Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
You're right to point out that this kind of rhetoric isn't really in the spirit of HN.

On the other hand, it's a fallacy to assume that there must be merit to an argument just because it's championed by a majority.

I'm aware that it's politically suicidal to say that "most people are stupid", but I'm not a politician (I'm not even American) and I feel like "stupidity" should not a priori be ruled out as an explanation.

You would have to provide a better and more precise definition of "stupid" then, the word has a tendency to become circular
Perhaps you could use the word "idiot" and refer to them as "idiots". The term has been used in a medico-legal context in the past to define a person's mental age.

That there is a divide between the two parties and the average intellectual ability of their supporters is a well-known fact. I'd contest that this is less of an issue than their racism.

Engineering students are actually more conservative than a group like communications majors. Are communications majors smarter?
loading story #42059133
So you really think more than half of the Americans are mentally impaired? The probability of being mentally impaired is higher for a random poster like you than for half of American people.
loading story #42059578
True, "stupid" is a very imprecise term. But my main point was merely that epistemically, there is no validity to something just because a majority is behind it.
Well, technically, stupidity is relative. If you're defining it as "below 50%", then that's half the people. "Below 90%", even more, etc, so the statement in itself doesn't really make sense.

If you're in the 90th IQ percentile, sure, most people are stupid to you.

You would be a fool to think that an entire population is stupid. Perhaps a proportion sure but the deciding vote comes from a large proportion of the population that are by no means stupid. Democracy in theory is a form of distributed computation and just because you don't agree with the end result does not make every else stupid
So you are saying people who think other people are stupid are, in fact, the stupid ones. Fascinating.
What would you say if most of a population think that most of the population is stupid, themselves excluded?

Which seems to actually be the case quite often.

>I feel like "stupidity" should not a priori be ruled out as an explanation.

If that is the case, stupidity shouldn't be ruled out for both sides.

People feeling disenfranchised and reaching for populists is a common issue throughout time.

I believe social media has widened the most extreme opinions and forced polarisation on most people, I can feel it with the UK too, where a very clearly corrupt government, with a revolving door of leadership: one losing the country enough money in 14 days to pay for the NHS for a decade… are being talked about favourably over a meek, awkward, slightly right of centre leader who happens to be wearing a red badge instead of a blue one.

Discourse is so swollen with bitter defence and snide attacks with soundbites of “sides”, I really do believe that its the fault of platforms showing the most divisive voices most often.

The thing that pushes me towards right for example, is seeing people dehumanising men for being men (not behaviours, just clear misandry against the gender) on social media so openly- and to much fanfare. I would otherwise be considered extremely left wing by UK standards.

> people dehumanising men for being men

Is this something you do actually experience in real life though?

Because I'm with you that social media is part of the problem. When I was using Twitter, many years ago, I also saw a lot of these super-woke people that I thought were just crazy.

But in real life, I don't see these caricatures so often (where they do exist, they tend to stick together in close-knit organisations and so are easy to avoid). Most women, gay and trans people, minorities etc. that I met just want to have some basic rights and don't care about culture wars about language use etc.

no, exactly, you can feel the effect on some peoples beliefs and behaviours but they can always be reasoned with in reality. You are completely correct that these behaviours are so much more extreme online with the #KillAllMen Movements, 4B[0] and choose the bear. I still hear whispers of these beliefs, but it’s not nearly as strongly held or widely seen as it is on social media.

More impressionable people might hide stronger beliefs, like my mum, who is a reformer in the UK and parrots all their talking points and soundbites, but only down the pub with her like minded friends, or with me. Never to a labour supporter or in a public forum- so they almost never get challenged; and they become so deep rooted.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement

I don’t believe we can judge what happened just by looking at the majority opinion and give it merit, but I also can’t dismiss it as simply "stupidity."

Messages from certain leaders can resonate deeply with people. If a message is well-received by so many, it could mean the opposing side didn’t present a strong enough argument—basic politics.

In my persoanl view, the discourse needed to challenge figures like Trump is limited by U.S. politics, which is heavily influenced by corporate funding. This influence likely explains why the Democratic Party often seems unwilling to take bold stances.

Policies like stronger unions, better social protections, higher taxes for the wealthy, and a meaningful minimum wage increase are hard to promise if campaigns depend on corporate backing.