Pick any major issue of contention, and chances are that the two major parties will tend to have opposing views on the subject.
I think that’s a tautology. Major issue of contention means in the US the the major parties have opposing views on the subject. If both parties share the view, then the US doesn’t treat the matter as major issue of contention.
One example would be the war of drugs. Another would be whether the US president is allowed to kill US citizens that live abroad without due process. In the core US debate those aren’t major issues of contention because the two parties basically agree on them.
As a result, I do not believe that all parties are equally valid/crazy/corrupt, and as such I like to be able to identify which are the most crazy/corrupt/stupid. [...] I can’t help but notice that posts which remark on for example retracted being a thing tend to get quite a few downvotes while posts that take care to express the nuance of the issue get massive upvotes for being so brave and fair.
I don’t think post with nuance get upvotes because they are fair. Nuance helps people to understand the world better. A post that just says X is crazy doesn’t help anyone to update his map of the world.
In most political a good post isn’t about judging which side is stupid or crazy but about actually understanding the issue at depth.
A tautology is when the two are the same by definition, I think you mean that there is almost complete overlap. The latter is something I would still disagree with, as in cases of for example gay marriage, the general populace was much more in favour than you would guess from listening to either political party until recently.
As for your second point, I was not taking issue with nuanced posts. Nuance is great for dealing with complex issues. The issue I have is with the tendency to upvote posts that show both sides of an issue as being equal regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.
A tautology is when the two are the same by definition, I think you mean that there is almost complete overlap.
No, I mean to say that “major issue of contention” can mean in the US that it’s a topic where there contention between the two major parties.
Which is something I still disagree with, as in cases of for example gay marriage, the general populace was much more in favour than you would guess from listening to either political party.
Latest gallup poll indicates 52% to 43% for the general population approving of same sex marriage. I don’t think that’s far of what y
The issue I have is with the tendency to upvote posts that show both sides of an issue as being equal regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.
Could you give examples? I personally haven’t observed that pattern on LessWrong.
I think that’s a tautology. Major issue of contention means in the US the the major parties have opposing views on the subject. If both parties share the view, then the US doesn’t treat the matter as major issue of contention.
One example would be the war of drugs. Another would be whether the US president is allowed to kill US citizens that live abroad without due process. In the core US debate those aren’t major issues of contention because the two parties basically agree on them.
I don’t think post with nuance get upvotes because they are fair. Nuance helps people to understand the world better. A post that just says X is crazy doesn’t help anyone to update his map of the world.
In most political a good post isn’t about judging which side is stupid or crazy but about actually understanding the issue at depth.
A tautology is when the two are the same by definition, I think you mean that there is almost complete overlap. The latter is something I would still disagree with, as in cases of for example gay marriage, the general populace was much more in favour than you would guess from listening to either political party until recently.
As for your second point, I was not taking issue with nuanced posts. Nuance is great for dealing with complex issues. The issue I have is with the tendency to upvote posts that show both sides of an issue as being equal regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.
No, I mean to say that “major issue of contention” can mean in the US that it’s a topic where there contention between the two major parties.
Latest gallup poll indicates 52% to 43% for the general population approving of same sex marriage. I don’t think that’s far of what y
Could you give examples? I personally haven’t observed that pattern on LessWrong.