Remix.run Logo
mmastrac 5 days ago

Things are not healthy in the USA, and have not been for a long time. It's all about scoring points now, owning the other side, getting soundbites, etc. It's sad that it's progressed to this.

From an outsider, it really feels like there's no middle ground in American politics. You either commit yourself to the full slate of beliefs for one side, or you're the "enemy".

I hope that Americans on both side start to see that either they need to tone down the rhetoric, work together and reach across the aisle, or just take the tough step of a national divorce due to irreconcilable differences.

Part of that is to stop giving a voice to the insane rhetoric, and stop electing *waving vaguely*.

wrs 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you look closer, I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side", think the whole situation is incredibly stupid, and wish the politicians would just shut up and actually...govern...instead of playing silly games and pandering to the crazy people (on either "side").

However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.

8note 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

both of your disqualifications are orthogonal to "actually govern"

that might be where youre running into problems?

wrs 5 days ago | parent [-]

The one that is better at governing is worse at politics. The system sort of assumes that will be the other way around.

yandie 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side",

Many of us don't vote either. And our two party systems have created extreme partisanship. I wish it could be different because I do love this country, but our politics are so broken by the two party system, fueled with misinformation through these partisan news networks + social media algorithms (the way Youtube turns one person into an extremist of either side is an example...)

tedggh 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Violence has plagued US politics since literally the creation of the country. Four sitting presidents killed and a few other close calls, governors and senators shot, almost in every decade. So it’s not like horrific events like this are new to us and we are just recently starting to fall into an unknown downward spiral of violence.

TinkersW 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think most people are on either extreme, but the media does make it seem that way, along with reddit/twitter/bluesky etc.

aydyn 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Dont pretend like HN is much better, judging by the sheer magnitude of Flagged comments here.

TinkersW 5 days ago | parent [-]

I do see many comments at the bottom that appear to have been deleted, but I can't see what they said, so it isn't possible to know if it was deserved.

aydyn 5 days ago | parent [-]

You could see them get flagged in real time lol.

A lot of people here are no better than reddit. Worse in some ways because they wrap their gravedancing in an additional layer of pseudointellectualism.

logicalmind 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the main problem of social media in general is that it allows for people to find things to instigate them. In essence, a single person's opinion can be amplified. This leads to at least two outcomes. One being that people "on the side" of that opinion will unite into an echo chamber of people with that opinion. Two being that people "on the other side" of that opinion will use it to justify the need for their unification and propagate it through their echo chamber.

Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.

I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.

alickz 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think it doesn't help that outrage generates the most engagement out of any emotion

So the algorithms that prioritise engagement reward outrage, and the social media users who want to be engaged with tend towards posting outrage

It leads to people sitting around being angry at something or someone for hours on end, multiple days a week (if not daily)

It doesn't lead to a healthy mind or a healthy society

TinkersW 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes the two extremes feed off each other, and make everything worse for the rest of us.

Personally I think there needs be laws regarding social media, perhaps limiting the number of followers/viewers for anyone engaged in social or political commentary, and/or making promotion of political content illegal if it is false or misleading. Something akin to the fairness doctrine that used to exist for television prior to 1987.

yibg 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yea it becomes a vicious positive feedback loop unfortunately, amplified by social media. Moderate voices gets drowned out because they're boring. Some outlandish thing on one "side" gets some strong reaction from the other side, which gets some strong reaction from the other side and so on. The whole system is set up for amplifying extremes.

kfrzcode 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not like this in the day to day of 99% of us. It's the 1% amplified by 100% online by all parties.

prasadjoglekar 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The national divorce was tried once in 1860. Hundreds of thousands died to effectuate it or stop it.

When people say the north fought to preserve the union, I always thought it meant the physical union. But recently, I saw a lecture by Gary Gallagher at the UVA that shone a brighter light on what union meant in 1860. It's worth a listen, search for it on YT.

ipv6ipv4 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

America is founded on the principle of human selfishness. People are selfish, so let’s harness it instead of pretending that people are utopian selfless creatures.

More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.

bamboozled 5 days ago | parent [-]

It could also just evolve ?

5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
bamboozled 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree, politics has become a blood sport.

fullshark 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of mythologizing about the US, its constitution, and its government has come crashing down in the past 20 years, pretty much since 9/11 and the rise of the internet. I think this is overall less a story of America is unhealthy now than US citizens have been believing comforting lies about its nation/government since the actual victory in WW2 and the cultural victory in the aftermath/cold war. The internet and 9/11 really woke people up I think.

The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.

Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.

simpaticoder 5 days ago | parent [-]

America has had political violence for a long time. The unique combination of post-war economic prosperity and centralized mass media (radio, TV) imposed an unnatural coherence on an incoherent body of people. This was a trade-off that paid off wildly for the baby boomers, and provides most of the backdrop for American nostalgia in a way that Reconstruction, for example, does not. The advent of the personalized, always-there screen has brought viewpoint diversity back into the body politic with such ferocity that it has caused wholesale abandonment of shared reality. In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way, and are frantically grabbing at anything as a substitute.

The best we can hope for is that the convulsions will be short and sharp and no foreign power takes advantage of our convalescence. In 1945 the Germans learned a hard lesson about fascism, and learned it well; we can hope that Americans will learn something too, and at less cost.

watersb 5 days ago | parent [-]

> In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way

Strongly disagree with "most".

Margins on many recent elections have been so low they'd be too close to measure a generation ago.

I think that's relevant, a hard check on the idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans are getting what they voted for. No.

(FWIW I agree with your other points. I miss the era of Walter Cronkite consensus. Not clear that it was better. But less terrifying.)

5 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
eitland 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My sense is this: one side is utterly unhinged, the other seems desperate to outdo them.

I’ve left out which side is which, because I think it works both ways.

crooked-v 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

crooked-v 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

typpilol 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

seanmcdirmid 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe its time...we consider separating? We seem to be evenly divided, with neither side making any ground in more unifying the American people. Trump leans into division (he has never been a unifier, and screws up any chance he has to call for unity rather than going after his enemies), the Democrats seem to either have moribund leadership or leadership that are taking lessons directly from Trump and won't be unifiers either. Both sides are getting more angry, maybe we just shouldn't be one country?

cthalupa 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

How are you going to split the country up? Because it certainly doesn't make sense to do it by state. Rural California is as conservative as urban Texas is liberal.

Levitz 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There would never be an agreement of terms. Talk about separation is generally based on the fantasy that states would just each go their own way, which is both absurd and a terrible precedent to set, do you think California would agree to part with much of its wealth? Because I don't, and something like that would be a basic requirement.

fullshark 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The economic engine that powers everyone's lives depends on being one country, and even in heavily R/D districts there are people on the opposite side of the fence. It's never going to happen.

seanmcdirmid 5 days ago | parent [-]

No it really doesn't. You have rich countries that are much smaller with less diverse industries than a blue or red America. I get that the red parts of the country still wants wealth transfer payments from the richer blue parts, but that is just hypocrisy on their part.

It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.

tick_tock_tick 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How? If we split by political grouping all the major population centers go Blue everywhere else goes Red? Unless we have a very polite split (unlikely in this case) the Blue side is just signing up to starve to death.

mfkp 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Blue population centers have a lot of money, and though expensive, importing food from other countries is always an option.

tick_tock_tick 4 days ago | parent [-]

But not in a timeline fast enough to prevent them from starving.

seanmcdirmid 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are plenty of places to buy food from if you do t have a xenophobic anti-trade president running your country.

tick_tock_tick 4 days ago | parent [-]

No there really isn't, especially not in the timeline needed to prevent a city from starving. Seriously New York, Chicago, LA are all 2 weeks of supply chain disruption from foot riots. It takes a nation to supply mega cities like those.

amanaplanacanal 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You may not know this, but you can buy food. You don't have to grow it yourself.

techpineapple 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Separating across what lines? Within group difference might be more severe than between group differences even. Most people identify as independents, there are more than two sides, and even if there were two sides, we're geographically intertwined. Conservatives threaten conservatives and liberals threaten liberals all the time, maybe even moreso! and that's not to mention religious conservatives vs libertarian conservatives, lefists, centrists, etc et. al.

I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”

pjc50 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The natural breakaway candidates would be.. California, Bigger NY (including other Yankee states and DC), Texas, and the Confederacy.

Leaving a Midwest rump state run from.. Chicago?

tick_tock_tick 5 days ago | parent [-]

California other then LA, SF, and SD is as Red as it comes. If stuff starts getting cut up 80% of California is going to the "red" side.

Hikikomori 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Blue states and welfare states maybe?

watersb 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Welfare like cost-plus aerospace and defense contracts? Farm subsidies? Tax credits?

Assuming welfare as in healthcare and food subsidies, money to low-income individuals.

Hikikomori 5 days ago | parent [-]

Most red states receive more federal money than they pay in.

techpineapple 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s like the absolutely highest conflict separation.