zlacker

The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.

I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.

American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.

>>shruub+(OP)
I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.

And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.

>>shruub+(OP)
Part of the problem is that many claim violence has been done ... with words, and in so doing they incite actual violence. If we want violence to stop then we need to:

- talk to each other about politics (as we used to) so as to moderate each other's opinions

- stop exaggerating moles into mountains.

May we actually do this.

>>abusta+53
I have news for you: it's not just American politics that has "sides". In fact, it's exceedingly surprising to me how much politics has aligned (not necessarily in terms of party names and labels) throughout the entire Western world in the past several decades.

>>shruub+(OP)
> But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.

could you give some examples of good, civil conversations he's had with people he strongly opposed? I'd like watch them. I think it's a skill we all need to cultivate.

>>shruub+(OP)
It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.

It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.

And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.

>>abusta+53
The news networks and social networks have determined that controversy increases engagement which increases profit.

You could imagine a different algorithm that promoted peaceful, thoughtful interactions. But that would have led to the death of Facebook, twitter, news networks, etc.

We may in fact be here due to sheer greed. The media companies have profited by creating discontent in our society rather than content.

>>crypto+K5
I agree. And funny enough the top comment in this thread describes Hans potential replies to this news as “violent”. It’s a form of newspeak. Peach is never violent. Come up with a thousand other words, but that’s what violence is to mean we then need another word for actual violence.

>>sterli+W6
Just look up his college campus debates. He would do a very unique round table debate format where he would have 20 college kids sit in a circle and each while get a minute to debate with him. It’s very wholesome and civil.

>>shruub+(OP)
treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what

I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?

>>bb88+c9
This really can't be stated loudly enough and they studied it and figured this out with A/B testing and implemented it. It's on the level of tobacco companies covering up cancer.

>>crypto+S5
I don't disagree. I don't know anything about the political systems of other countries. I'm just talking about what I am familiar with, which is the American political system.

You're right, though. Americans actually agree on most things [1]. In that sense, there is really only one "side." Yet the media exploits the small differences that people don't agree upon to create a giant divide.

Anecdote: I firmly believe Trump is going to destroy our democracy, or at least put it to its absolute limits. Yet, I have many friends who voted for Trump. They're great people. We don't ever talk politics, but whenever we talk about economics, or society, we actually agree about most things. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be friends.

Yet the talking heads on TV would have us believe that democrats and republicans are enemies. And that may very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms...

>>crypto+K5
We also need to unequivocally defend free speech. Not violence or criminality but free speech. We shouldn’t tolerate uncivilized counter rioting or other aggressive ways of dealing with others’ opinions - it’s a path to exactly this kind of violence.

>>bb88+c9
In another HN post about New Mexico offering free childcare, there was a comment that basically hit on the same point [1]. Capitalism has really fucked our society in so many ways.

[1] >>45191517

>>shruub+(OP)
There is only one "side", and they're die-hard. The left is a rag-tag group of misfits who simply don't identify as conservative for one reason or another, which is part of the reason it's so hard for the democratic establishment to find a message that resonates with such a varied and untethered group.

So no, no one is talking about "sideS." A single, cohesive group of people has been building an unearned narrative of persecution and victimhood as a pretext to lash out at and antagonize every person who isn't them.

>>shruub+(OP)
For those unfamiliar, "Arguments as Soldiers" is a great way to think about this dynamic.

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers

>>shruub+(OP)
I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:

- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"

- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."

- "While I'm not a fan..."

Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.

>>akudha+Xc
> What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?

In my experience, a lot of sports fans love to debate and argue, claim some strategy was "unfair" when used against their team, argue whether some penalty was justified or not. People who are die-hard for their team will usually defend their team no matter what.

> Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time

This is the thing. Politics has basically become a form of entertainment these days. You have talk-shows covering politics and making fun of the political news of the day, you have YouTubers and streamers who make a living off of making political content. Artists make comics that are varying degrees of witty political satire and, in America at least, the democratic and republican conventions are basically a political sideshow circus. To top it off, how many people have taken this situation as a reason to post on social media? Regardless of if you like or dislike Charlie Kirk and his idea's, using his death as a reason to post something on social media, positive or negative, is just using the situation for entertainment purposes.

How many people these days can honestly say they engage in politics to talk about policy, and not as a form of entertainment?