[npsimons]

> It is a little bit less likely that you dislike heartland America when you spent a year working with Fred the Farmboy before you headed to Princeton.

I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself. The latter are terms I've actually seen used.

But on the topic of a Civilian Conservation Corp, yes, definitely bring that back!

[tomjen3]

I choose the example because I assumed that there would be more people here who would be "coastal elites" than farm boys.

In addition I think that if you are destined for the elites then it is more important that you understand (really understand) the life of the others, than if are apprenticing to be an electrician.

[npsimons]

> In addition I think that if you are destined for the elites then it is more important that you understand (really understand) the life of the others, than if are apprenticing to be an electrician.

Two things here:

  1. What exactly makes you think the college educated are exposed to fewer points of view than those from the "heartland"? Everything I've ever seen points to the opposite being true, where going to an institute of higher learning puts you in touch with a *vast* array of different people, and living in an urban center does the same. Which leads me to my second point:

  2. Why exactly do you think it's not important for someone from the "heartland" to exercise empathy or be exposed to other viewpoints? It's pretty obvious that a large factor in the problems of today is tribalism and "othering", which gets pretty quickly destroyed by exposure to those same "others", something you don't often get in the "heartland."

[calinet6]

Both! We all need to understand each other better, and off of the internet.

[lotsofpulp]

What is there to understand when two people’s assumptions are different and in conflict with each other?

For example, someone wanting others to act according to their religion.

I spent decades with my parents, but there’s nothing to “understand”. They speak a different language (even though we have the ability to use the same words) and live in a different world than me.

[calinet6]

I don't think it needs to be everyone.

If we can think about 5% of the population who simply have different life situations and backgrounds having a better appreciation for why they think what they do, and those 5% become less extreme and more understanding of compromising for the benefit of others, then you've just changed society completely.

[mistermann]

> I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself.

I wonder, if he had instead chosen your example, would you no longer have found it interesting, but other people would then have found his new comment interesting (who did not find the one he made here interesting).

Abstractly, it is quite interesting what humans find to be interesting, and how that interest level can be so easily inverted by simply injecting of new values into various seemingly innocuous variables.

Well, I find it interesting anyways. But most other people I've encountered seem to kind of consider such topics to be....~"not appropriate for discussion in polite company", in that they often have strong negative reactions to the very idea, if not outright demanding that you cease engaging in discussion of such topics ("starting flame wars" is the formal terminology used during Overton Window enforcement) - and if you do not, they themselves will disengage from discussing the topic (while maintaining an air of extreme confidence and certainty in their alternative ideas). "Gaslighting", "whataboutism", "gish galloping", etc are some of the most common rhetorical accusations that I have experienced in my journeys (if any are given at all that is).

[npsimons]

My apologies; I was being sarcastic, but my writing ability does not match my intent, which in any case was not in good faith.

My point is that many on the right claim there is no attempt at empathy from the left, meanwhile there are many on the right (not always the same people, I acknowledge) who will say "fuck your feelings" and use (from their POV) epithets against leftists instead of addressing grievances or even ideologies.

I myself have what I consider enough perspective on the heartland; my parents grew up in Iowa, and both sets of my grandparents worked in the agricultural fields. This is not to claim I have first hand knowledge, but I am white and I recognize the many aspects of privilege I am afforded. I feel I have enough of that perspective.

Meanwhile, it seems glaringly obvious that many on the right are not even making attempts at understanding why BLM exists, and can't seem to comprehend systemic racism, because they've never been a victim of it. FFS, when Bloomberg admitted to stop and and frisk, that I felt should have been a turning point. For decades people of color have been telling us about this, but they were commonly dismissed by white americans as imagining it.

To elaborate on why I am not willing to empathize further than I have, I have no wish to empathize with bigotry. One set of my grandparents were also homophobes, which was laid bare in their will when their estate left out my homosexual brother completely. I hope I don't have to cite Popper's paradox of tolerance.

"Fred the farmboy" wants understanding and compassion? I'm all for that, I even want to put policy in place to help! But I have zero tolerance for intolerance, and will call it as I see it.

[mistermann]

Oh, I meant no ill will to you personally, my comment was more so an observation about human nature in general.

My point is that there is a widespread phenomenon whereby individuals notice logical or other shortcomings in members of their various outgroups, and then write comments on forums about this behavior in a manner that implies (if not outright asserts as fact) that this sort of behavior is overwhelmingly limited only to members of the outgroup, and does not exist within their ingroup.

And if one is in a community with a user base that is ideologically homogeneous, this one-sided, inaccurate description of reality often becomes kind of a constant theme that reappears in thread after thread, in turn (so they say) reinforcing these beliefs in the minds of those who regularly read such comments.

Regarding "found it interesting", it can also be observed within such communities how certain ideas catch the attention of people, but abstractly ~identical ideas (but differing at the object level due to different values of variables) go unnoticed.

If one observes these discussions carefully over a long period of time, patterns of behavior become extremely apparent: basically, textbook confirmation bias, information bubbles (and the flawed descriptions of and predictions about reality that inevitably result), and so forth and so on. Of course, this shouldn't be too surprising.

But the interesting part is if one happens to wade into such a conversation, drawing people's attention to the manifestation of these abstract behaviors within the current thread. At this point, one would logically expect a reaction something like surprise and then realization (due to HN being largely composed of highly logical people with above average levels of integrity and honesty). However, this is not what actually occurs, the majority of the time (in my experience as an ideological outlier). What actually occurs usually more so resembles what one would see on "less high quality forums" than here (rhetoric, "mental gymnastics", insults, logical fallacies, etc etc etc). Of course, this is just human nature in action, but still - it's weird, I don't see why we can't do better (than other communities), and I really can't wrap my head around why we wouldn't want to do better than other communities. And yet, here we are (not you...I am speaking in general).

> To elaborate on why I am not willing to empathize further than I have, I have no wish to empathize with bigotry.

> But I have zero tolerance for intolerance, and will call it as I see it.

I completely agree with the sentiments of what you've written here. However, I wonder if you are as good at exercising these beliefs as you perceive (I'm making no accusation, I am merely discussing the idea - I too deserve the very same cross examination, and encourage anyone to do so).

Let's start with defining some terms:

bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own

truth - the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality

epistemology - the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion

perception - the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

prejudice - preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

So, a non-controversial example of bigotry would be racism, which typically involves some variation of racist individuals forming negative conclusions of POC (individually, or as a group) based on preconceived ideas, without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge. Racism is a pretty easy one to spot, everyone here has consumed plentiful educational material, and most likely engaged in several conversations on the matter.

Now let's examine another group that is often subject to bigotry, even here on HN: conspiracy theorists.

1. Do you happen to have a personal opinion on conspiracy theorists?

2. Do you have an opinion on the nature of typical discussions here on HN related to conspiracy theorists?

And before you answer, please note:

a) I went to the trouble of stating definitions for several terms above, but really only made use of [prejudice] thus far.

b) It has been my experience that such questions are typically responded to with rhetoric, evasiveness, character attacks (insinuations of bad faith, gish-galloping, etc). I would prefer that this conversation does not fall victim to that pattern, but rather, follows a more honest, curious, and productive path (which I believe is one of the more important things that is missing in the world).