Hacker News Reader

Comment by badsock | Hacker News Reader

Something that's popular is practically by definition not on the extreme any more.

In most of the developed world the Democrats would be considered a moderate right-wing party, and the Republicans a far-right theocratic extremism party (like, say the DUP in the UK, or CHP in Canada).

What you're seeing is a ground-shift in values, and what used to be considered OK is now considered extreme, and is therefore being shifted into the margins of the discussion.

To put it in sharper contrast: if you started loudly expressing the most mainstream views of the 1700s in today's society, you'd get a lot of people trying to shut you up and, failing that, marginalize you. And, probably, they'd be right to do so.

View on HN

Conservative views are treated as extreme, even though they are not and that's the point. /pol/ exists largely as a reaction to the suppression of non-progressive thought in the places where the demographic spends most of their time: academia, gaming, and tech.

There are certainly people who believe what they say on /pol/, but the vast majority of them are consciously acting as a parody of what they have been cast to be.

> /pol/ exists largely as a reaction to the suppression of non-progressive thought

/pol/ exists so edgy teenagers (and others who haven't developed mentally past that phase) can attempt to get a rise out of people by posting shallow, far-right tripe.

The level of intelligent discussion there is pitiful.

I parse your comment to mean "/pol/ is childish. People who hold those views are shallow and unintelligent."

I find it interesting that my posting discussing /pol/ - not supporting it, mind you, merely discussing it - elicits a response like this from a brand new account.

My position is that exactly this sort of response to anything that isn't "progressive" is what has caused the rise of /pol/.

Conservative views are treated as extreme, even though they are not

Do you mean without regard to whether they are extreme or not or are you saying that no conservative views are extreme?

Well, I've not really tried to define the term so explicitly, but I think it's fair to say that any position that is held by a majority of Republicans (or Democrats) is not extreme, because it would by definition not be outside the norm.

For example, public opinion in support of same-sex marriage in the US is currently at an all-time high of 64%, with 34% opposing. Being opposed to same-sex marriage is not an extreme position, as it is one that is shared by 1/3 of Americans. Only two years ago it was 42:40 in support. Therefore, the position statement "I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is not extreme.

The bottom line is that many views that are strongly associated with conservativism are likely to result in personal attacks if expressed in the aforementioned settings.

Just look at the flak Peter Thiel has gotten for supporting Trump. Why does donating to a major party's presidential campaign result in things like this [1]?

1: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/17/13307112/peter-thiel-tru...

So can you do the ground work and show that a position like opposition to same sex marriage is actually frequently and casually labeled as extreme?

(I can think of lots of other invectives that people apply to it, I'm just not sure that it particularly gets treated as a non mainstream view...)

I also disagree with the point in principle. We even have a word for it when a majority gets on the wrong side of rational (and goes to extremes), a mob.

> So can you do the ground work and show that a position like opposition to same sex marriage is actually frequently and casually labeled as extreme?

I suppose I could, but I'm honestly not interested in doing so to support a casual conversation on a web forum.

> I also disagree with the point in principle. We even have a word for it when a majority gets on the wrong side of rational (and goes to extremes), a mob.

Actually I'm not familiar with the term "mob" being used that way, and a quick search doesn't seem to support your usage either.

How about 1 or 2 analysis of it as an extreme ideology? Even better if they aren't by kooks.

What makes you say that American conservative views are not extreme, in the context of the global internet?

I'm not sure what the "context of the global internet" has to do with my comment.

This subthread is off of devmunchies comment about Reddit and Twitter, and the OP is about 4chan. All of these forums are global.

My point is that American-style conservatism may represent half of Americans, but it's overwhelmed in other developed countries (which, taken together, are larger in population). So much so that I would argue that in the global context, American conservatism is small enough and far enough to one side of the debate that it's accurate to call it an extreme.

>There are certainly people who believe what they say on /pol/, but the vast majority of them are consciously acting as a parody of what they have been cast to be.

What leads you to believe this?

I'm relying only on personal experience. I know several people in real life that are "shitlords" online. They're doing it not because they believe the things they post, but because they've found it to be an effective way to shift the narrative and to throw their political opponents off-balance.

Likewise, I know a few people in real life that actually hold those extreme and (frankly) bigoted beliefs. As far as I know they haven't really changed their online behavior, and they're not part of that in-group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com