towards the median at threat of being surpassed by a third party.
> And you get only 2 viable parties.
This either contradicts the first point or is completely meaningless. Of course there will be two top parties by definition for any specific election. However, IRV allows voters who align themselves more with a particular third party to show their support for that party without possibly spoiling their next favorite candidate and resulting in one they oppose winning.
I looked at your link, and I'm unconvinced by this argument that IRV is no better than FPTP:
> A lot of voters will, in an election like Bush v Gore v Nader 2000, exaggerate their good and bad opinions of Bush and Gore by artificially ranking them first and last, even if they truly feel the third-party candidate Nader is best or worst. They will do this in order to give their vote the "maximum possible impact" so it is not "wasted". Once they make this decision, in IRV, Nader automatically has to go in the middle slot, they have no choice about him. If all voters behave this way, then automatically the winner will be either Bush or Gore. Nader can never win an IRV election with this kind of strategic voters.
This seems to assume that voters will not understand how the system works. What reason would voters have to rank Gore over Nader when there is no risk of spoiling anything and having the candidate farthest from them win? It's not like the ranks are worth more or anything. I can't think of any situation where putting Gore over Nader would result in "maximum possible impact" compared to the opposite ranking. This whole argument just seems very silly and misleading.
It's true that IRV limits the cost of vote stealing. But first votes still matter a huge amount in IRV, and you can only give one first vote. So there can always be some vote stealing. This is not a problem when third parties are really small and inconsequential. But if this actually worked to create viable third parties that had significant percent of the vote (the main goal of people that want such systems, otherwise there is no point), it would become a huge issue.
The link I posted shows that approval and range voting do vastly better in computer simulations of elections. Which is nice because approval voting is much simpler. And there is never a scenario where you shouldn't vote for your favorite candidate, under approval voting.
The last issue has been experimentally observed in Australia:
People insincerely rank the competing party in last place, even though they don't really think they are the worst party. The major parties encourage this, and explain to their voters how to vote strategically.
More issues here: http://rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html
>Unless I misunderstand IRV, there is no "vote stealing" due to your vote automatically dropping off to your next-preferred candidate.
The problem is that they drop to your next preferred candidate who has not been eliminated.
If you're thinking about the problems that occur with plurality voting, it's easy to imagine your second choice will always be a popular "safe" choice, but if third parties get stronger (which is surely the point?) those safe choices can end up being eliminated before your second choice can help them.
Of course most countries that have this system end up with regular coalition governments which is sometimes one criticism of the system. But surely a coalition working together as part of a parliament with at least three groups is better than two groups at perennial loggerheads with each other.
This only seems to lead to ever greater tribalism and us and them politics.
Quite a few of those parties want to break away from the UK - which is about is fundamental a disagreement as you can have!
The goal isn't to be a good candidate, qualified, or even ethical... its to get elected out of a contest of two people.
Who ever uses the media most wins. It doesn't even have to be favorable news coverage or even make sense. Who ever appears on the screen the most or gets their name mentioned the most wins. Again, its only a contest out of two people and the general population is easily energized by emotions.
I came away feeling more like I understood the other side of the debate so well done!
However, this does little to solve the actual problem. People are just more likely to not be civil behind closed doors. For example , I frequently commute in Los Angeles traffic. If Im attempting to merge or change lanes with my blinker on, people wont budge or will even speed up. My normally docile mother and girlfriend will expletive laced insults that they never would. They are nicer to people who may waste 5 minutes of their time in person than someone in a car who wastes maybe .01 seconds of their time.
When I make direct eye contact with them and force them to acknowledge my basic humanity, no one has ever been a traffic asshole. Conversely, in online gaming apparently the entire 12 yr old population has had coitus with my mother.
I had high hopes that the Internet would drastically reduce ignorance and make telling lies much more difficult. This whole election season would be perfect for an episode of Black Mirror.
To see how the came to that conclusion. It's not like they hate brown people that speak funny, they have real issues that rightly or wrongly get blamed on immigration.
Hell, the KKK endorsed Trump and he didn't denounce them. So yes, there are at least some people who like Trump for his anti-immigrant views that base their support on racism. Based on what I've seen online and in person, there are quite a few of them. Maybe that's not all of them, and some or most are really just concerned about it as a law and order issue, but Trump made absolutely no effort to distinguish between the two. At no point did he ever make any statement that attempted to disassociate his views on immigration from racism, and he was called upon to do so throughout the campaign (like after the KKK endorsement).
Maybe he himself has more enlightened views on immigration, but he clearly couldn't care less if people were on his side because of pure racism. He stoked those fires over and over and over again. Maybe he's just incredibly misunderstood, but he sure as hell didn't make an effort to clarify anything if he was. That speaks volumes about his morals. If you're going to take a hardline stance on illegal immigration and make it a centerpiece of your campaign, it makes it that much more important to be very clear and explicit that racism is not a factor, if for no other reasons than to avoid getting lumped in with racists and to avoid indulging racist tendencies within your own base. Leaders are supposed to lead, and someone who wants to be president has a vastly greater responsibility to be a leader.
Also, the fact that the strongest support for Trump's anti-immigrant views came from the parts of the country that have the fewest immigrants doesn't help. I've known plenty of people who've lived their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born, in parts of the country where they may not ever actually see a black person, much less anyone from the Middle East or Mexico. People in these homogenous rural communities form (in terms of numbers at least) the core of anti-immigrant sentiment, and yet they also seem to think that strange brown people sneaking into the country is the #1 issue facing America today. It's very hard to look at those views coming from those demographics and not think that there's at least some racism and xenophobia driving those views.
The KKK's official newspaper endorsed Trump, but according to CNN, Trump has disavowed the KKK (and David Duke in particular):
> Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN. "David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
> "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now."
>Also, the fact that the strongest support for Trump's anti-immigrant views came from the parts of the country that have the fewest immigrants doesn't help.
Here's the kicker, why aren't people migrating to these places? They are lovely places that have had high immigration levels in the past. They do know that in other parts of the country those strange brown people are moving in and being more successful than they are in their own country though.
So, there could be a 30-year delay between a Mexican family's immigration into Texas, and a subset of that family and their descendants moving to Nebraska (random example). When someone is moving to a foreign country with a different language, and mostly populated by other ethnicities, it makes sense that families would usually start out in big border cities, and only gradually make their way to more and more remote, sparsely populated, and less diverse areas.
I'd like to see this built on top of Facebook, where a) people are already having conversations unproductively, and b) you have the demographic information to understand who you're pairing without having to bluntly ask them which side of an issue they're taking.
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!).
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.
It should not be criminal to just enter the country. There would be no "illegal immigrants" if they were allowed or had the means to enter the country legally in the first place.
And you know how to make sure none of this stuff can happen to you? Simple - don't break immigration laws. It's really that simple. The law is there for a reason.
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.
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.
Also: lots of front-end developers are into personal fame - and because they are front-end people they are also good at web-based marketing strategies. This works recursively :/
Oh and also: lots of front-end developers are relatively speaking weak in terms of architecture and general programming ability. (There; I said it.)
How big do you think a java client to do the same thing would be?
For example in a side project I tried SammyJs then realised it requires jQuery. So I just hunted for something that can route urls without the needless dependency. I chose Navigo.
Point is it takes some care but not too hard to keep the size reasonable. Also don't use npm for dependencies on a web site. But npm is ok for tooling e.g. webpack
The reinvention of COBOL?
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.
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.
"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."
Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).
Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!?
It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.
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.
The alternative is giant blocks of text which are off-putting to many, harder to parse, hard to find time for, etc.
I had 3 conversations.
Other side: Hello
That's it. stopped working
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!! :)
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.
One list is
I can also recommend
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.
- Crocker's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288
- Principle of Charity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600
- Rapaport's Rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692
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.
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).
You can find it on the app store here: 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.
I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.
Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't often get a chance to work on.
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.
Code here, feel free to use it for mest: https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm
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.
"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.
Except that people like a lot of the individual provisions of Obamacare, like no denying based on pre-existing conditions, kids staying on parents' health insurance until they're 26, etc.
It just doesn't do much to control costs. The current healthcare system has neither a single-payer forcing hospitals to keep costs down, nor much in the way of market incentives to keep costs down (since most people pay for healthcare indirectly via health insurance, and even that is controlled by their employer).
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.
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.
There's actually some other good ideas in there too.
Maybe if you had more similar examples?
One thing we have to be careful about is wrong associations, equating two things that actually differ subtly. As they say, the devil is in the details.
My advice is to read the most informed, reasonable representatives of different viewpoints you can find, and then see why they disagree. Often people will play fast and loose with the facts in order to convince people they consider less educated, but when directing their words towards those they consider their peers, they will be more honest.
An example from the right is the many economists who should know better refuse to distance themselves from the idea of the "Laffer Curve", the idea that you can raise revenue by lowering taxes. Even though they know the Laffer Curve is bullshit, they don't want to refute it because it is a useful rhetorical tool.
An example from the left is that most moderate liberals agree that black Americans commit much more crime (EDIT: I meant "per capita", personally I think a reasonable reading of this comment as a whole would take that as implied) than white Americans. However, they don't want people to hear this fact except in the context where it's already agreed that the main cause for this is structural factors (i.e. a cycle of poverty, crime and lack of education). So in liberal circles this fact is "obvious" and "uninteresting" since the real question is how these structural factors operate. And yet at the same time, outside liberal circles this fact is considered "racist" and liberals do nothing to clarify that it is in fact true.
Do you think there are the same number of blacks and whites in America?
It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.
...even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes.
(incidentally this is exactly the kind if article that moderate liberals should be refuting, and in turn the article should acknowledge that moderate liberals also believe blacks really do commit more crime).
There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...
This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.
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.
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.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12911187 and marked it off-topic.
Indeed. But whose failure is it?
> Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing.
You're assuming that everyone who supported Trump is racist. I know several intelligent, non-racist people who voted for Trump - they did it acknowledging that he was a piece of shit, but that he was a piece of shit who didn't hide the fact. He has opinions and he speaks them, instead of hiding them behind changing words.
Further, they see him as a chance to disrupt the current broken state of government - by brute force of personality.
Outside of the fringes of racists and homophonics [sic] , I think this is what won him the election.
> They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people.
Painting everyone who did vote for him with the racist/homophobe brush ensures that there's no path for things to get better. People on average are not stupid - they're just frustrated with the state of things, and want to see change.
Change with a wrecking ball is still change.
As the father of a bi-racial child I'm terrified for his future this morning. But this is tempered by knowing that 51%* of the country doesn't hate my son or others based on skin color.* They hate where our country is going, and saw voting for this person as the best way to change that.
  47% apparently.
 Okay, I don't know it, but the data strongly suggests it.
Clinton won the popular vote.
(Not that I agree or disagree with that.)
I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. Nobody has ever told them, they have never been confronted by someone they actually know and respect. Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views. It's a two-step process.
We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views. Many start along the lines of "It may be racist, but that's what we need to fix today's problems." At least they acknowledge the description.
I am actively asking what engagement programs or outreaches have been attempted. The only thing I can point to is the ever changing nature of our nation's acceptance of gays and lesbian marriage. Senator's Clinton and Obama both were against it until after the populace pointed out how much they were for it.
A thought experiment: Minimum wage. It is a horrible program that directly hurts the poor and downtrodden; it was first imposed by actual racists to keep blacks out of work, . Now, based on its origination, is it a racist program to keep poor and downtrodden out of work or is it a racist program to eliminate the minimum wage? Who is the arbiter of this decision?
 "Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates." American Federation of Labor President William Green
I keep meaning to write a longer thing about this, but we're running into the politics of loyalty and belonging. That's how you get people taking pride in their racism; they've chosen who they have solidarity with, who they consider their ingroup, and if racism is part of that group deliniation they're going to shout it from the rooftops.
(Given the way group identity works through churches in parts of America, the best approach might be to keep asking people who self-describe as Christian what they think of Trump's behaviour towards women..)
> I;m not talking about changing views. I'm talking about making them aware of their views. They don't think they are racists. They don't think they are homophobic. … Only once they understand that their views are describable in such terms can we ever then hope to change those views.
followed by this:
> We all assume that convincing someone that they are racist will cause them to change. That denies the reality that someone can be a proud racist, a proud homophobe. I've got a pile of emails coming in from elderly family members who are very very proud of their anti-muslim and anti-gay views.
The latter quote seems to be directly arguing against the point of view espoused in the former.
Oh dear lord.
How long until you find yourself joining in on the fun? https://vid.me/3Fqo
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.