I agree.

But how do we get there?

In my view, until Hacker News has a mechanism to capture different kinds of feedback; e.g.:

1. comment is well-written (even if I disagree)

2. comment is civil (even if not well-written and/or I disagree)

we're going to have "lump all, some, or none of these factors together" voting.

People who hold reprehensible ideas or support those who do, should be held to task, no matter how many of them there are.

I am op (asked the question) and even though I don't agree with throwaway, I appreciate him having the time to respond (so I upvoted.earlier to try to offset the downvotes).

Im also downvoted btw, so this goes both ways.

This is ridiculous. How is graying out a comment on Hacker News "holding to task" anyone?

The only result this achieves is telling these people with "reprehensible ideas" that they need to take their discussion elsewhere and avoid any communication with people who don't share their opinion.

This is the opposite of productive.

Before the era of identity politics that was virtuous, not so much in an identity politics era.

I didn’t downvote in this case but I am highly likely to downvote anything that comes from an account called throwaway* unless it contains some whistleblowing info or similar. If you can’t stand by your opinions even with a pseudonym because you are afraid of losing fake internet points then no one needs to see what you have to say.

"I invested with Bernie Madoff because his returns matched my investment goals". Yes, knowing why someone got conned is itself valuable information. But standing on its own, it reads as an endorsement.

Trump supporters have done nothing but alienate and engage in acts of harassment and violence against non-white folks, religious minorities and members of the LGBTQ community for the past 4-5 years. Should we be civil toward members of the KKK as well? Why is it always on us to be nice to people who hate us and want us dead?

Just like how you've been brainwashed by the TV into thinking the "others" are evil, trump people are brainwashed into thinking you hate them and want them dead.

Both sides see themselves as the victim and the others as the attacker.

>Why is it always on us to be nice to people who hate us and want us dead?

Do you see how this is perpetuating the problem?

I am from the Deep South. I have evangelical family members who have disowned others because of their beliefs. Who wish for the Kingdom of God to be realized, so that the non-believers can spend eternity in suffering. I grew up with peers who told me I would burn in hell for believing in evolution. Peers from middle class backgrounds with financial security, who then worry about "white genocide" and the "great replacement".

I have not been brainwashed by the TV to think these types of people are evil. I know them intimately. I know that they are multifaceted human beings, capable of love, but also capable of hate and great harm. I have family members that do believe other races are below them, aunts and uncles old enough to have fought against civil rights and desegregation. Much like Trump, who was 22 when MLK was assassinated. Grandparents who mutter about the war of northern aggression. They are still alive today, there are millions of people like them, and they vote. They push real policies that present a real threat to many Americans.

I have moved away from the South, and have new friends and family, who have directly been affected by the Muslim Ban, changes to immigration policy, and the rhetoric of Trump and his supporters these past four years. This is real harm.

"Both sides" are not the same, and there are real victims of such bigotry. To deny this reality perpetuates these problems.

Thank you, however I am not asking for your sympathy. I'm challenging your assertion that critics of Trump's supporters and OP are just "brainwashed by the TV", and your framing of this dynamic as just "both sides" seeing "themselves as the victim and the others as the attacker".

My experience was not some one off event, or story that applies to just my family, it reflects a culture of racism common in this country, particularly the South. We are talking about well documented multi-generational harm perpetuated by communities, businesses, and government.

"There are shitty people of all walks of life," is not sufficient to explain away the harms of institutionalized racism in the United States.

So, you do not need to call people "brainwashed" for recognizing the attitudes espoused by many Trump supporters. They have earned their reputation for good reason, though "some, I assume, are good people."

As for "the key question no one is asking is why did people vote for him in the first place and why did so many vote for him again?" In fact, many people have asked that question, have studied it extensively, and have found that racism and anti-immigrant attitudes were the strongest indicators of support for Trump (e.g. [1]). Yes, you're right that "because they're all racist" is a cop-out, there are other factors at play, but to say that "racial attitudes" is not a significant factor is to ignore the evidence.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/2016-election-race-class...

"Immigrants are just here to sign up for welfare"

"People from the south are racist bigots"

"Minorities are lazy criminals"

"White people who disagree with my politics are white supremacists"

These are all different flavors of the same poison.

Just how you can use your antidote to justify your statements of prejudice against groups of people you don't like, equivalent people from the right will citing FBI crime statistics until they're blue in the face to justify their prejudice.

In that respect there is parity between the right and left.

Acknowledging systemic racism, racial bigotry, and racist behavior, especially in the south, is grounded in plentiful historical evidence. Consequently, these are not "statements of prejudice against groups of people [I] don't like", and are no way "the same poison" as statements like "minorities are lazy criminals".

Likewise, understanding of the historical conditions and causal factors responsible for racial disparities in wealth, education, incarceration rates, and other outcomes is not equivalent to the regurgitation of FBI statistics. Anyone can cite statistics, what matters is understanding why these disparities exist. In that respect, both the "left" and "right" rely on such statistics, the difference is in their interpretations, or lack thereof. Someone who is familiar with the history of racial discrimination in the U.S. will offer causal explanations of these disparities, which are consistent with these statistics and often distribute responsibility among various institutions and policies. On the other hand, someone who reflexively cites FBI statistics without interpretation, is at best justifying their prejudice by means of willful ignorance. At worst, by omitting the underlying context and offering no explicit explanation, they imply that these disparities are actually explained race, so that the minority can be blamed, conveniently absolving themselves of any responsibility. Thus they perpetuate and spread this prejudice, relying on their others' existing biases, ignorance, and proclivity to accept simple explanations or easy scapegoats.

These behaviors are clearly not equivalent. One is born out of ignorance and desire for self absolution, which are timeless, and that is why the same arguments have been used for decades. The other relies on deeper understanding of historical conditions and acceptance of culpability, which takes significant time and collective effort to build and communicate, which is why it has taken decades for concepts like "institutionalized racism" to enter the broader public discourse. Furthermore, the former is by definition prejudice, bias based on an immutable attribute of others, their race, while the latter is instead critical of others' prejudicial behavior, behavior that can change.

So, this as not an issue of prejudice on "both sides", and framing it as such presents a shallow understanding of the situation. This is also demonstrated by the quotes you've constructed to characterize the "left" on this issue, e.g. "white people who disagree with my politics are white supremacists". No reputable person actually says this, though the quotes from the "right" that you've used are almost direct quotes from sources like the President Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. So, what would someone on the "left" actually say? Let's check out some quotes from Ibram X. Kendi; "Racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be a racist one minute and an antiracist the next", and, "whenever the antiracist sees individuals behaving positively or negatively, the antiracist sees exactly that: individuals behaving positively or negatively, not representatives of whole races". The quote you've constructed is not just an uncharitable interpretation, it's actually in direct contradiction to what people on the "left" are saying.

So, again, these are not equivalent. I also want to point out that you have not engaged with any of the specific points (or references) that I have made in my previous comments, but instead are changing topics, presenting straw man arguments, and doubling down on "both sides" false equivalence fallacies. It is extremely unlikely that everyone else is "brainwashed" while you are somehow an objective observer of "both sides", nothing is that simple. Approaching discussions in this way will only serve to protect your own ego and worldview, and prevent personal growth. I highly recommend that you reflect and seek out opinions different from your own, while thinking critically about the foundations for your beliefs and the environment from which you derived them.

Not now, not ever. I will always call out those that supported racism, bigotry, violence and Trump's admin did all that. The voice and platform he gave to the most deplorable people, has made me and others lose faith in all Americans.

But we need to teach them the errors of their ways or we will see more tragedies

There was literally no good reason to vote for Trump regardless of views (to be fair op didn't say he voted for Trump)