Hacker News Reader

Comment by _cerv | Hacker News Reader

I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi.

Before I could even explain why, he responded with that I was a monster of a human to even put “the party that locks children up and votes for rapists” close to the goals of the Democrats. I was called a shit bag “Repug” and told to kill myself.

We haven’t talked since.

I also voted for Hillary, for pragmatic reasons.

If it’s tough to maintain friendships with differing views in this day and age, doing so in the workplace where the environment allows this to be a bit more in the open will be a tough HR friendly pill to swallow.

View on HN

>I told a friend that the genrerized differences between the end goals of main stream Republicans and Democrats were about as different as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi.

I too find this very hard to believe. I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

Both parties are pro-war, pro-big business, big government blood suckers.

Neither party is concerned about privacy.

Lots of other things in common as well.

That's not really an argument, that's an unargued statement of opinion.

It’s the start of a conversation.

Which parts do you disagree with and what evidence would convince you otherwise?

You can tell me the political party you support and I can show you how they have strong pro-war elements.

I just want to hear why you think it's true. If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you, so please tell us what evidence you're considering.

If you aren't willing to spell that out, we're not having a meaningful conversation.

> I just want to hear why you think it's true.

Like any political opinion it is based upon thousands of observations and arguments over a period of many years.

Would it convince you the Democrats are pro-war if I provide evidence of Hillary Clinton being a war hawk?

What kind of sources will you trust?

Surely if you follow US politics you are aware of the argument already so why don’t we skip the fluff and get into the details?

> If you're making a claim, the burden of proof rests upon you

Sure - so like I said let’s find our common ground and points of disagreement and we can go from there.

Let’s say all that is true, I more or less agree, but it’s where the two parties differ that still matter a lot. It’s nigilistic to say because they’re similar in many ways that they’re the same and it doesn’t matter, for many people, especially the less privileged (referencing the rapist child thieves comment) that it’s important to develop an opinion one way or the other.

If that's the depth of your argument then... yeah, you're not exactly going to be winning favors.

It is true and no argument is required - just observation of history.

If you examine the history of political philosophy of Liberalism you shall see immediately that Republicans and Democrats are both part of the Liberal Party.

I know some people come to this conclusion by viewing it as a conspiracy but it's really not.

That modern day Democrats are called Liberals causes confusion because from the historical context they are just a subset of Liberals. The older definition includes most Conservatives and Libertarians.

Political philosophy is a family tree. If you go back into the history you find that apparent enemies are more accurately described as competitors.

This is demonstrated in the present each time there is an external threat too.

Communism and Monarchy are both Western political philosophies that reject Liberalism. If you say far right or far left and this group still supports the goals of political Liberalism then you've made a category error.

>If anything, we just need to spend a bit more time talking to folks about the possible side effects of the medications.

What exactly shows us this?

>This is demonstrated in the present each time there is an external threat too.

Can you list some examples?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this thread is full of assertions and scant on arguments.

I'm genuinely interested, here, but someone has yet to make a substantive argument.

People today seem to think this level of incivility is not only acceptable, but a virtue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com