Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolfgke | Hacker News Reader

Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face?

I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet.

In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather prevents spreading even more hate.

View on HN

I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo chambers.

If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however, you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular basis, you would likely be less fervent in your views.

It's a lot harder to dismiss actual human beings as "libtards" or "rethugs" or whatever pejorative. You might still disagree, but you usually won't outright dismiss them like you would an article with a "heretical" viewpoint relative to your personal echo chamber.

I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v. Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are definitely high enough.

Looking at how quickly (in societal terms) the gay rights movement in the USA has progressed: the number one thing that changed people's minds was individuals coming out to their friends & family. It is easy to demonize people you've ever met as perverse deviants: very different to hold on to those demonizations when you learn that somebody you've been close to your whole life is a member of this group.

On the other hand, racial minorities can't really do this: prejudices that exist prior to getting to know somebody have a much easier time both preventing people from interacting as well as having a greater likelihood of persisting during interpersonal interactions.

This is a large portion why the gay rights movement has been progressing at a faster rate than either women's rights or civil rights have in this country.

Speaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it.

I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.

Are you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.

I think he's explicitly saying _expressed_ contempt and dislike: "Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it."

Like, for instance, if they make a comment that sounds like anyone who disagrees with them politically is stupid?

If your only interaction with them is the disagreement, it's far easier to assume they "are stupid" rather than just "have a different opinion."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com