Ask HN: Liberal seeking conservative pen pal for good faith debate
28 comments
"Is there a venue for matching people with politically opposed views to meet, learn, share, and debate with each other in good faith?"
That used to be at places like college, parties/bars, or other casual social events (dinner, lunch, coffee with extended friends groups).
I would guess you can get some offers on here or forums/websites.
Another thing that I do, is read others comments or articles and try to find weak points in my own arguments or new data/perspectives that change my views, or at least help me understand the views of others.
That used to be at places like college, parties/bars, or other casual social events (dinner, lunch, coffee with extended friends groups).
I would guess you can get some offers on here or forums/websites.
Another thing that I do, is read others comments or articles and try to find weak points in my own arguments or new data/perspectives that change my views, or at least help me understand the views of others.
Logocentrism is a dead end. If you want to see the world as a conservative would, take up weightlifting and start your own business.
Cerno! What are you doing here?
If this is the guy you're talking about (https://twitter.com/Cernovich), I believe Klages and Rippetoe beat him to the punch, and exceedingly so. Will definitely check him out though!
I'm building discussion software that aims at promoting good faith debate. It's geared towards in-depth fact checking rather than dialog, but still might be interesting to you.
That aside, I should be able to represent the conservative point of view in an email exchange. Either way, drop me a line. My email is in my profile.
That aside, I should be able to represent the conservative point of view in an email exchange. Either way, drop me a line. My email is in my profile.
Sure. Contact information in my profile.
I forgot. There's always IRC. Plenty of chatrooms to get into and move to private chat.
I'd be interested in participating in a dialogue with this goal in mind.
Sure, this could be fun. Let me know if you find a good place to do this.
This is a good idea. Avenues for honest political discussion are sorely missing. I'm personally more libertarian than conservative but I can defend some of the latter's viewpoints.
To anyone interested, send something to politicaldiscussion at protonmail.com and I'll get a message board set up.
To anyone interested, send something to politicaldiscussion at protonmail.com and I'll get a message board set up.
Is this happening? (Just wondering because of discussion elsewhere in this thread.)
I see that nobody here (currently: czep, froasty, throwaway0b1, chaganated, core-questions) has any contact info in their Hacker News profile. Usually for political stuff that means a conservative working in the Bay Area, hiding in fear, though czep claims to be liberal.
Plain old phone numbers might be best for this.
It could be too scary with all the hostility. Given how the tech industry is, not many conservatives will be willing to reveal themselves. Performance reviews could suddenly turn sour for no apparent reason, and lots of conservatives have family to support.
Plain old phone numbers might be best for this.
It could be too scary with all the hostility. Given how the tech industry is, not many conservatives will be willing to reveal themselves. Performance reviews could suddenly turn sour for no apparent reason, and lots of conservatives have family to support.
I created this account on the idea that it would probably be more productive to have political discussion separate from (unrelated) technical discussion, and probably be beneficial on the privacy front as well.
Phone numbers might work, but I personally would prefer something text-based, as I like to think through things before I say them. Again, though, I could see why some people would prefer the opposite.
I'd also like that thank czep for the idea, though - I find myself in a conservative echo chamber in my personal bubble and generally liberal echo chambers online, neither of which are especially receptive to good discussion.
Phone numbers might work, but I personally would prefer something text-based, as I like to think through things before I say them. Again, though, I could see why some people would prefer the opposite.
I'd also like that thank czep for the idea, though - I find myself in a conservative echo chamber in my personal bubble and generally liberal echo chambers online, neither of which are especially receptive to good discussion.
I'm my own boss in a red state, so more concerned about getting pounded by spammers and weirdos than professional repercussions. Just don't see much point to the pen pal project.
Lift regularly, free yourself from the HR fatties, start a business, spend half the day filling out forms for every nickel-and-dime tax/license under the sun, and you will also want to get a helicopter license (to celebrate Pinochet's birthday in style!)
I say this as a former Bernie supporter.
Lift regularly, free yourself from the HR fatties, start a business, spend half the day filling out forms for every nickel-and-dime tax/license under the sun, and you will also want to get a helicopter license (to celebrate Pinochet's birthday in style!)
I say this as a former Bernie supporter.
I don't think I have any intention of giving away any actual contact information to participate in this. We need some more anonymous forum for it. Nothing I have to say is beyond the pale, but there are people out there who would see my family destitute for daring to have counter-cultural opinions about things.
My dad is the conservative I can do what you describe with.
(Hopefully the following doesn't go against any politics rules...)
However he despises Trump/Trumpism and so sat out the 2016 election and voted against Trump in 2020.
So along a similar vein to what you're looking for, I'd actually like to have a civilized, respectful, discussion with a Trump supporter (not merely just a conservative), since my dad doesn't fill that role.
(Hopefully the following doesn't go against any politics rules...)
However he despises Trump/Trumpism and so sat out the 2016 election and voted against Trump in 2020.
So along a similar vein to what you're looking for, I'd actually like to have a civilized, respectful, discussion with a Trump supporter (not merely just a conservative), since my dad doesn't fill that role.
I'm curious, what would the differentiating topics be between a conservative and trump supporter? It seems many non-trump supporting conservatives have similar policy stances but don't like his methods/insults/etc. Or would it just be to discuss why they tolerate those factors?
By definition, a conservative is a slow-motion progressive. Ignoring that technicality, there are 3 types of republican:
1. religious
2. business (likes outsourcing and unlimited immigration to drive down wages)
3. pro-America
They often hate each other. The first two groups are usually unwilling to admit that Trump has been the best president ever.
1. religious
2. business (likes outsourcing and unlimited immigration to drive down wages)
3. pro-America
They often hate each other. The first two groups are usually unwilling to admit that Trump has been the best president ever.
Do you have any examples of your hate comment?
Also, do you have an answer to my question about which topics would be different between trump supporting and non-trump supporting conservatives? I know trump supporters who could fit all three of these categories. Not to mention there are probably other categories and people who fit into multiple categories.
Also, do you have an answer to my question about which topics would be different between trump supporting and non-trump supporting conservatives? I know trump supporters who could fit all three of these categories. Not to mention there are probably other categories and people who fit into multiple categories.
The pro-America types want tariffs and less immigration. The business types disagree strongly.
The religious types have had complaints about LGBT. Again, the business types disagree strongly.
So there you have the business types being almost libertarian, fighting against the rest of the party. They won't get tossed out because they bring most of the money.
Sometimes the religious and pro-America types are at odds over immigration. Mormons and Catholics are particularly fond of immigration.
Supporting Trump or not is partly a matter of priority. The business types more concerned with regulations will support Trump. The ones trying to run factories in America will support Trump, but the ones trying to outsource production won't. Mormons see that Trump made the first openly gay appointment (ambassador to Germany) and built over 500 miles of wall, so they aren't too happy despite liking the supreme court appointments.
And yes, there is style. Some people like the smooth-talking political dishonesty that we've had for decades. There is the idea that that is somehow proper. Trump fans hate that stuff.
The religious types have had complaints about LGBT. Again, the business types disagree strongly.
So there you have the business types being almost libertarian, fighting against the rest of the party. They won't get tossed out because they bring most of the money.
Sometimes the religious and pro-America types are at odds over immigration. Mormons and Catholics are particularly fond of immigration.
Supporting Trump or not is partly a matter of priority. The business types more concerned with regulations will support Trump. The ones trying to run factories in America will support Trump, but the ones trying to outsource production won't. Mormons see that Trump made the first openly gay appointment (ambassador to Germany) and built over 500 miles of wall, so they aren't too happy despite liking the supreme court appointments.
And yes, there is style. Some people like the smooth-talking political dishonesty that we've had for decades. There is the idea that that is somehow proper. Trump fans hate that stuff.
> By definition, a conservative is a slow-motion progressive
No, they aren’t. A conservative is an anti-progressive. (Classically, an anti-liberal, but that’s less clear these days, because while classical liberalism was a progressive position for its time of origin, “liberal” has been overloaded to refer to defense of the status quo elites established by the success of classical liberalism and continued progress in the direction laid out by classical liberalism, with the latter use sometimes more specifically narrowed to be “at a slower pace than is described by ‘progressivism’”.) The former sense overlaps with conservatism, the latter sense with (possibly specifically slow-motion) progressivism.
> Ignoring that technicality, there are 3 types of republican:
I would say more than that:
1) social conservative (often, but not always, for religious reasons; this group was basically drawn in as a side effect of targeting group #5 with the southern strategy)
2) libertarian (as a distinct faction, really drawn as strategists realized that it was easy to adapt the decentralization and States Rights rhetoric that was classic dogwhistles for group #5 along with a lot of the anti-business-regulatory rhetoric designed to give mass appeal to the interests of group #3 to appeal to this group and reinforce the Republican coalition)
3) corporate neoliberal capitalist (the oldest major faction of the Republican Party, it has been a major factor since very close to the founding of the party, and was dominant from about the time the slavery issue was settled until the 1960s Southern Strategy)
4) American nationalist (there’s actually a lot of these in both major parties; some late cold war issues, though, gave Reps an advantage here.)
5) White supremacist/nationalist (historically a strong Democratic consistuency from the founding of the Democratic-Republican Party with occasional rifts that healed because they had nowhere else to go (like the 1940s Dixiecrat split) until Johnson signed on to the Civil Rights Act and then the Republicans targeted this group heavily in the Southern Strategy (preventing that from being another temporary rift.)
No, they aren’t. A conservative is an anti-progressive. (Classically, an anti-liberal, but that’s less clear these days, because while classical liberalism was a progressive position for its time of origin, “liberal” has been overloaded to refer to defense of the status quo elites established by the success of classical liberalism and continued progress in the direction laid out by classical liberalism, with the latter use sometimes more specifically narrowed to be “at a slower pace than is described by ‘progressivism’”.) The former sense overlaps with conservatism, the latter sense with (possibly specifically slow-motion) progressivism.
> Ignoring that technicality, there are 3 types of republican:
I would say more than that:
1) social conservative (often, but not always, for religious reasons; this group was basically drawn in as a side effect of targeting group #5 with the southern strategy)
2) libertarian (as a distinct faction, really drawn as strategists realized that it was easy to adapt the decentralization and States Rights rhetoric that was classic dogwhistles for group #5 along with a lot of the anti-business-regulatory rhetoric designed to give mass appeal to the interests of group #3 to appeal to this group and reinforce the Republican coalition)
3) corporate neoliberal capitalist (the oldest major faction of the Republican Party, it has been a major factor since very close to the founding of the party, and was dominant from about the time the slavery issue was settled until the 1960s Southern Strategy)
4) American nationalist (there’s actually a lot of these in both major parties; some late cold war issues, though, gave Reps an advantage here.)
5) White supremacist/nationalist (historically a strong Democratic consistuency from the founding of the Democratic-Republican Party with occasional rifts that healed because they had nowhere else to go (like the 1940s Dixiecrat split) until Johnson signed on to the Civil Rights Act and then the Republicans targeted this group heavily in the Southern Strategy (preventing that from being another temporary rift.)
Perfect logocentrism example! That dragonwriter chose to split-hairs a little more finely doesn't make this statement into an improvement, or even a clarification, since the splits are (and always will be) a projection of the splitter's perspective, value-system, and goals.
Speak with a member of one of dragonwriter's phyla, and listen while the hair-splitting continues. Expose this 2nd-order hair-splitting to someone more aloof, and they will see it as an argument between insane people.
In troubled times, we have to stifle the narcissism of small differences, make a few concessions, and pick a side. knaq was close enough to begin with:
religious: 1 business: 2, 3 pro-america: 4, 5
Speak with a member of one of dragonwriter's phyla, and listen while the hair-splitting continues. Expose this 2nd-order hair-splitting to someone more aloof, and they will see it as an argument between insane people.
In troubled times, we have to stifle the narcissism of small differences, make a few concessions, and pick a side. knaq was close enough to begin with:
religious: 1 business: 2, 3 pro-america: 4, 5
edit: dragonwriter's phyla of republicans, that is
Libertarians have their own party separate from Republicans. I suppose some Republicans lean towards libertarian ideals.
> Libertarians have their own party separate from Republicans.
Yes, pretty much every conceivable ideology in the US [0] has its own party (or more than one!) distinct from the two major parties for those adherents who don’t understand the futility of third parties under normal circumstances in the US electoral system, or who care more about ideological purity of association than acheiving policy goals through the political system, or who think that we are on the edge of a party shift where their preferred party could plausibly replace one of the two major parties (its happened twice before in US history, your party could be next!).
That doesn’t mean that many of those ideological factions that have their own parties don’t also have substantial (often, much larger) number of adherents within one, the other, or sometimes both of the major parties.
[0] For instance, a non-exhaustive list for the other factions I’ve identified as substantial Republican constituencies:
(1) Social/religious conservatives: Christian Liberty Party, Constitution Party
(3) corporate neoliberal capitalist: Unity Party, Moderate Party of Rhode Island
(4) American nationalist: Constitution Party
(5) White supremacist/nationalist: American Freedom Party, American Nazi Party
Yes, pretty much every conceivable ideology in the US [0] has its own party (or more than one!) distinct from the two major parties for those adherents who don’t understand the futility of third parties under normal circumstances in the US electoral system, or who care more about ideological purity of association than acheiving policy goals through the political system, or who think that we are on the edge of a party shift where their preferred party could plausibly replace one of the two major parties (its happened twice before in US history, your party could be next!).
That doesn’t mean that many of those ideological factions that have their own parties don’t also have substantial (often, much larger) number of adherents within one, the other, or sometimes both of the major parties.
[0] For instance, a non-exhaustive list for the other factions I’ve identified as substantial Republican constituencies:
(1) Social/religious conservatives: Christian Liberty Party, Constitution Party
(3) corporate neoliberal capitalist: Unity Party, Moderate Party of Rhode Island
(4) American nationalist: Constitution Party
(5) White supremacist/nationalist: American Freedom Party, American Nazi Party
"...acheiving policy goals through the political system"
Some of the roadblocks we face now are the result of our two party system.
But getting back to the actual question... what is the differentiating topics between a trump supporting conservative and a non-trump supporting conservative?
The point I was trying to make with the question is that you could potentially find a trump supporting conservative and non-trump supporting conservative that share the same opinion on a specific issue. These theoretical classifications (in some cases built on stereotypes) really aren't helping anything. For example, you could have a trump supporter in any of the categories you mentioned.
Some of the roadblocks we face now are the result of our two party system.
But getting back to the actual question... what is the differentiating topics between a trump supporting conservative and a non-trump supporting conservative?
The point I was trying to make with the question is that you could potentially find a trump supporting conservative and non-trump supporting conservative that share the same opinion on a specific issue. These theoretical classifications (in some cases built on stereotypes) really aren't helping anything. For example, you could have a trump supporter in any of the categories you mentioned.
I think at this point, you can say he is not conservative by the typical meaning. What happened? By mid-2017 every American should have loved Trump. (understandable to have doubt before then) Was your dad just following the anti-Trump news sources like Fox, Drudge Report, and Facebook? (nothing like Breitbart, OANN, RSBN, or thedonald.win) Did he have a personal conflict of interest, such as a job outsourcing American jobs?
I would also be interested.
I want to meet smart people with politically different views who are also interested in healthy debate. By "healthy" I mean you should both expect and extend respect for each other's right to hold our opinions. I would not be trying to "convert" anyone to my point of view. I will be open-minded enough to admit to not having all the answers. I will commit to logical, well-reasoned discussion. Argumentation can be heated, but personal attacks are off limits. I genuinely want to understand how other people think, especially those who have come to different views about topics than I have.
I would prefer a 1:1 format, or perhaps a small group discussion board. Real time video would probably be best to promote honest discourse due to the human connection, but might be logistically difficult to arrange, and I also want both sides to have time to think before preparing responses.
Any interest?