What I Heard from Trump Supporters - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters <comment><USER4> This one gave me the most pause:

> "Silicon Valley is incredibly unwelcoming to alternative points of view. > Your curiosity, if it is sincere, is the very rare exception to the rule."

Substitute "Silicon Valley" for any major liberal enclaves, like universities and cities, and I think you see the same thing. I am skeptical by nature and try to take a scientific view of new ideas. However I feel like I get shouted down every time I merely bring up a contrarian view. People start throwing link after link of facts and don't want to even reason about ideas. It's hopeless and I end up keeping my mouth shut.

<comment><USER5> I moved to San Francisco from a rural town, and I would feel 10x more comfortable sharing my liberal viewpoints in a small, deeply-red town than I would insinuating something anything less than 100% left-leaning at work here. People disagree in small town Utah, and it would be uncomfortable. In San Francisco you're ostracized. It even makes me nervous to leave my name attached to a comment like this, knowing that my co-workers browse HN and will see it.

<comment><USER6> I went from Salt Lake City to San Francisco as well. I have always been quite liberal on issues and it had never been a problem, but when discussing issues in SF I felt I had to be very careful with what I supported. I always felt my friendships/employment was threatened if I disagreed.

I had a good friend/startup founder once say anyone who supported Trump deserved to be fired and blacklisted.

<comment><USER7> Ha! I'm also a Salt Lake native transplant to San Fran. In Utah, I am a socialist pinko commie. In San Francisco I'm (apparently) somewhere between a libertarian and a tea party republican.

At least, that's my story. I'm exaggerating for effect, and in the spirit of fun. But I was literally publicly berated at work once on the company forum for not being liberal enough, not having views consistent with California democrats, and not contributing enough money to the party.

I never feared for my job though, that's awful. I could have actually been a conservative and I wouldn't have had to worry. There were conservatives in the company, though they did keep rather quiet about their views.

Someone who makes a blanket statement about firing anyone with impure thoughts... it happens, but let's hope it was only a moment of weakness or anger on your friend's part.

<comment><USER8> I believe a large part of America wanted to say "fuck you" to the big system. Trump was the candidate for red states, Sanders for democrats.

I do agree with some of trumps policies. I don't agree with his behaviours though.

The simplistic tax reform makes sense. A bigger deductible would mean poor people would have middle class would have a larger net gain.

I support infrastructure investment.

I support stricter high skilled immigration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> None of this is particularly surprising, but it is sobering to hear it from the horse's mouth. Insane racist sexists didn't win this election for Trump; dogma did.

One can no longer openly discuss certain extremely important topics (is there something inherently wrong with Islam as a belief system? Is Black Lives Matter doing good or bad things? Are women really paid less than men for performing the same work?) without risking their career and social life. Not because one is an awful person for asking awful questions. On the contrary, these are conversations we need to be having rationally and deeply, learning and growing from having them.

No, the threat of ruin comes from the religion of moral sanctimony we've allowed to flourish within our society. If you question the dogma of social justice, you will be lynched on social media and branded a bigot, a racist, a sexist, and so on.

Pretty sure those of us who aren't members of the church are just really fucking tired of this behavior, and unfortunately it's that very fatigue which seems to be one of the factors which drove people to vote for a truly awful leader.

<comment><USER10> > One can no longer openly discuss certain extremely important topics (is > there something inherently wrong with Islam as a belief system? Is Black > Lives Matter doing good or bad things? Are women really paid less than men > for performing the same work?)

Some very prominent and (mostly) beloved liberals talk about these things _constantly_. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, and Salman Rushdie for example, are very vocal about problems in Islam. They do receive some pushback from some liberals, but they're far from being "no longer [able to] openly discuss" these things. It's almost like liberals aren't a homogenous collection of people!

<comment><USER9> It's great that those prominent figures are discussing difficult questions openly. That can only result in good things for our society. However, not all of us have such luxury. For most of us, merely asking the initial questions to start a difficult/challenging conversation can have very bad consequences in the current climate.

If you've got a job as a coder at a SV company, you'd better be extremely careful about starting a conversation with coworkers at lunch about how concerned you are by how acceptable honor killings seem to be in Muslim- majority societies. Starting such a conversation could get you ostracized, fired, or worse, which is unfortunate because that's precisely the kind of bad idea (honor killings) which need to be challenged, and which are of very real and very immediate importance at this time.

<comment><USER11> Do you know a single person --regardless of religion-- who supports honor killing? Of course not. This is just an excuse to engage in fear mongering about Islam, and no good will come of that.

Essentially the issue here is that some people want to say racist or bigoted things without being ostracized for it. Like you could in the good old days, when everybody was racist. So now there is this big backlash, but it won't amount to anything because we're in the 21st century now and we're never going back.

<comment><USER12> > Do you know a single person --regardless of religion-- who supports honor > killing? Of course not. This is just an excuse to engage in fear mongering > about Islam, and no good will come of that.

Bad logic, I don't know a single person who supports White Nationalism but that doesn't mean they are not there.

Also most honor killing isn't really a calm and rational following of a religious edict like "Today is Sabbath so I should go to Mosque" or "My daughter slept with a married man, looks like to keep my family's honor I need to kill her', rather it comes out as the same rage as when husbands who catch their wives cheating get when they kill them.

Also there is wide statistical proofs of support for Honor killings among Muslims, if I were you I wouldn't claim that there are literally no Muslims who support this.

<comment><USER11> I said this person doesn't know anybody who is okay with honor killing, therefore there is nothing to discuss. Everybody he knows already agrees it's bad, so the only thing the discussion accomplishes is making Muslims look barbaric, and that's gross.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think that when people "KNOW" that they are "RIGHT", it sometimes brings moral superiority into people. That, in addition to norms of socially acceptable behaviour, pushes people into a corner.

For example - If someone goes to Bill Maher's show, anyone clapping on a conservative view point is seen as a criminal, while people with liberal point of view clap "together" as a group, with the smug arrogance of knowing that they are superior. If a debate takes in such an environment, the conservative people has no option but to hide his view point.

Liberal ideology should not be used as a fashion statement. Unfortunately it seems to be used that way today. What do you guys think?

<comment><USER14> I did not vote for Trump, but I couldn't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at the reaction of my mostly very liberal friend group to his win. For months and months, they'd been unfairly denigrating Trump supporters while simultaneously insisting that he was a joke, there was no way he would beat Clinton, etc. and somehow convincing themselves that their political ideology was synonymous with science, truth, and reason.

It was very much a form of social posturing rather than careful consideration for many of them.

Of course, instead of toning it back after the election, many have doubled down. I'm curious how that will play out for the next election.

<comment><USER15> It will play out poorly.

The coalition on the right is full of cracks that could be exploited to split them up. Trump actually exploited one of those cracks to get himself the Republican nomination. When the left comes in to pour moral superiority all over people, it fills those cracks in like glue. People who would have otherwise split from Trump are sticking to him because the left is chopping at everything.

The smart move here is to wedge. Pick fights that split the Republicans apart from each other, and focus on that stuff instead of piddly small things whether Trump was being racist or merely inarticulate when he asked that reporter to set a meeting up with the Congressional Black Caucus.

I don't think the elected Democrats can do that though. They're under a lot of incentives to not act that way, considering that their donors and voters seem to have chosen "resistance" as what they want.

<comment><USER16> >he coalition on the right is full of cracks that could be exploited to split them up. Trump actually exploited one of those cracks to get himself the Republican nomination. When the left comes in to pour moral superiority all over people, it fills those cracks in like glue. People who would have otherwise split from Trump are sticking to him because the left is chopping at everything.

Your assumption is that Donald Trump forged some kind of political coalition. He didn't. The Republican Party votes in lockstep, by and large. What happened was that Hillary Clinton utterly failed to get people in key areas to the voting booth to get the numbers she needed.

The Donald fans can glue themselves together all they want, but it wasn't them who won anything. It was Democratic infighting that ceded it over to them. It's not the Republicans that need to get cracked, it's the Republicans who are pouring glue into the cracked up Democratic coalition.

<comment><USER15> > Your assumption is that Donald Trump forged some kind of political > coalition. He didn't.

You are incorrect about my assumption, but correct that Trump did not forge a coalition. The coalition existed before him and largely held its nose because members of it did not have any other options.

My assumption is that both political parties are large, standing broad coalitions of voters with differening interests that are together mainly as a consequence of the two-party system. Which means that they each contain elements that can (and occasionally do) flip party.

Trump exploited a crack in the Republican coalition that had formed over immigration, which was a wedge issue between the "pro-business" type Republicans that are "part of the establishment" and the party base. He also identified other wedges, like military adventurism. That, along with lack of a sufficiently strong opponent in the other 16 people who ran, enabled him to win the GOP primary, even though Trump has very little to no interest in "conservatism."

There were enough Republicans put off by his lack of "conservatism" (e.g. the lack of interest in the agenda of other parts of the GOP coalition) that they were willing to vote for someone else. But because the Democrats had nothing but contempt to offer those voters, they either stayed home, held their nose for Trump anyway, or voted for third party candidates like "Egg McMuffin."

Those divides in the GOP are not going to go away. Those voters are out there, waiting to be picked up by somebody. They may be as much as 20% of that party, which is enough to tip future elections towards the Democrats forever if they play their cards right. But that's going to be an opportunity that isn't going to be exploited as long as the Democrats are playing "resistance" as their strategy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I moved to San Francisco from a _very_ rural area (was working remotely from my father-in-law's farm), and there are a few things the liberals I work with simply do not understand about what's happening in "small-town America" (Disclaimer: I did not vote for Trump, and I don't consider myself a Republican).

1\. People _hate_ Hillary Clinton. _Haaaate_ her. No, you think I'm saying they disagree with her politics, but you don't understand; many literally think she is an evil person, and they want her to burn in hell.

2\. Most people don't really like Trump. They are bothered by his comments, his style, his bombastic way of living, etc. But they also don't think consider him racist or particularly sexist.

3\. They are _so fucking tired_ of identity politics. Oversensitivity, calling everything "-ist" to win an argument, trying to tie racism into everything, debates over "privilege", etc. I would be so bold as to say that if the left doesn't tone down the identity politics Trump will win a second term. Full stop.

4\. They are tired of being spoken down to, told that they're not part of the America that matters, and they have a serious chip on their shoulder. It seems to them like they're being told there's only one "right" way to view the world, and it's not theirs. But they like their way of life, they don't want yours, and want politicians to generally leave them alone and let them be.

4a. The _worst_ way to exacerbate that all of these things? To insinuate that people who vote for Trump are doing so because they're -ist or dumb or ignorant. Hillary Clinton did just that, and I saw more on Facebook about Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment than about anything else in the election. I sometimes wonder if that was the tipping point to Trump for many middle-of-the-road voters in rural America

4\. They are sick of "coastal elites" running their lives and pretending like everything is OK. Small towns are hurting. A lot. Realize the median household income in the town I came from is <$30k and the average number of people in each house is 6, and you'll understand why people are livid about Obamacare increasing insurance costs (after so many promised it wouldn't do so). Things are _tight_ , taxes are _scary_ , and when the seemingly rich, out-of-touch people are hand-wavy about increasing the single biggest expense by 50% when you're barely making it (food/housing is cheap) you get the hatred for Obamacare.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for sharing. Can you elaborate on #1. I never really understood the level of hatred Hillary received. To me she seemed like any other politician.

<comment><USER18> Off the top of my head ... whitewater, healthcare during Clinton presidency (people didn't think the first lady should have such a large role in public policy), Hillary demonizing Bill's female accusers, "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, Vince Foster's death, Benghazi deaths, Benghazi root cause (particularly the initial narrative that it was due to the youtube video). Also the sense that it was "her turn" \-- a sense of entitlement -- it was obvious the Democratic Party Leadership was "granting" her the nomination.

Part of it I think, too, is the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the right radio who wanted to undermine Bill Clinton, so they incessantly attacked both Hillary and Bill.

This also might begin to explain a little of the heart of the sentiment:

[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary- clinton...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437345/hillary-clintons- lies-make-her-unpopular)

<comment><USER18> Another aspect I forgot is that the Clinton's have often been unnecessarily secretive. For example, they weren't forthcoming about her pneumonia. Some thought that even the email server was driven by a desire to be secretive, even when not necessary.

This behavior tends to make people suspicious -- but on the other hand, people were also out to discredit them.

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks- showed-...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed- people-who-love-and-support-hillary-really-think-shes-nuts-video/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a Trump supporter many of the comments resonated.

In regards to upholding and celebrating American culture I always have this thought:

Why do silicon valley types promote the concept of a "company culture" and feel it's important enough to base hiring decisions on,

while demeaning those that want to uphold and sustain their own country's culture in the same manner?

You hear it time and time again when a CEO stresses cultural fit as a prerequisite to hiring. To achieve this they:

1) Hire slowly so as not to dilute the culture, ensuring those that are hired assimilate and adopt the practices of the company they are joining

2) Have a standard, a bar, set a baseline of skills and ability any new employee must reach to be hired.

But when any American citizen brings up similar rationale vis a vis immigration / maintaining their own culture by, for example, wanting to limit mass immigration of those from a culture / ideology that is drastically different from their own it's viewed as the most irrational thing in the world, even described as a "phobia" of sorts (when discussing the Islamic side of the issue).

Are Indians criticized for valuing their culture? How about Mexicans? Are Muslims criticized for valuing theirs? Or are all these groups celebrated for their pride in their own cultures?

I even worked with a liberal Canadian from Quebec, who argued passionately about his provinces fight to uphold their language and culture, while on the other hand would strongly denounce any reasoned argument I had on immigration / American cultural issues.

It just seems like Americans who want to maintain what they value as American culture (complicated no doubt) are held to a completely different standard than others, and are viewed as the most hateful people in the world for holding these kinds of views.

<comment><USER20> The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise. America is multi-cultural. There are American _ideals_ which can be preserved ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but the country is too big and too varied for anyone to claim that there is a specific American culture, or that there has been since its founding.

America is Indian, Mexican, and Muslim. Not "them", but "us". Maybe some Trump supporters disagree?

<comment><USER21> > The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I > think, a false premise.

I think that is the actual false premise. Baseball, apple pie, and all that jazz. American folklore, Blues music, American cuisine, American politics and all its silly quirks. The idea of no American culture is laughable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This one (from the "What don't you like about him?" section) I thought was the most striking:

> _"I, too, worry about the dishonesty. His relationship with Russia, his > relationship with women. His relationship with questionable financial > matters. These all worry me and were they to continue I would lose all > respect."_

All that stuff was covered extensively during the election. There's no reason for it to be a different analysis now. This is a rationalization of regret, it's not the result of a new decision-making process.

Basically, that person, like many I suspect, voted for Trump out of protest. They didn't think he would win, so it was safe. Well, it wasn't.

<comment><USER23> > This is a rationalization of regret, it's not the result of a new decision- > making process.

You're missing the point. These voters chose him despite those weaknesses because they prioritized other issues more highly. Their decision making processes involved looking at both pro's and con's and the other pro's outweighed those con's.

Making the blanket assumption that a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of _all_ of their positions is exactly what the quotes in the post complain about.

<comment><USER24> But why would they "lose all respect" now, if they didn't during the election period?

<comment><USER25> Because the presidency and the election period are different things?

You vote based on your expectations of their actions in the former and not the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Trump won largely because of disenfranchised blue collar caucasians resonated with him.

Watching the witch hunt over the last 2 months you would think it would be anything but that. Fake news (just call it propaganda), russian hackers, 4chan memes and white supremacists have all received the majority of blame.

I'm curious to whether the Democrats will ever come to terms with reality here, or will they just double down and continue the blame game?

This is concerning. If real reform doesn't happen on the left (I can't even fathom the right coordinating anything reasonable) we may be facing a similar pool of poor candidates the next round of elections.

<comment><USER27> No one wants rational debate. In the case of UC Berkeley students, it's easier to cause property damage because an alleged Nazi (an entirely slanderous claim, btw) is given a platform to speak. No one wants to wade through the muck and find out what opposing viewpoints are _actually_ saying.

Edit: And the people scoffing at my comment and hitting the downvote button are only proving my point.

<comment><USER28> I did not downvote your comment, and encourage all who did to post the reason, politely please.

Perhaps "No one" is a little too strong, but I think the general gist of what you're saying may be fair.

I am not familiar with the reasons for property damage in Berkeley. Can you post links? Anything you can provide that would make it easier to evaluate the viewpoints of all involved at Berkeley?

<comment><USER29> It might be more productive to just not ascribe all of Antifa's actions to Berkeley or its student body.

<comment><USER30> Do you have any evidence to back up the outrageous claim that the rioters at Berkely _weren 't_ primarily its student body? Or is that just what you heard on CNN and chose to believe unquestioningly?

<comment><USER31> > "Berkely"

It would not make sense for students to damage their own campus, considering that comes from their tuition. On the note of media sources, where did you hear that rioters were primarily students? Unless you were there, your source of news is also subjected to suspect.

<comment><USER30> .It doesn't _make sense_ for people to riot at all, and since it's doubtful that very many of those students have actually earned that tuition money instead of it being granted to them (temporarily) for free, they probably don't value it highly.

You're the one making extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence, not me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This was a fascinating read. I myself go back and forth daily between the two positions:

a) compromise and appeasement of evil is wrong, if trump and his supporters act like nazis then call them that, and

b) it's totally unproductive and gets us nowhere to simply pile on joke after joke, insult after insult, millions upon millions of them on every social media and tv show available to us, on the red tribe aka the trump supporters.

Reading this blog post of course swings me back around to b). Then I read a casually racist opinion from a red tribe member or hear another xenophobic policy proposed by Trump and swing right back to a.

<comment><USER33> > Then I read a casually racist opinion from a red tribe member or hear > another xenophobic policy proposed by Trump and swing right back to a.

I understand and respect that - but my friends who do that seem to also turn a blind eye to riots and beatings from folks "the left". There just seems to be a lot of double standards with saying fringe wackos on one side represent the entire group, but not the the side.

<comment><USER34> > but my friends who do that seem to also turn a blind eye to riots and > beatings from folks "the left"

Yes, those "left" beatings get zero widespread cultural support. Violence is not glorified by any prominent voices on the left.

Whereas racist and sexist voices on the right make a boatload of money and fill up the comments of every news article posted to Facebook. It's cultural.

<comment><USER35> >zero widespread cultural support. Violence is not glorified by any prominent voices on the left.

This is just not true.[1] Even in our tech community it's pretty commonplace to see 'it's okay to punch a nazi' is a well supported position.[2]

[1] [https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists- celebrate...](https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate- anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/) [2] [http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/15/now-its-okay-to-punch- nazi...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/15/now-its-okay-to-punch-nazis-and- white-ma)

<comment><USER34> I thought parent commenter was referring to generic Trump supporters being beaten.

When someone thinks you don't deserve to live because of the color of your skin, you're well within your right to defend yourself against that idea. You shouldn't have to wait until they're knocking down your door.

<comment><USER21> > When someone thinks you don't deserve to live because of the color of your > skin, you're well within your right to defend yourself against that idea. > You shouldn't have to wait until they're knocking down your door.

Replace color of your skin with political belief, and you've just made an argument for Trump supporters who live in places like Berkeley or San Jose to violently defend themselves from liberal rioting.

<comment><USER36> Find me a leftist actively making plans and pushing for the elimination of those with certain political beliefs, and I'll agree. Saying that people shouldn't be racist or oppose welfare != saying there should be a "peaceful ethnic cleansing", a la Spencer.

<comment><USER21> Antifa is the yin to the alt-right's yang. Both are jokes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I like this quote so much and I love that it stands out:

"You all can defeat Trump next time, but not if you keep mocking us, refusing to listen to us, and cutting us out. It's Republicans, not Democrats, who will take Trump down."

I believe we have a similar problem in Germany. Several political decisions where called "alternativlos" (having not alternative option) and everybody opposing them was basically labeled a racist or bad person. For example the bailout of greece or the opening of the borders for all syrian refugees.

I am not arguing for or against one side, but I do believe that there were not fair discussions about the pros and cons of these topics. And this is a big reason why the "alt-right" (or whatever) is on the rise in Europe as well.

So give people room to discuss all of these topics, hear their voices and truly try to understand why they have a different opinion. This way we won't have another Trump and we won't have far-right elections anymore.

<comment><USER38> Very similar situation in Sweden as well.

Just saw this chart a few hours ago; it would be interesting to see something similar for the US:

[https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/07/british-press-most- righ...](https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/07/british-press-most-right-wing- europe/)

(Just look at Germany/Sweden there!)

Chart title: "Media bias in Europe: Percentage of adults in each country who say their media is too right wing on the following issues minus the percentage who say their media is too left wing"

It's a year old, but I don't think this has changed much since then in terms of media bias.

<comment><USER39> Which explains the medias eagerness to not report immigrant crimes in your country and Germany.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I can give him a data point from outside the US, from one of the other progressive, English speaking countries in the world, New Zealand:

I don't know if it has fully sunk in yet to the US populace how completely they have humiliated themselves, on the world stage.

We don't get exposed to Fox, or Breitbart, or even CNN. I get most of my international news from the BBC, for example. From our perspective, the election was between a normal, typical US politician, and a madman. And when the dust settled, you lot put a clown in charge of your country.

I remember first thinking, oddly, that the biggest loss was your media. How can anyone watch 24, or Olympus Has Fallen or any of the other films and TV shows where you glorify your president? The stern, respectable, dignified leader that the hero must protect or save? How could such a plot exist now, or in future, and be watched with a straight face?

<comment><USER41> What's even more humiliating is how (apparently) indifferent — or even accepting — parts of the tech community and Silicon Valley are of this development. (See all the "it's PC culture's fault" in this thread and elsewhere.) It's overwhelmingly obvious that we're in deep shit. Regardless of their beliefs and politics, people who self-label as "smart" should be fucking _livid_.

<comment><USER42> Yep this. We have this "lets be friends" piece from Altman which seems to be a hamfisted way to address a rift in SV, instead of the sobering reflection of what a Trump win means for actual US citizens.

This thread is nothing but making strawmen out of liberals. I'm liberal and I do none of these things mentioned. Its incredible to me that the Trump win has left him as a being we are not allowed to criticize because "he won, drool lib-tards" and now we're being attacked because we dared support the science behind climate change, rights for the lgbq community, the benefits of globalization, immigration, equality for women, women's right to choose, women's rights to birth control, non-discrimination based on race or religion, a strong NATO, a strong EU partnership, environmental protections, and not conceding our role in the global community to blood-thirsty autocrats like Putin and Assad.

Lastly, Trump lost the popular vote by 3m votes and only a month in has a 39% approval rating and is mired in a dozen scandals that would have left a Democratic POTUS on the road to impeachment. So the idea that Trump represents anything but the typical GOP lockstep vote is ridiculous. The Electoral College works against the popular vote. There was no mandate or popular movement. If there was we'd see more votes and a vastly higher approval rating. In other words, just because Hilary was a weak candidate does not mean Trump was a strong one.

So somehow, to guys like Altman, I'm the extremist and out of touch? Come on. Lets stop putting feels over reals to make deep pocketed conservative SV financiers like Peter Thiel happy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> After the election, my wife's first reaction was to cry. Her second reaction was "man, this shows we really don't understand a lot of people in our country." I applaud Sam for getting out and trying to improve his understanding.

I think Trump is very dangerous for our country. But that does not mean the people who voted for him are all evil bigots. On the left, we need to work harder to fight the more dangerous policy aspects, while not demonizing half our country. At the women's march post-inauguration, I was a bit taken aback by how hateful and not-conducive-to-fruitful-discussion many of the slogans were.

I don't really agree with the premise that America is no longer great. But anyway, I've had the thought that if we really want to "Make America Great again", a key starting point would be to reduce the hateful polarization.

</comment><comment><USER44> > "You need to give us an opportunity to admit we may have been wrong without > saying we're bad people. I am already thinking I made a mistake, but I feel > ostracized from my community."

Folks seem to stay stuck in bad positions because to change their mind would require them to come to terms with, and take responsibility for, having done something morally reprehensible. Ultimately though, it's immature and manipulative to ask that other people refrain from holding you accountable as your precondition to abandoning an indefensible stance. We should all try to identify this feeling in ourselves and use it as a nudge to approach a situation with humility and a willingness to take responsibility for our actions.

<comment><USER45> To be fair to them, it _is_ hard to acknowledge you've fucked up and learn from your mistake if people mock you relentlessly about it. The easiest human reaction is to deny or retreat, not admit failure, ask for forgiveness and move on. That's why extending an olive branch and offering a safe space to discuss the issues they might be facing is the right approach (yeah, I know, it's ironic that we are even having this conversation about people who are quick to malign anyone who asks for a safe-space... but whatever.)

<comment><USER46> It doesn't work. Look at Obama's infamous, "cling to guns and religion." Do you know what point he was making? He was trying to explain to those of us with good jobs on the coast that middle america had been passed over and ignored by previous administrations.

Why would any politician ever extend an olive branch again when it is just used as a -- very effective -- weapon against them?

<comment><USER47> That may have been what he was trying to _explain_ , but what he _exposed_ was his condescension to middle America. _Of course_ that got used against him! You want it to be different? Don't be condescending, _even about people that you disagree with_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I see many posts in this thread focused on liberal "intolerance" of conservative views; however, I see absolutely no tolerance of liberal viewpoints on the American right. I'm friends with equal numbers of people on the right and left, and they are equally outraged, intolerant, insulting, and immersed in their confirmation bias.

And you know what? Good for them. I heard a quote from a local Republican representative on the radio recently that really hit me. He was asked, how can we work together when the leader of the Republican party is so incredibly insulting and disrespectful to his opponents?

You know what he said? The American democracy is a combative political system. Don't work together with Trump, fight him. If you find him insulting, then take your outrage and channel it into fighting him. I will fight you and you will fight me. That's how we will resolve our differences.

Reading the history of American politics, it has always been this way. For decades I've watched liberals and conservatives use insults and ridicule, not to convince the other side, but to demoralize it. If you can make your opponents feel bad, they are less likely to vote. The ideal mean moves a little bit left and right over the years as each side has its ups and downs.

It's a terrible system, but that's how it works in real life. I think we should keep this reality in mind whenever we talk about the tone of politics in America.

</comment><comment><USER49> Thanks, Sam, for doing this.

I also recommend reading Trump's book [0] to understand his appeal. It's more coherent and nuanced than his speeches and tweets. Some of the logic is fallacious, of course, but in subtle ways that I think are worth understanding. For example, the idea of "have some other country pay for X" comes up in multiple contexts (not just the border wall). It sounds great if you don't really understand macroeconomics.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/Great-Again-How-Crippled- America/dp/1...](https://www.amazon.com/Great-Again-How-Crippled- America/dp/1501138006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487701724&sr=8-1&keywords=trump+crippled+america)

<comment><USER50> Considering Trump didn't write any of his own books, and hasn't read a whole book in decades (including the ones he puts his name on), why would reading "his" book give an accurate impression of his ideas, vs. just listening directly to the source (his tweets and campaign rallies)?

Anything "coherent"/"nuanced"/"subtle" is the invention of the ghostwriter, a kind of best-guess translation from word salad to something comprehensible by literate adults.

inre this book specifically, see [http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/donald- trump...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/donald-trump- uncredited-ghostwriter-new-book-article-1.2424852)

 _"[Donald] got this done on the road with a series of phone calls and snippets from campaign speeches. He had a ghostwriter from start to finish, and he was annoying, tough and threw fits throughout."_

<comment><USER51> When all politicians rely on speech writers, what is the point you are making?

The result is the same: someone was commissioned to draft statements that the speaker endorses.

<comment><USER52> When a ghostwriter is present, I've found that a book's subtle exposition often arises from them more than the OP. With someone as raw, blustery, and self-promotional as Trump, any suggestion of nuance will inevitably invite circumspection.

<comment><USER53> So what do you think?

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald- trumps-g...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps- ghostwriter-tells-all)

It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, "If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> It's odd to me that someone who's worried about intellectual debate becoming rare would vote for Trump. Trump avoids substantive debates and relies on catch phrases. It seems to me that the lack of intellectual debate is tied to polarization of political parties rather than anything done by the Obama administration.

And there is real evidence that the republican party is driving the lack of real debate. The republican party refused to allow hearings for a Supreme Court nominee for a legitimately elected sitting President. That's obstructionism driven to ignoring the constitutional duties granted to the President to achieve political ends.

<comment><USER55> Maybe it fits more if you think of it as a vote "against the left" instead of a vote for Trump. As for your "real evidence", I don't think that enters into most republicans considerations.

<comment><USER56> >Maybe it fits more if you think of it as a vote "against the left" instead of a vote for Trump.

With the problem that if by "the Left" you mean Hillary Clinton, then...

* The "Left" are more of the country, by 3 million votes.

* The "Left" aren't even all that left-wing. Hillary said $12/hour was a high-enough minimum wage. Nancy Pelosi said, "We're capitalists." Obama _dropped_ the Employee Free Choice Act in 2008.

So in this context, a "vote against the Left" comes across as a vote to suppress the already-suppressed political majority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Honestly not sure this sheds much light. Doesn't it boil down to:

I always vote Republican regardless, sorry.

I vote according to my pet wedge issue (usually guns or abortion), sorry.

I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that.

The alternative candidate wasn't very appealing so I figured why not?

I liked the idea of a bomb-thrower, sorry.

<comment><USER58> "I'm bigoted and racist but I'm not going to admit to that."

This one always gets me. We're told, over and over again, that these people are tired of being called whatever-ist and that we should start being nice to them if we want their support.

Well, I'm sorry, but if you weren't so freakin' racist, we wouldn't keep pointing it out. If you don't want to be called sexist and ignorant, stop electing people who try to enshrine sexism in the law and have no clue about basic human biology.

Apparently we're supposed to close our eyes and ignore the huge character flaws in certain of our countrymen in the vague hope that they'll start voting for people we like if we're really nice to them. I really don't think that's a good strategy.

<comment><USER59> It's the "I'm not going to admit to that" part where the left gets it wrong. Pointing out that a person suffers from ignorance, racism, sexism, and bigotry doesn't need to come with the hostility and animosity or risk to their financial well being. These are states of mind that come from lacking context, from having an incomplete model of the world. If a person is punished for their incomplete model of the world they're less likely to make that visible and therefore ignorance is driven to the shadows. If a person received love and guidance when they showed themselves to be ignorant, you would still have the bigotry but at least there would be a pathway out of it.

tl,dr; so long as ignorance is understood to be a dirty word, people will focus on the insult and not the root problem.

<comment><USER58> I'm happy with driving ignorance into the shadows. The harder it is to express and the less support bigots have, the less likely they are to pass it on to the next generation.

That is the primary mechanism for reducing bigotry. The number of people who will self-correct is small. Big changes mostly come from waiting for bigots to die out, and not replacing them with new ones.

<comment><USER59> History seems to disagree. The views being expressed openly today couldn't have been expressed openly in the past. The KKK is still a thing. I'm not advocating we parade these ideas around, I'm firmly a believer in refusing to give bigotry a platform, but that's not the bit I'm focusing on.

People are wildly variant in their experiences and cognition but we all decipher meaning from layers in speech. It's possible for a person to fail to comprehend, fail to obtain the necessary context, fail to connect their actions to harm, but succeed in receiving the hostility encoded in speech. Eventually a person walks away with a model of the world that a person disagrees not because they see something but because they just don't like you. You can see this everywhere in that every criticism the left has of the right they turn it around on the left.

> Big changes mostly come from waiting for bigots to die out, and not > replacing them with new ones.

Bigotry never dies out. It's a natural facet of our existence and our current methodology for addressing it exacerbates the problem because we live in a world where a person defeated in argument can rally with others. There is no making a minority of bigotry in an endlessly connected world.

<comment><USER58> I don't understand the first part. Which views being expressed openly today couldn't have been expressed openly in the past?

<comment><USER59> The views our political system is currently normalizing. The ones that enable white supremacists to occupy the highest levels of government office. The ones that claim Michelle Obama is anti-american for saying she hasn't always been proud of her country while Trump can be elected on a platform that America is not great and defend Putin as a "killer" by claiming we're not so innocent.

<comment><USER58> Those have been expressed for a long time. Some are getting more popular (white supremacist stuff) and some are coming from different people (saying America kills people and has no moral high ground was usually a leftist thing) but I don't see anything being said that outright couldn't before.

<comment><USER59> You're being literal? Yes, these views have seen daylight. No, these views haven't until recently been acceptable for those holding public office.

<comment><USER58> Strom Thurmond didn't die that long ago, for example. A mere half century ago, these things were not only acceptable for elected officials to say, they were acceptable to enact into law.

<comment><USER59> You win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> > You all can defeat Trump next time, but not if you keep mocking us, refusing > to listen to us, and cutting us out

For all those Trump supporters who love the fact he's not politically correct, this shows how thin skinned they themselves are. There's no other way to sugarcoat it, a lot of these people voted for Trump because it validated their own prejudices: they loved him for being anti-muslim, anti-black, anti- immigrant... And yes, white privilege has been eroding recently and Trump was meant to be the savior and restore it - which is what Making America Great Again is all about.

So each of these groups is going to be disappointed in the way he governs. Sure he's anti-immigrant but deporting millions of people isn't really what anyone wants or can bear. Sure he's anti-muslim, but enforcing a muslim ban will actually make us less safe. And his party is more interested in snuffing out Obamacare which benefits whites more than blacks, and cutting benefits which again hurts whites more than blacks. So in their idiotic attempt to roll back a couple decades of liberal progress they have voted for a man who might deliver a temporary setback to liberal values but in the process will doom them to continued poverty and despair, if that is what they really wanted to escape. Oh the irony.

<comment><USER61> People have gotten fired over their political views. Thin-skinned losers can't handle all the tolerance

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "It's a lot like political discussion was in Soviet Union, actually. I think the inability to acknowledge obvious truths, and the ever-increasing scope of these restrictions makes it particularly frustrating. And personally, for whatever reason, I find inability to have more subtle discussion very frustrating--things are not white or black, but you can't talk about greys since the politically correct answer is white."

I wonder if this person realizes the irony of voting for Trump to increase subtle, political discourse.

Assuming that this person is talking about political discussion in the mainstream media (which is where this form of criticism is traditionally targeted), I don't think this person is accurate. The mainstream media encompasses a spectrum from Nytimes, Reason, the Economist to Fox News and Breitbart. To suggest that there's a monolithic 'discourse' out there is false. The fact that this person supported Trump suggests to me that they are less interested in subtle, political discourse, and more interested in having their 'side' be represented with less critique.

</comment><comment><USER62> > I did not expect to talk to so many Muslims, Mexicans, Black people, and > women in the course of this project

I suppose it's good that he got some perspective, but I'm concerned about how this expectation developed. The assumption, and the constant insinuation, that only some identity group or subculture supports the president is intellectually lazy. When those people are made to feel at risk--of ridicule, of losing a job, of violence--then we have a self-reinforcing distortion of reality.

<comment><USER63> There's substantial data backing up a lack of support for Trump, and for Republicans generally, for all of those categories to different degrees. And usually for fairly obvious reasons.

Are you unaware of this, or does acknowledging it just make you uncomfortable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> That's fascinating. What's striking is the absence of economic complaints. Much of the US, by area, is seeing jobs disappear and a gradually declining standard of living. Yet that's not what the Trump supporters Altman talked to are concerned about. There's not one mention of China. Loss of jobs due to foreign competition isn't mentioned.

There's also not much mention of religion. "God", "Christian", and "religion" didn't come up at all. Nor did race, in the black/white sense, come up much, except in the context of "white privilege".

Stopping abortion and the protection of American culture seem to be the crucial items for Trump supporters.

<comment><USER65> Well, stopping abortion is part and parcel of religion. You won't find many atheists or agnostics who oppose legal abortion. Perhaps some limits on it, but not an outright banning; that's solely the province of religious people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club".

Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values.

<comment><USER67> It can be hard to separate criticism from an attack. If you say something racist, and I tell you so, is that an attack?

<comment><USER68> It depends on how you say it.

"You're racist!" is an attack.

"That thing you just said was racist." is better but will still come off as an attack.

"Have you ever thought about how what you said will impact [minority group]?" will work much better.

<comment><USER69> What's worse, being a racist or being called a racist?

If it's the former, being called a racist is a valuable thing. It's somebody telling you that you have advertently or inadvertently acted in a manner that is prejudiced against an ethnic group in a way that perpetuates societal imbalances (racism). Now you get an opportunity to fix it.

Apologize, then stop doing what you were called out for. Now you'll neither be a racist or called one.

Great! Everybody wins.

<comment><USER68> Have you ever called someone a racist or seen someone else be called a racist? How did they tend to react at an emotional level? Did that tend to make them more or less open to feedback? Have you found it to be a particularly effective way of getting people to change their behavior?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> The main reason I support Trump is his stance on 2A, and his nominees to SCOTUS (also colored by that issue.)

2A people are highly motivated to turn out to vote and were a major part of his support.

(I was at a 4 day shotgun class during the election; there were long debates about the two acceptable candidates on multiple issues -- Johnson vs Trump.)

<comment><USER71> I've never understood the fear of the left taking away the second amendment. All my coastal elite progressive friends enjoy going to shooting ranges and at worst want thorough background checks and possibly a ban on high capacity magazines.

Post-Trump, many progressive people of color are arming themselves out of fear of white nationalists. None of them want a gun ban.

<comment><USER70> People who are "2A voters" don't even consider the status quo to be acceptable -- they want HPA (removal of suppressors from NFA); probably a removal of SBR/SBS (treat them like handguns), repeal of Hughes and 922(r), and potentially nationwide reciprocity and potentially pre-emption. They also want reinforcement in SCOTUS decisions of 2A as an "individual right" vs. a "collective right" (which is why I don't support ACLU, incidentally, despite otherwise strongly agreeing with their positions.)

Hillary specifically was pushing for an "assault weapons ban" in multiple speeches, and magazine capacity bans, under the phrase "common-sense gun regulations." Who knows what actually would have come to pass, but she was definitely not going to put pro-2A justices into SCOTUS or expand 2A protections.

<comment><USER72> I'm pretty liberal and (used to be) a gun owner. I can see supporting those things (I personally would like nationwide reciprocity [0]).

It's just very hard for me to understand how this issue (or others like abortion) would be above all others. You are voting for a government with a tremendous amount of power and responsibility (military and defense, infrastructure, running a huge economy, world trade, healthcare, etc). I just can't imagine voting based on a single issue like the 2nd amendment while ignoring all the others.

I respect your opinion, and I know you are not alone. It's just hard for me to understand it, that's all.

[0] I've always wondered what would happen if democrats adopted this into their platform, maybe in exchange for universal background checks.

<comment><USER73> My mom voted for Trump because of the abortion issue. The reason it's above all others in her mind is that she literally views it the way we view the holocaust. (e.g. "Millions of people have died because of pro-choice policies.")

So, whether or not you agree with her, you can see that there is some logic to making that issue a high priority if she views it that way. "Hitler's really got a great economic package, has better public experience than his opponent, is better all across the board, and is in favor of the extermination of a bunch of helpless people."

In my mom's case, she'd be Democrat, except for this one issue. She's pro Syrian refugee, pro immigration, against capital punishment, etc.

<comment><USER46> You should tell your mom that there are fewer abortions when women are given access to them. It's counter intuitive but there's data to back it up.

Bill Clinton said it best: abortion should be safe legal and rare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> A useful technique from "street epistemology" is to ask a person with whom you disagree on facts this question: "what information, if it were true, would cause you to change your opinion?"

If their response, after discussion, ends up being basically "there is nothing that could change my mind," then you are wasting your time. Otherwise, you can have an interesting discussion of epistemology, objectivity, and critical thinking in general, and can learn something from one another.

</comment><comment><USER75> I still still still, for the life of me, don't understand why a large number of people have labelled Hillary "corrupt". Someone please explain?

(am I naive to believe that having a private email server wasn't much of an offense, she was just doing her job in the Benghazi case, and that the Clinton Foundation has only ever meant to do good?)

<comment><USER38> Seems like a mix of substantial and a lot of unsubstantial stuff.

I think these are some of the substantial issues:

[https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/behind-closed-doors- hill...](https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/behind-closed-doors-hillary- clinton-sympathized-with-goldman-sachs-over-financial-reform/)

[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton- nbc-60...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton- nbc-600-k-salary-107827)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> A bunch of years ago, I was talking on an online forum about the _Scott Pilgrim_ movie. Someone I was talking to said, very rough paraphrase, "Once, I had some questions about whether I would like the Scott Pilgrim comic. I asked on a comics forum, and the fans of the comic there made it very clear that they thought I was uncool and stupid. So fuck them, I'm not watching this movie."

This was a person who broadly speaking in the target audience for this movie (geeky, likes action comedy movies), and who was trying to punish people who almost certainly didn't know he existed in the least effective possible way by doing something that really deprived only him of any benefit.

When I pointed this out to him, he spent ten forum posts working his way around to some kind of clear ex post facto explanation for why he "wouldn't" like the movie.

So the point of the above anecdote is this: If you make someone feel genuinely hurt/offended/like you don't like them, they will do all kinds of things in reaction to that. What I see in Altman's interlocutors is a lot of people who were like, "The liberals alienated me." And they may have voted in someone who on some level is factually worse for them than the alternative, but they'll justify it to themselves.

(I don't think that this is a unique characteristic of Trump voters. I think basically everyone is prone to getting really offended and engaging in the politics or economics of spite.)

</comment><comment><USER77> Interesting stuff. It seems to me that one thing hasn't changed over the years: American politics (maybe all politics) involved a huge element of tribalism and "us versus them", "good guys vs bad guys" kind of thinking. People decided "I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Green" or "I'm a Libertarian" and everybody else becomes the enemy. And given our first-past- the-post electoral system and the way that tends to drive a two-party system, we get a situation where people are voting _against_ a candidate more than they are voting _for_ the other candidate.

And sadly, while the "two party system" isn't a law-like-gravity, it's so ingrained in our thinking that people just can't bring themselves to consider voting 3rd party, unless they are explicitly part of that niche.

All in all, this is why I think one of the main reforms we need in this country is to switch away from plurality / FPTP voting and using approval voting or Condorcet voting or something along those lines. We need a situation where people who are "voting against Hillary" feel like they can vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, and not feel like Donald Trump is the only option.

</comment><comment><USER78> A relevant question here seems to be whether people can realize the difference between criticism and a personal attack.

It seems very common that people can't even talk about systems of inequality because simply mentioning that the status quo is unequal is often viewed as more taboo than actually perpetuating the inequality. e.g., there's no sexism in tech.

For example, when identifying institutional racism or sexism, one can be as scientific with data, but it seems that the mere act of suggesting that inequality even exists is painted as a personal attack.

Being pointed to inequality doesn't necessitate that the individual must assume that they're being attacked.

If someone tells me something, it can often mean that the mere fact they're talking to me at all is that they hope I have the capacity to self-examine and change. There isn't much reason to talk if they didn't think I would change at all. It's up to me if I want to construe it at an attack or an opportunity for learning.

Just like the election, it seems that the standard that each political side is held to is not at parity. Certainly, Hillary lacks charisma however, Trump's offenses and career have been, by a reasonable measure, more egregious than Hillary's; the bar she was held to seemed much higher during the election, yet it seemed there was nothing Trump couldn't do and still be elected. It seems that the disparity of expectations is somewhat generalizable to the larger political groups they represent.

From an outside perspective, the American right can perpetuate inequality, but the American left is barely allowed to _talk_ about inequality.

</comment><comment><USER79> > One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality > agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she'd lose her job if > people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter.

I can relate. I did not vote for Trump, but I am right of center & loathe HRC.

I stopped talking about politics at work shortly after getting a job at one of the large tech firms with "oo" in their name, but I'm pretty open about my views on social networks.

Starting on 11/9 I began to fear for my job.

One friend/coworker, very left of center, also very vocal on social networks, set up a work 1/1 with me. A bit odd, as we hadn't interacted in months (moved to different buildings), and asked if I felt responsible now that Trump was president & so many people we work with felt threatened.

A very close (& liberal) friend mentioned that another coworker had started a FB messenger discussion about people in the office who didn't support HRC, asking what to do about them. I honestly have no idea what was said or who was on it, but the close mentioned that she told them I was a good person with various examples -- which was nice, but leaves me questioning what they were asking.

This is all why our executives openly wept about the decisions. We had safe spaces established. Leaders sent out emails to their teams attempting to comfort.

At the advice of others, I just went dark. I hate doing that. I enjoy discussion & learning where I'm wrong. But I realized with kids at home, my top priority is making sure they're taken care of, and when debate isn't welcome, I should just shut up.

</comment><comment><USER80> The most worrisome in all the notes for me is this sentence:

Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting "targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him".

People are afraid to talk about their views openly. I think this is really bad. Even here in the HN comments I saw a few people saying basically that "it is not worth discussing anything with someone who don't agree with me". This is really really really bad. If there is one thing I wish will change for the next election is that both sides would _listen_ more to the other side (even if they strongly disagree).

<comment><USER81> > People are afraid to talk about their views openly. I think this is really > bad.

It is _very_ bad, because US institutions (estates, branches of government) are built on the assumption of a level of respect for the opposition - <USER2> goes out the window when they are seen as an _enemy_. Sadly the political polarization in the US has been ongoing for _decades_ now. This is not something that can be "turned off" in one election cycle by "listening" because this did not happen by accident, additionally, incendiary rhetoric can't be disallowed due to the first amendment. I suspect there is a political corollary to Greshams law ("bad rhetoric drives out good rhetoric"?). The right sees the label "liberal" as a slur and a justification to oppose in itself; the left sees the right as idiots who vote against their self- interest.

Polarization is the finer-grained human equivalent of gerrymandering - <USER3> provides reliably consistent votes by shifting away from the middle. The media certainly isn't helping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> I want to be constructive about this topic. The /next/ president of the United States should be/campaign on:

        * A new new deal; end 'handouts', make it the government's job to offer productive job placement.
        ** This includes retraining for such
        ** or if that really can't work out (disability/age/etc)
        *** then 'retire' someone (frame the handout with a different name).

        * Simplify taxes (single plugin equation for base tax)
        * Simplify healthcare (everyone has everything, part of taxes)
        ** Deductions / penalties as carrot / stick to encourage behavior.
        ** Make all of the doctors in the area 'bid' (like a dutch auction) to set the price of covered activities.
        ** Free (to the user at the time) contraceptives, planning, and health education.

        * Secondary issue: The rent is too high // commute is too busy.
        ** Caused by lack of urban planning
        ** Poor housing quality/density near jobs
        ** Poor schools near jobs (as a result)
        ** School funding and core skills should be national funding.
        ** Raise the standard of privacy, quality of life, and SIZES of units in cities to make them family friendly.
        ** Increase market competition in cities, to make the rent family friendly.
        ** Get the families that can living closer to their jobs to free up the freeways.

        * Secondary Issue: Transparency (groundwork).
        ** ALL secrets must have an identifying catalog 'number' and 'sunset day'.
        ** A 'sunset day' is when it is automatically no longer classified; auto-released and published openly.
        ** A 'sunset day' cannot be more than 10 years in to the future.
        ** Secrets can be reviewed by an adversarial court process and the 'sunset day' updated (10 years from that day).

        * Secondary Issue: Transparency (budget)
        ** Secrets would be become 'line items' in a given fiscal year's budget.
        ** Top down allocation of resources, until they're hidden in secrets, justified, or pooled up (e.g. office supplies).
        ** Show every person where their tax dollars are going

Have a website where they can put in how much they paid in taxes and see several graphs showing them where things went.

<comment><USER45> > * A new new deal; end 'handouts', make it the government's job to offer > productive job placement.

Would you consider medicine and living arrangements for people who can't work for psychological or physical reasons "a handout"?

<comment><USER82> I'm trying to use the same language that those who hate the current programs do to get their attention and get them to give a more fair, inclusive, and socially beneficial (people having jobs is good, right?) alternative a fair consideration.

In a literal sense, ANY help from the government. Be it roads, police (military), fire protection, etc; is a handout. The word may as well be meaningless aside from attaching an emotional buzzword response to something.

Please focus on the actual ideas discussed, and not the language (unless commenting on a more effective way of conveying the message with a specific wording).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I think it's a huge problem that liberals keep demonizing conservatives, and I think this does a good job of exemplifying that. If we socially shun people for their political beliefs, then they're just going to find a home at the fringes of society where people have the most extreme views. The best way to change people's minds is to welcome them in with open arms.

Liberals need to start forgiving people and accept that saying or doing a bad thing doesn't make you a bad person. And more importantly, supporting a politician who has done bad things also doesn't make you a bad person.

</comment><comment><USER84> "He's not politically correct."

I think this is important. Among the many problems with PC is this:

When you exclude an idea from discussion, you don't eliminate that idea. You drive it underground into an echo chamber where it gathers strength and resurfaces later.

Censorship -- even of a soft de-facto variety -- creates the impression that your position is weak. The censored idea starts to develop the mystique of a forbidden truth. You can see this very obviously in the whole "red pill" thing. In the original Matrix film, the red pill was a metaphor for forbidden knowledge.

An analogy would be to the war on drugs. Forbidding drugs makes them alluring and cool and creates a drug subculture. Forbidding discussion of nationalism, race, and gender has made race nationalism and gender determinism into forbidden, cool ideas that mark one as a holder of privileged secret knowledge.

On another note:

I know a number of Trump supporters. Here's what I have heard:

(1) Economic concerns _are_ an issue. One person said (paraphrasing) "He's against outsourcing. He could eat a baby on live TV and I'd vote for him. I'll vote for Satan if he'll do something about outsourcing."

(2) A _lot_ of Trump supporters I know just hate the system and wanted to cast a "fuck you" vote. They don't love Trump per se but hope he'll do a lot of damage to the existing international financial and political order.

(3) A lot of people hate globalism, or at least globalism the way it's turned out. It's viewed as a path to corporate feudalism. These folks hope Trump will set back globalism and restore national sovereignty.

(4) Some people just hate the Clintons and blame them for the 2008 crisis (repeal of Glass-Steagal) etc., so they voted against Hillary more than for Trump. Some also hate the Clintons for taking the nomination from Bernie Sanders. I know a few Sanders voters who voted Trump.

<comment><USER85> "He's not politically correct."

It's as if people who rage against political correctness don't understand what it means. It means showing respect and being polite and not using pejoratives. That's all.

<comment><USER84> Like "redneck" and "hick" and "white trash"?

That's the other thing I think people are reacting to. There's a double standard where it's okay to slur rural white Americans but nobody else.

IMHO it's about _classism_ as opposed to racism. Racism is taboo in American discourse but classism and urban elitism (placeism?) are not.

Maybe the answer is to define PC as you do and extend it to cover classism, placeism, and reverse stereotyping. Maybe it should just be taboo to be an asshole.

<comment><USER86> I thought it was taboo to be an asshole. Hence the term "asshole".

<comment><USER84> In most human cultures and subcultures it is acceptable to be an asshole to out-groups.

My point was that your average left-leaning person is not immune from this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "He will preserve our culture."

It's worth reflecting on how often we all worry about preserving culture. It's a frequent concern here on HN, it's a frequent concern inside every company I've worked in that is growing. As much as I dislike Trump, and as much as it feels like racism, I can see why this concern about culture really resonates with a lot of people, and what ways my liberal leaning family and friends share the same concerns in their own lives.

</comment><comment><USER87> Is a side-effect of the Technology used to communicate exacerbating this disharmony? What is tech's role in supplementing The Media's responsibility for supporting countrywide-conversations? Can better communication tech be developed?

Instead of in-person conversations we have: Talking heads on TV (one way communication) encouraging subordination to the stronger will / better dressed. Twitter's "less is more" short messages (incomplete thoughts) encourage shouting. Typing "fire and forget" missives on Blogs / Facebook (writing is a challenge, intellectually, and physically to a degree) encourages dumping of an overly architected, precipitous idea. Picture / meme sharing (paste politician head on snake body) encouraging entertainment at the expense of compassion. Emoting via "Thumbs-Up'ping" (iconic representation of human emotional reaction) encourages mob mentality.

How do "the right" learn what "the left" thinks / how they react?

What is the next phase of communication technology can facilitate? More airplanes to fly Sam, and the rest of us around, so we can talk more with our fellow citizens?

It is insufficient to say "the problem is the media." Be specific. Communicating feelings involves nuance and experiential association.

> FROM: "What do you think about the left's response so far?" > "You need to > give us an opportunity to admit we may have been wrong without saying we're > bad people. I am already thinking I made a mistake, but I feel ostracized > from my community." > > "The left is more intolerant than the right." Note: > This concept came up a lot, with real animosity in otherwise pleasant > conversations. > > "Stop calling us racists. Stop calling us idiots. We > aren't. Listen to us when we try to tell you why we aren't. Oh, and stop > making fun of us." > > "I'd love to see one-tenth of the outrage about the > state of our lives out here that you have for Muslims from another country. > You have no idea what our lives are like." > > "I'm so tired of hearing > about white privilege. I'm white, but way less privileged than a black > person from your world. I have no hope my life will ever get any better."

</comment><comment><USER88> I don't think these people see themselves as Trump Supporters, that is a new label invented to describe those who have views that don't align with rest of the herd.

Who I voted for is nobody's business... but I am definitely not supporter of Trump, I also don't support most of the things and hysteria surrounding newly elected president. I also don't feel like I can talk to people who got caught in the fervor of elections. So, you don't really have to be TS to experience alienation from mainstream media.

</comment><comment><USER89> I understand all the sentiment, but one thing that Trump supporters haven't done is send him a message that they don't agree with his extreme views and his constant undermining of democratic societies. For example, there are a number of "one issue" voters for Trump - one individual only cares about abortion and another hates PC so much that voting for Trump was important. But with that decision, you are also validating Trump's extreme agenda and empowering his dangerous supporters like Bannon and David Duke. I would appreciate if Trump supporters in his rally were able to call him out when doles out lies (e.g., Sweden incident) or organize to keep him focused on what they voted for.

P.S: I never understand why people are so agitated over PC. Having being in raised in a country with no PC, I would much rather have an excess of PC rather than being yelled racist epithets on my face

<comment><USER9> > I would much rather have an excess of PC rather than being yelled racist > epithets on my face

Both are extreme and unproductive behaviors. One side screams racist epithets at you, the other screams accusations of racism at you. Neither helps. Only sincere and rational conversation helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Trump got less votes than Romney.

Republicans are always going to vote Republican - the major issues are essentially irreconcilable. The Democrats don't need to listen to them, they need to field better candidates so that the left gets out and votes.

</comment><comment><USER91> I like that Trump voters know that he is a mixed bag of nuts.

You should follow up by speaking to Hilary voters/supporters. This exercise is incomplete without that part of the equation.

</comment><comment><USER92> One thing that jumped out for me is the pervasiveness of white fragility. For example: Stop being politically correct. I'm white but I'm not privileged. Stop calling us racists.

If you're not familiar with this term, White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress be- comes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation.

[http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116](http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116)

[edit: Can someone explain why this comment is being downvoted?]

<comment><USER9> You're being downvoted because it's despicable to create and bandy about a scientific-sounding term like "white fragility" in a conversation that people are sincerely trying to have.

You're effectively removing yourself from any such discussion on these topics and creating an image of a psychologist analyzing the others in the discussion. Be part of the conversation, don't just step back and slap passive-aggressive labels on the participants.

<comment><USER92> Ok, you object to be using what appears to be a categorical label rather than engaging directly with the comment. That's fair, though "despicable" seems rather judgemental

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Gasp, you mean people of opposing beliefs actually have a reason for those beliefs and aren't just (all) idiots!? This is a great example of the impact of an echo chamber. It suddenly becomes an enlightening event to learn that opponents aren't actually monsters or bogeymen.

I, for one, hope one result of these sorts of "revelations" is the re- emergence of the importance of real tolerance. Not the pseudo-acceptance that is the mainstay of today, but the belief that we should be free to harbor opposing views without being immediately attacked, exiled, shamed, etc. And not just for the current winners (or losers), which is the boomerang we're seeing now.

</comment><comment><USER94> My experience is pretty much the same. Trump supporters are basically against immigrants and immigration. Basically nationalists. They are not stupid, less educated, poor, etc.

And we should be careful with appeasement of evil policies because we are "mocking them". I.e., being spineless democrats...

<comment><USER95> Anti-immigrant nationalism is counterproductive. That being said, I've asked some Trump supporters over the election about immigration. The general feeling was that legal immigration is fine, it's the line jumpers they see as violating our immigration system and the rule of law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> It's fascinating to me how many of the likes listed are feelings-based arguments and how many of the nervous/dislikes are more based on specific events and evidence.

Granted, as noted they are narratives so it's hard to say if that's some kind of bias in how it's put together or even my own bias in reading it.

Even still, it struck me as interesting how much more cold and logical the dislikes/nervous items were in their appraisal of a presidential candidate.

</comment><comment><USER97> "We need borders at every level of our society."

I'd like to know more about what the respondent meant by that exactly. (UK resident)

Longer transcripts generally might be more illuminating.

</comment><comment><USER98> the dichotomy that trips me up time and again is that trump supporters (as evidenced in these anecdotes) are much more concerned about feelings: fearfulness, isolation, encroachment, insult, loss of status, etc.

but lefties are more interested in policy-making, i.e, what's the right rules and regulations to implement to solve social and economic problems (with an air of superiority of having the "right answer" coming along with that).

it's an easy way to talk past each other rather than truly empathizing (mainly sitting and listening rather than offering solutions).

let's keep hearing stories from neglected america and it just might help heal this rift.

<comment><USER99> _> but lefties are more interested in policy-making_

Boy, we'd like to think so, wouldn't we?

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Making fun of people is not a good way to learn about them or work with them. We all learn this in grade school, but we seem to forget it when we talk on Twitter or on TV. If your presupposition before entering a conversation is that the other side is crazy or stupid, you're not going to achieve any sort of real communication.

</comment><comment><USER101> This was a good read. I think we need more of this. More listening and less demonizing. I too was dismissive of Trump supporters throughout the election. Over the last several months I have started to better understand where they are coming from. Living in Japan has helped me understand why people worry about immigration and cultural preservation. I have conversed with a lot of 'alt-right' people lately too and tried to find common ground and understand their viewpoints. We don't have to agree, but we need to be able to talk.

<comment><USER102> > Over the last several months I have started to better understand where they > are coming from.

Do you feel that Trump supports have made an effort to understand you and where you're coming from? Or that they would have, had Clinton won the election?

<comment><USER101> I think what a lot of them would say is that because of how biased Hollywood / the media / schools / etc. are, they already are familiar with the liberal point of view. A lot of them I think expected Hillary to win and so were prepared to deal with being in opposition to the white house (as they already have been for 8 years). Certainly there are some on the right who are intolerant and dismissive, but in general my experience has been very good.

<comment><USER102> > I think what a lot of them would say is that because of how biased Hollywood > / the media / schools / etc. are,they already are familiar with the liberal > point of view

Do you think that Hollywood is sufficient for understanding your liberal views? Do you think they are or would make an effort to understand your views, or would they be satisfied with the shallow understanding that Hollywood provides? Given the lionization of the police and military in American culture, you are already familiar with the conservative point of view. Yet you still feel you've learned more about where conservatives are coming from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> I'm very happy to see this. The moment that we stop shouting at each other and start to actually "listen" to each other is the moment when it becomes possible to find win-win solutions.

I would humbly suggest, however, that if you genuinely want to understand the mind of a Trump voter, you might try viewing the world from the perspective of people whose values are very different than yours.

Often when we offer value to others, we are completely oblivious to the fact their values are different than ours. We may, for example, with the best of intentions, offer a big juicy steak to a militant vegan.

We may be completely oblivious to the fact that the gesture will not produce the desired feeling of gratitude.

Similarly, try to understand why offering "universal basic income" to a Trump voter is many orders of magnitude worse than offering a steak to a vegan.

Why is this? Because accepting a hand-out is an affront to their honor. Many would rather die than accept handouts from the state. Because they value PRIDE far more than they value CONNECTION.

Observe that the most popular insult among the alt-right is "cuck". Why is that? This betrays their deepest fear of the blue collar Trump voter: The fear that their wives will seek other men because they are no longer able to provide for their families because no woman wants to be with a man who cannot provide for her.

If you truly get that and empathize with the terror that they feel, everything becomes much more clear.

</comment><comment><USER104> Thanks Sam, this was an illuminating read.

I am very anti-Trump, but I don't (nor do those in my circle) think that his election somehow makes ~50% of the country racist, stupid, etc. Clearly, though, the impression is that I am of this opinion.

Conversely, I'd like to think that none of those interviewed thought that I was a weak idiot for voting for Obama, even though those sentiments were palpable at the time.

It's a good reminder that it doesn't take many loud, angry voices to poison the dialog.

</comment><comment><USER105> The anecdotes are fine but I would like another data point: How, if at all, did Sam update his views after hearing the responses of these people?

</comment><comment><USER106> > The attacks against Trump have taught me something about myself. I have > defended him and said things I really didn't believe or support because I > was put in a defensive position. Protesters may have pushed many people in > this direction BUT it is ultimately our responsibility and must stop.

It's nice of this person to take responsibility for their defensiveness, but for those of us who wants to convince Trump voters to oppose Trump, it's as much _our_ responsibility to stop pushing people into a defensive position.

We need to use whatever methods are most effective, and as this blog post makes clear (and should already have been clear), attacking and belittling Trump voters isn't going to win them over. It's cathartic, but we need to win elections, not win catharsis.

It's time to stop trying to win points in an argument and try winning the support of the other half the country. sama is putting in a lot of time and effort in the early stages of doing just that--we'd do well to take note and join him.

</comment><comment><USER107> > Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them > wanted me to use their names

The fear of losing career opportunities is real. I typically refrain from any political discussion online because of the possibility of it being traced back to me, and on my main HN account (and any accounts linked to my name) I have never posted anything political.

That said, I live in a mid-size city in the South where a lot of people voted for Trump. I think there's a few reasons Hillary lost the election that many on the left haven't grasped yet. The single biggest one is that _most people are more focused on the economy than on social issues_ (with one exception, noted below). Whether this is philosophically a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but I think it's an accurate assessment that the bulk of voters in the U.S. don't see the issue of transgender rights as important as the ability to get a job. While it may be the case that Hillary had a better economic plan than Trump, the fact that she focused more on social issues than Trump at least gave a better _impression_ that Trump could handle the economy. Bill Clinton warned Hillary's campaign managers about focusing too much on social issues, but they largely ignored him.

I think some of the Trump support is schadenfreude, pure and simple. What Sam mentions in his post about "political correctness" is valid, and while both the left and the right are susceptible to thinking in terms of black and white, I find that the left is much more punitive and vengeful if you don't exactly agree with their position (see the debacle involving Scott Aaronson and feminism). The left is much more likely to conduct online witch hunts against an individual who says something "politically incorrect", which is another source of fear. In addition to that, many on the right get the impression that the left either subtly (or not-so-subtly) thinks they are the more intelligent party. This may be in part due to the left's general command of the media and institutions of higher learning. But Jonathan Haidt (despite being liberal personally) advocates for increasing the number of conservatives in public-facing institutions to get a better variety of viewpoints. For many intelligent people on the right, the intellectualism of the left instead comes across as pseudo-intellectualism (particularly on a website like Quora), where prose is written in a way that "sounds smart" but often only holds up to surface level scrutiny.

When Trump lies, he tends to do so outright in a blatant way. When the media lies, they do so in a much subtler way that is typically discernible only to an expert. (The average person does not have the time, resources, or desire to determine the truth on climate change from primary sources.) Thus a typical right-wing voter cannot be sure of whether the media speaks the truth or not, and because the media leans to the left, the right-wing voter errs on the side of "they are feeding me propaganda, so it's probably not true".

> "He is anti-abortion." Note: This sentiment came up a lot. A number of > people I spoke to said they didn't care about anything else he did and would > always vote for whichever candidate was more anti-abortion.

I think the abortion issue is a much bigger factor than many on the left realize. Sam mentions this in passing, but I think that if Trump and Hillary had the same views on abortion, Hillary would have undoubtedly won the election. In fact, the abortion issue was the main and deciding factor for why I did not vote for Hillary. But I morally don't believe in the idea of "the lesser of two evils" (i.e., a clothespin vote), so I didn't vote for Trump either; I ended up writing in a protest vote.

The abortion issue is philosophically complex — much more than either side gives it credit for. My issue with both the left _and_ the right is that neither side seems to particularly care about actually solving the problem and is more concerned with disparaging the other side "as evil" (anti-choice, anti-life). I find that it is impossible to debate most pro-choice people because they immediately label you as misogynistic. But most of them haven't even heard of the Giubilini and Minerva paper, the sorites paradox, or the violinist argument, so how can they have such a strong view without even really understanding the topic? On the other hand, I don't get the impression that many on the right actually care about abortion either, because if they did, they would support increased access to free birth control (if abortion is really "murder", you would do whatever you could to stop it, right?), they would consider miscarriages to be the leading cause of death (and thus in dire need of medical research funds), and they would look to address the root reasons that people get abortions in the first place rather than just trying to outlaw it.

<comment><USER108> > but I think that if Trump and Hillary had the same views on abortion, > Hillary would have undoubtedly won the election

I suspect that the set of voters who would have shifted from Trump to an anti- abortion HRC is smaller than the set of voters who would have defected from a anti-abortion HRC to Jill Stein or stayed home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Interesting. Even with the title, and some of the points he made around "seriously disagreeing with some of these people" I found this to be fairly well balanced and interesting. This quote really scares me, and something I've considered true since Obama was first elected. Some people are truly scared to share their political opinions in public. We should be worried about that. "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names — even people from very red states were worried about getting "targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him." One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she'd lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter."

</comment><comment><USER110> What stood out to me was actually the first comment:

> He says true but unpopular things. If you can't talk about > problems, you > can't fix them.

My take on Trump would rather be, that he says false but poular things (popular in the literal sense, not necessarily what is popular in the media).

</comment><comment><USER111> How did so many people get the wrong idea about what "freedom of speech" means?

The right to say something without the government arresting you is a far cry from an imagined right to be heard by everyone about whatever you want to say.

<comment><USER112> "Freedom of speech" is an inalienable right that everyone has. The first amendment explains in what ways this right may be infringed by the government. When people talk about "freedom of speech", they are not talking about what the restrictions on the government are, they are talking about this basic individual right.

<comment><USER111> I'm referring to people who talk about it as if it should prevent other citizens from criticizing them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> I hate when people act as though some of these opinions are just a different point of view on the correct way to fold a shirt. Sam Altman may "strongly disagree with" with certain ideas; other people feel "strongly feel existentially threatened by" these ideas. In other words these ideas have painful consequences on people's lives. People who vote according to fact- immune beliefs that black people are thugs, Mexicans are rapists, and brown people are terrorists are directly attacking the safety and security of many Americans (who are not Sam Altman).

</comment><comment><USER114> I found this extremely interesting but one thing I think is important to remember: it's possible that Republicans will take down Trump in 2020 (or sooner), but it's more likely that non-Republicans will. Mobilizing and organizing support among the left and independents would be more than enough to win a Presidential or any other election in the US outside of DEEPLY Republican areas.

Looking forward opportunities to win over tepid Trump supporters is one strategy, but don't let anyone convince you it's the only strategy (or even the best one).

</comment><comment><USER69> Good job on Sam for opening up his world a bit and letting us share the newfound knowledge of "how the other half lives". I'm eagerly awaiting the next few installments:

What I heard from 100 poor people What I heard from 100 women What I heard from 100 gay people What I heard from 100 black people What I heard from 100 immigrants What I heard from 100 Native Americans What I heard from 100 chronically ill people What I heard from 100 former felons

</comment><comment><USER115> > I have defended him and said things I really didn't believe or support > because I was put in a defensive position.

This is amazing cognitive dissonance. This is the reason "they" are "idiots" \- not because they believe what they are saying, but because they can't argue properly.

You don't have to be defensive if your position is correct, you can counter with facts. If you can't counter with facts, maybe your position is wrong.

<comment><USER116> Emotion is a valid reason to hold an opinion. It may not be a good reason in many cases, but it isn't invalid.

Having facts to back up your position is good thing, but not having facts backing it up doesn't automatically mean it is an incorrect position to hold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> Common theme: conservatives are afraid liberals will laugh at them and maybe make them pay a bit more in taxes.

Liberals are afraid conservatives will take away their healthcare, starve the poor, kill black people, start foreign invasive wars, etc.

Yet conservatives are baffled when liberals feel so strongly about their politics.

I also find it baffling that the self same people arguing that political correctness is wrong want liberals to be less "mean". Strange.

</comment><comment><USER118> The TL;DR quote" from the the piece was: "You all can defeat Trump next time, but not if you keep mocking us, refusing to listen to us, and cutting us out."

This is a perfect example of do as I say, not as I do. The candidate these people supported mocked almost everyone-- a physically disabled reporter, a senator due to Native American ancestry "Pocahontas", the "lying press", etc.

</comment><comment><USER119> I think it's worth noting that this article and thread has created a space where inclusion and pacifism are being over-valued (and a lot of pitying and white-knight behavior is supported).

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being divisive around an ISSUE. Clearly defining sides is constructive in creating a productive debate.

The problem is when judgement and divisiveness expands beyond ISSUES to PEOPLE.

</comment><comment><USER120> Is not daily US politics meant to be avoided at Hacker News?

I remember several articles got flagged for discussing politics, might the rules have changed?

<comment><USER82> It felt more like a month...

Also, if you don't discuss / face a topic you can never move forward. What is critical is that when you /do/ discuss / face that topic you do so in a positive way that increases understanding and fosters critical thinking on your opinions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> It feels impossible to have a conversation about this type of stuff with either side. I think the issue is that everyone is trying to pull people to their extreme rather then talk and realize there is middle ground. For every angry person there is a person who is excited. What makes them wrong?

</comment><comment><USER122> What another guy heard from Trump supporters:

[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a53275/trump- melbourne-...](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a53275/trump-melbourne- florida-rally/)

<comment><USER123> These are both important. I think the Esquire take (figure out what the people who go to rally's are after) has more coverage than Sam's, but the tension is super fascinating.

Most people I know who voted for Trump are unsettled by the extreme populist rhetoric. You can see it in the answer's Sam got. They tend to discount what they hear on TV covers when they're justifying a stance, either because the media is biased, or because every candidate has unpleasant supporters, etc.

<comment><USER122> I still find it ironic that Republicans, who are very keen on the notion of individual responsibility in general, seem so shy about taking responsibility for what they voted for. It's not like he hid his big bag of -isms during the campaign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER124> I and my family were forced off of road because of an Obama sticker on the back. Don't tell me Trump supporters are any more tolerant than that. Maybe where they are a minority, sure, but in the red states there is plenty of straight up crazy.

</comment><comment><USER125> > Trump won largely because of disenfranchised blue collar Caucasians > resonated with him.

This is one of the most startling facts of this election to me. Trump got the support of these people with emotional rhetoric that had little basis in reality. By putting on a hat and giving people groups to blame he positioned himself as a champion of the people besides his past showing is the complete opposite. Trump has spent his whole life taking advantage of middle-class people and sits on a literal throne in a tower in Manhattan. There is a large number of people in the United States, not just blue collar Caucasians, who have a couple inability to think critically and make well calculated well- informed decisions. Education is one possible solution to this problem, classes on logic and reasoning, starting at a young age. But what about now? Can we wait 20-30 years for a new population with better reasonings skills?

<comment><USER126> > Trump got the support of these people with emotional rhetoric that had > little basis in reality.

This translates to me: "I don't understand how the opposition feels, and don't care to find out why. It's easier to assume they aren't living in 'reality'."

</comment></comment><comment><USER127> _I worry he will drive us apart as a nation. I believed him when he said that would stop with the campaign, but I haven't seen signs of it so far._

So he fooled you, just like every other politician has done and will do. Blimey!

</comment><comment><USER128> > but almost none of them wanted me to use their names

Half of their beliefs leftists treat like heresy. So nobody wants to be hunted by inquisitors.

> as she worried she'd lose her job

Hopefully nowadays for heresy you are just fired.

</comment><comment><USER129> The divisiveness in this country is politics working incredibly well. Essentially, politicians take a position, rile up the masses and sneak in their pork and entitlements when everyone is distracted arguing with each other.

We should all stop playing into their games and arguing over the issues and focus on fixing the incentives thay drive our current political process...

Sure, the issues are important, thats why we get riled up...but im the mean time, the much bigger evil is smiling at us being too distracted to stop him.

</comment><comment><USER130> > One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality > agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she'd lose her job if > people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter.

It is safe to say democracy has won here. A suppressed majority silently voting for their candidate despite and over pressure on them to not exercise their choice.

Only if people in silicon valley had done this before the election and not after.

<comment><USER131> Supporters of racism, sexism, etc. ought to be marginalized. And this was not a "majority", btw.

<comment><USER132> Why should people be marginalized for their political opinions?

<comment><USER133> Reductio ad Absurdum, is it possible to have and advocate for an opinion detrimental enough that you should be marginalized for?

<comment><USER132> No, because "detrimental" is also a subjective judgement depending on whether one is a utilitarian, consequentialist, etc.

One man's heaven is another man's hell. There is no objectively correct political position, so establishing parameters on which specific opinions are to be found acceptable of marginalization is impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> If Trump supporters are all about losing political correctness, perhaps they'd be willing to listen to the argument they have a limited understanding of the world around them and probably shouldn't be in the position to select political leaders.

Trump is the parent that says you can have candy for every meal. Only after you've gained a bit of wisdom do you realize this is not a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER117> Conservatives are afraid liberals will laugh at them. Maybe tax them a bit more and be nice to brown people with funny names.

Liberals are afraid conservatives will take away their health insurance, starve poor folks, destroy the planet, start unfounded invasive wars, end their own bodily self determination. Etc. etc.

<comment><USER65> Conservatives are afraid that liberals will change society so that being Christian isn't the default, and so that Christians can't use their group- think against everyone and pass religion-based laws. They're also afraid that liberals will change society so that homosexuality and transgenderism are accepted and they can't abuse and ostracize people like this. Finally, conservatives are also afraid that liberals will change society so that people aren't literally starving to death or dying in the streets if they aren't lucky enough to have a job and medical insurance.

Basically, conservatives want to go back to a time when everyone was nominally Christian, and people were dying left and right due to malnutrition and lack of access to medical care, because Christianity and social Darwinism go hand- in-hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER135> I would like to see the political right in the US employ the same tactics against the left that the left has used against the right for about the last decade. To wit, they should employ any and all legal methods to inflict as much social and economic suffering on individuals, organizations and companies who insult them, denigrate them, and openly espouse political agendas they oppose.

Among the billionaire bully-boys in SV, Sam Altman seems like quite a rational and fair-minded individual. I suspect he realizes that if things continue as they are, the right will wake up to the fact that, like Dorothy with her ruby slippers, they've had the power all along to hit back, hard, against the people who are lashing out and throwing a massive tantrum because the election didn't turn out the way they wanted it. And all of these "disruptive" industries are ripe fodder for decimation through legislatively-enabled lawsuits and stifling regulations.

I can well imagine the drama of congressional hearings where, for days on end, one tearful individual after another testifies how their lives were turned upside down as a result of Airbnb's "disruption". And I suppose Sam can imagine it too.

</comment><comment><USER136> Libertarianism is probably the most accurate description of most white-male tech workers... lots of ideas that work in theory that fall apart once you actually meet real people.

<comment><USER137> The irony of your post getting downvoted instead of getting discussed further on a thread discussing how dissenting non-mainstream liberal views are disapproved of in SV.

Appears like ideologues regardless of their affiliation enjoy suppressing dissenting views instead of discussing them further with people that have opposing views.

<comment><USER138> Downvoting doesn't mean 'suppressing dissenting views'. It means simple disagreement. Further we don't discuss voting in threads, according to site policy.

<comment><USER139> Where is the policy "don't discuss voting in threads" outlined?

My personal policy is never to downvote just for simple disagreement. I upvote comments that I disagree with if I think they're making a quality contribution to the conversation. Downvotes are reserved for comments that are trivial, combative, insulting, or intentionally offensive.

For some reason I'd been assuming HN guidelines prescribed this approach to voting, but maybe I was thinking of reddiquette. In any case, it seems weird to drive-by downvote someone who's earnestly expressing their views when a reply would more clearly show that you disagree, and why.

<comment><USER7> [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Near the bottom, "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

My personal voting philosophy matches yours, I tend to take downvotes more seriously, but it is not site policy, and it is acceptable here and lots of people do drive-by downvote, as you put it, for simple disagreement as well as other legitimate reasons. This is a good reason to resist taking downvotes personally, to resist speculating on why they were given, and to resist commenting about them when they happen.

One way to think about voting is symmetry -- maybe it's okay if downvotes are given out as freely as upvotes, and for the exact same reasons. If I upvote something I like without explanation, maybe it should be fine to downvote something I dislike without explanation. In a group heavy on engineers, perhaps this approach has an appealing consistency.

<comment><USER139> > Near the bottom, "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never > does any good, and it makes boring reading."

I have always read that as meaning that a commenter should resist commenting about _having one 's own comment downvoted_. The comment you responded to above was making an interesting point (I thought) about someone else being downvoted, which seemed to me to be more in line with the spirit of the guidelines.

The site's approach of not giving users the power to downvote until they basically prove they're interacting in good faith (by reaching the karma threshold) reinforces the seriousness of downvotes for me. Here I'm much more conservative with them than on reddit, for instance, official reddiquette notwithstanding.

<comment><USER7> I agree, and I read it the same way, but it is widely interpreted as resist commenting about downvotes at all. Furthermore, it seems to be widely interpreted as a strict rule rather than a suggested guideline.

Since the guideline isn't specific, there's certainly room for varied interpretation. And since many people exercise their downvotes based on their own interpretation, I find I'm happier if I avoid the issue by generally not discussing downvotes unless, like here, people are genuinely curious and I feel like trying to help.

Btw, note I didn't reply directly to the downvote comments, I only jumped in late to reply to your question. My take is @mozumder made a blanket generalization about white engineers that people were reacting to, @Neutralid jumped to conclusions about why the downvotes were occurring and suggested that @mozumder's views were being suppressed ideologically, which isn't the simplest explanation, and @JoeAltmaier demonstrated one of the common interpretations of HN guidelines.

The takeaway from this is that downvotes happen, so don't worry too much, and that there's just a whole lot that can go wrong when communicating, whether it's average people talking politics, or above average engineers on HN, so use a wide berth, give benefit of the doubt, be charitable in your interpretations, and you'll have more fun. :)

<comment><USER139> Ah yes, I'd confused you with @JoeAltmaier. Good takeaway :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER140> > "Stop calling us racists. Stop calling us idiots. We aren't. Listen to us > when we try to tell you why we aren't. Oh, and stop making fun of us."

Then. Stop. Supporting. A. Racist.

</comment><comment><USER141> It's interesting that HN is not for political discussion except when it is for political discussion.

<comment><USER142> Will you elaborate on this? What's interesting about it?

<comment><USER143> I'm not the parent commentor, but they may be referring to the fact that HN pulled all political topics for a week a while ago.

<comment><USER142> I'm aware of Political Detox Week, and other comments by the mods on politics on HN. Given I understand them, I personally don't find it interesting, at least not enough to comment on, particularly not without further elaboration.

<comment><USER118> They were being flagged for a lot longer than a week. This article was written by Sam Altman tho.

<comment><USER142> Okay. What are you getting at? Submissions are flagged in nearly all cases by users. And still are. This submission wasnt submitted by anyone at YC or HN (as far as I can tell). I'm still wondering what the OP meant.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>