I notice that Democrats aren't forming white supremacist militias, plotting to kidnap state governors, attacking Congress specifically to overturn the results of a national election, etc.
If you only apply 'guilt by association' to your opponents, but not to yourself and your tribe, then your worldview will be built on a foundation of cheap rhetorical tricks.
Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?
All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.
Byrd entered congress while the south was still segregated.
Not to excuse his actions at earlier times in his life, but by the time he was a “mentor” to Hillary Clinton he had renounced racism and and segregation and was the longest serving member in the US senate and an expert on its procedures.
Pointing out that the Democratic Party was full of southern segregationists in the early 20th century is pure laziness.
Additionally, the federal courthouse wasn’t “firebombed” some groups broke in and set fires. It was violent and destructive but you’re vastly exaggerating the scale.
Remember the aftermath of the Portland protests? The damage and loss of business were estimated to be $23M. It's not the same as what you're describing from the far right, but it's also pretty bad, just in a different way.
Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands in demanding censorship.
Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?
The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.
We shouldn't allow people to spread lies and demonize one side unchecked. If were going to talk about problems, its best we don't scape goat on one side and admit there are flaws in both parties.
Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.
I stand by what I said. Focus on what you have in common and deal with disagreements by leveraging conflict de-escalation techniques such as NVC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication. Think about what you stand to gain arguing with someone on the internet. Consider what it does to your mindset. I agree with you on civil disagreement and standing up for what you believe.
For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Everyone is literally less intelligent, less capable of rational decision making, and more susceptible to manipulation when they are angry. I have certainly been guilty of this before, and I am just trying to share some of what I have learned.
One final comment: one thing that all social media including HN could do is remove user-visible up and downvotes. It engages the brain in a similar way to gambling (https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/addiction/...) and creates self-reinforcing conflict that can be exploited.
> For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Notice what you're doing though. The information content of this is effectively the polite version of "stop being mad and wrong, go read a book."
It contains no actual rebuttal of anything. You present no new facts or reasoning, only an assertion that you disagree which was already implied.
Sorry, I don't have much time to reply but you have a good point.
That is correct and intentional. My core point is that everyone can benefit changing how we disagree and when we choose to disagree. In what you quoted, I was just trying to make the point less abstract with a concrete example. I wasn't trying to be persuasive or reach some sort of resolution. I could have been more effective, thank you.
So your saying Democrats are not in favor of censorship? Are we just going to pretend this is a one sided issue and they were not guilty in trying to cover up the lab leak theory or going after journalists who try to write stories about hunter bidens laptop?
I don't see how pointing how both parties are guilty of engaging in censorship is wrong. I am advocating for the position that censorship is a tool used unfairly by both parties when they are given the chance, I don't like conservatives or republicans either for how they treated Edward Snowden and Juliane Assange.
Your second paragraph stands alone on its own well without the first. I think human flaws spread around pretty evenly. It's actually a pretty good starting point for thinking humanizing the person you are disagreeing with and establishing common ground. If it's okay, I don't want to talk about the lab leak or laptop here - I don't want to distract from the separate topic of this law imposing 15 year prison sentences threat to Russian journalists.. "fake news" has only been brought into the discussion because of headline editorializing. I have to go back to work and likely cannot reply further but didn't want you to think I ignored you.
By the way the "source" I am invoking are MIT scientists for the lab leak theory being plausible https://www.amazon.com/Viral-Search-Covid-19-Alina-Chan-eboo... and when it comes to dissenting views on COVID I am referencing Dr. Robert Malone(holds a patent for mRNA vaccines) and the great barrington declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ which was created and signed by many Ivy League medical researchers and practitioners about how flawed our strict lockdown measure are.
Hunter Biden has gone on record saying that laptop might have been his.
Don't presume a persons sources without asking first. You strike me as a smart person as well and should check these sources out with an open mind before dismissing them.
Social media already has a big problem with filter bubbles. If you go to a place where 99% of people there are one party's partisans and try to rebut their misinformation, you get dogpiled. People insult you and sling baseless accusations of racism, which deters people from attempting to debate when they're highly outnumbered. So any place which has any partisan bias gets an even bigger one until everything is totally polarized.
Platform censorship makes it even worse because the platform's censors will be in one bubble or the other, their censorship decisions will be biased in that direction and push anyone on the other team onto other platforms and we end up with entirely partisan platforms that never talk to each other, and are thereby both highly misinformed about different sets of things.
Again, the blue camp isnt any better here. Did you hear about the very recent Kentucky event? Did you hear about the sketchy "rise of the moors" organisation and that highway event? The "fake news" isnt just biased reporting, but also not reporting events that would challenge the narrative. A small disclosure: I was among those who donated to the Bernie's campaign, yet I reject most of the blue rhetoric.
s/fake news/entertainment exploiting a set of curated insecurities to maximize ad-sales/g
The problem is that most are convinced that it’s all “fake news” and their preferred source is the “least fake”, all while getting pulled deeper down the rabbit hole.
I see the same dynamic with my teenage kids and the YouTubers /etc they watch on topics they’re interested in. They hear something, get overly excited about it, and then fixate/share/etc. I almost feel it’s a part time job to show enough interest to where they’ll talk about it so I can try and help build the reflex of distill out fact/assumption/inference, and reframe narrative to a set of possibilities that for facts. It’s actually been a challenge b/c often things sound stupid if I'm too reductionist and they shut down. But TBH usually sounds stupid b/c it is stupid manufactured drama that sells YouTube ads. Same dynamic whether some Roblox gamer drama, MLB lockout drama, or politics — all “news” eventually optimizes to maximize ad revenue, competing with creative entertainment for attention.
dude just stop. Idiots on the left. Idiots on the right. Stop being a tool.. because honestly, only a brainwashed tool would truly believe the problem only exists with The OTHER group.
Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.
> try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies
US intelligence confirmed that Russia tried to swing an election, so this isn't a "conspiracy." As for the rest of your points, those positions were never embraced by mainstream Democrats.
The Mueller report showed some involvement but did not say the election results were illegitimate and there were a large amount of democrats who continue to claim this election result is not legitimate.
(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)
We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.
AOC is famously not a mainstream Democrat (she is to the left of almost the whole party), nor is she a senator. And even if she were either of those things, the single line you quote, out of context and without citation, does not show that she is in any way equivalent to the crazier elements of the Republican party (c.f. Marjorie Taylor Greene).
Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?
All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.