SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.
"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."
Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.
The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.
More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @01:26AM (4 children)
I asked "Why is it good to be so?" and I got an answer "Because Constitution and the founding fathers".
I wonder now when "sticking to the rules" is still a rational choice and when it becomes "worshiping a book"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:16AM (3 children)
Nope, that might have been your intention, but the words on the page were:
Now to address your apparently original question why is it good to have the 2nd amendment? Well here in the US there are a variety of reasons. Personal protection is quite a real need for even mildly rural locations. I've had bears go through my yard, aggressive dogs kill livestock, and once a police helicopter was tracking a murder suspect. People living in high crime areas might want protection against being robbed and beaten/raped. Minorities are 100% safer from hate crimes if they can carry a gun, few bullies want to pick on someone if it involves a real chance of death.
Then there is the more nebulous ability to fight government oppression. At the very least it keeps politicians on their toes because to pull off mass dictatorship they'd have to confiscate the guns before some group manages to take them out.
You can disagree with all of those, say they are unneeded, or they are only needed because of the culture of guns. I understand those arguments, but I think in the age of technology no one should be restricted from owning personal protection unless they have proven themselves a danger to themselves or others. That is my opinion, but then again the US has pretty horrifying gun stats.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:45AM (2 children)
Fair enough. But nothing to do with the 2A (and not necessarily the only solution available).
Mate, I think the politiheads biggest fear is not being re-elected because their corruptions catches up with them in the news.
Dictatorship in US? Healthy levels of competition in the corruption arena makes sure the wannabe dictator gets bankrupt before s/he even tries to obtain monopoly by a military coup. Put shortly, "MAD in the corruption arena"
Unneeded? I abstain from saying it.
I'll say, though, that the Americans would be lucky if they'd get to look into the problem with a cool head, make an inventory of the problems the guns are suppose to solve and list the possible alternative solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @05:58AM
"I'll say, though, that the Americans would be lucky if they'd get to look into the problem with a cool head, make an inventory of the problems the guns are suppose to solve and list the possible alternative solutions."
True enough, I try for my part but as you point out rarely find cool heads to discuss it with. All I got from The Winged Sociopath was fanaticism about the holy writ, and Ruminaway is ready to murder anyone who says he can't own whatever unlicensed penis pumps he owns.
Ok, that was definitely not a cool headed response, but to be fair it wasn't the gun issue that got me lashing out.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @03:38PM
Eevan moar guuuuns!!!1!yksitoista!!
I got some swift knee-jerk mass downmodding when I drew a "worshiping a book" parallel a couple of months back, so I'm glad to see someone else (you) make that point upthread.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves