7 ms·

People aren't willing to make their politicians accountable. It's always the other person's fault, the other side's extremes; never their own. You've got Clint

People aren't willing to make their politicians accountable. It's always the other person's fault, the other side's extremes; never their own. You've got Clinton running an email server exposed to the world as secretary of state, ignoring warnings about it and then lying about it. Yet she will probably end up getting elected because it's all a "Republican conspiracy". Meanwhile, Trump is calling a judge's ruling into question about his if not fraudulent, largely worthless "university" due to their race. Then there's Bernie who refuses to acknowledge any extremes of socialism. Oh, yes, and then there's the Lt. Gov. from my state Tweeting a statement like this after the worst mass shooting in US history. It's either sick or incredibly tone deaf: "A man reaps what he sows." [0] Knowing his stances on Muslims and the LGBT community, it's not clear what he's referring to. This is a sickness and the modern tech industry is directly responsible. We are creating echo chambers. There is endemic corruption and misinformation at all levels. Will we do something? We used to have big dreams, even if the reality on the ground didn't live up to them. Now we just Tweet. http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patr...

yequalsx 10y ago
The only controversial thing in your post is the last paragraph. This part will be the least talked about and thus demonstrate your overall point.
threatofrain 10y ago
People enjoy echo chambers and they like intuitive morality -- where their intuitions naturally judge themselves moral. People have the prerogative to associate with whomever they want in real life and on Facebook, and people have the prerogative to engage in mutual communications with those they wish. That means people have the prerogative to create their own bubbles, which exists as much online as it does offline. This is the product of the sum of free choices, not the people who work on the iPhone or Instagram. The tech industry simply made it possible for people to communicate cheaply and easily, but technology workers do not own the tech industry, and they do not own the media industry. The technology community is numerically tiny and disorganized as a voting bloc. They don't even have a union, or a professional association like the APA or AMA, which are known for their lobbying power and organization. And most importantly, they are not owners. They do not own the handful of American media empires. It is not their prerogative to select which talking heads will show up to which distribution channel. That is the prerogative of Rupert Murdoch and friends. So when is there going to be the American Technology Association to build consensus and look for channels of influence?
eldude 10y ago
The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever: "The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  You are correct. The original article did not have that information.
BTinfinity 10y ago
I agree with what you say, expect what you say about the tech industry being directly responsible. Could you expand a little more on that? I don't really see the connection between the tech industry and the US electorate..
- lacerta 10y ago
  I think he is referring to social echo chambers, ie. twitter/facebook/reddit and so on.
  - BTinfinity 10y ago
    Oh, I see. Thank you :)
- jdavis703 10y ago
  We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"
  - chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
    It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place? I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse. I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own? With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views. [0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org http://debate.org
danharaj 10y ago
> People aren't willing to make their party accountable. Consider the possibility that party politics and bureaucracy are set up to perpetuate their internal power structures and make outside interference costly. It's "their" party in the sense that constituents are blamed for the failure of the political system but the system is set up so that no individual can constructively engage with the system without incredible sacrifice. I think this is a crucial criticism of liberal democracy. All political systems proscribe action taken outside of their logic, but their logic is set up to preserve the power structures that define that logic.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Given both Trump and Bernie (to a lesser extent) it looks like both the main parties are pretty crap at this. Basically Both American political parties are still 18th century alliances with no strong party discipline.
RyanMcGreal 10y ago
> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now. When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to. I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that. JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career. Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
kelukelugames 10y ago
Can you please provide a link to the tweet? Thanks.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It has since been deleted, but updated the original post with a source.
vaadu 10y ago
Obama's election says otherwise. Trump's and Cruz's victories say otherwise.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Obama couldn't get anything done for 8 years becuase of massive obstructionism, fueled by a persecution complex on both sides. Trump and Cruz are ideologues which have valid criticisms of some things but take those to extremes. Cruz acts like Christians are getting beheaded on American streets in his complaints about religious liberty. It's just more of the same in different packaging. The other party is "the enemy" instead of people with valid complaints to be engaged.
walshemj 10y ago
well to do that you'd need to move to 1m1v (one member one vote) and scrap the primary system.
LionessLover 10y ago
You would be more believable if you had practiced what you preach and picked one of your favorite politicians to criticize, not one from the other side. Seem hypocritical.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  I just criticized Clinton, Trump, Sanders, and Paxton, people across the political spectrum. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've taken a criticism of our political system as a whole and turned it into targeting your person. How?
  - LionessLover 10y ago
    > into targeting your person Eh, what???
mikeash 10y ago
If Clinton wins, it won't be because her email stuff is dismissed as a conspiracy, it will be because we only have two choices and the other one is vastly worse. (Don't try to tell me about other choices. Third party candidates are the frictionless pulleys of American politics.)
- colmvp 10y ago
  Trump might talk a lot, but we know what Clinton has done with her voting record and her interactions behind the scenes interactions with Obama as Secretary of State. It's surprising /frustrating to me so many Democrats on my Facebook glaze over this when considering her over Trump or even Sanders. Yeah, she has experience. But she also has some very poor choices in her voting record (including Iraq) and is simply part of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes, we know what to expect from Clinton, and I don't particularly like it, but it's still way, way, way, way better than Trump. If she wins it'll be because a lot of people share that opinion, not because the masses actually like her.
- douche 10y ago
  If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    Misogyny has no place here.
    - douche 10y ago
      You're projecting. I simply said I cannot tolerate the frequencies of her speaking voice. There are men whose voices are profoundly unpleasant to listen to also - it has no bearing on which variety of wedding tackle they are packing. It's like nails on a chalkboard.
H0n3sty 10y ago
Re Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's post: "Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy," the statement said. "The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday...We regret the unfortunate timing of these posts and ask everyone to join us in praying for the people of Orlando in this awful time." http://www.people.com/article/texas-dan-patrick-tweets-bible-verse-orlando-shooting http://www.people.com/article/texas-dan-patrick-tweets-bible...

yequalsx 10y ago

The only controversial thing in your post is the last paragraph. This part will be the least talked about and thus demonstrate your overall point.

threatofrain 10y ago

People enjoy echo chambers and they like intuitive morality -- where their intuitions naturally judge themselves moral. People have the prerogative to associate with whomever they want in real life and on Facebook, and people have the prerogative to engage in mutual communications with those they wish. That means people have the prerogative to create their own bubbles, which exists as much online as it does offline. This is the product of the sum of free choices, not the people who work on the iPhone or Instagram. The tech industry simply made it possible for people to communicate cheaply and easily, but technology workers do not own the tech industry, and they do not own the media industry. The technology community is numerically tiny and disorganized as a voting bloc. They don't even have a union, or a professional association like the APA or AMA, which are known for their lobbying power and organization. And most importantly, they are not owners. They do not own the handful of American media empires. It is not their prerogative to select which talking heads will show up to which distribution channel. That is the prerogative of Rupert Murdoch and friends. So when is there going to be the American Technology Association to build consensus and look for channels of influence?

eldude 10y ago

The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever: "The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."

aaron-lebo 10y ago
You are correct. The original article did not have that information.

BTinfinity 10y ago

I agree with what you say, expect what you say about the tech industry being directly responsible. Could you expand a little more on that? I don't really see the connection between the tech industry and the US electorate..

lacerta 10y ago
I think he is referring to social echo chambers, ie. twitter/facebook/reddit and so on.
- BTinfinity 10y ago
  Oh, I see. Thank you :)
jdavis703 10y ago
We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"
- chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
  It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place? I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse. I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own? With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views. [0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org http://debate.org

danharaj 10y ago

> People aren't willing to make their party accountable. Consider the possibility that party politics and bureaucracy are set up to perpetuate their internal power structures and make outside interference costly. It's "their" party in the sense that constituents are blamed for the failure of the political system but the system is set up so that no individual can constructively engage with the system without incredible sacrifice. I think this is a crucial criticism of liberal democracy. All political systems proscribe action taken outside of their logic, but their logic is set up to preserve the power structures that define that logic.

walshemj 10y ago
Given both Trump and Bernie (to a lesser extent) it looks like both the main parties are pretty crap at this. Basically Both American political parties are still 18th century alliances with no strong party discipline.

RyanMcGreal 10y ago

> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.

pessimizer 10y ago
If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President. Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now. When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to. I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that. JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career. Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?

kelukelugames 10y ago

Can you please provide a link to the tweet? Thanks.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It has since been deleted, but updated the original post with a source.

vaadu 10y ago

Obama's election says otherwise. Trump's and Cruz's victories say otherwise.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Obama couldn't get anything done for 8 years becuase of massive obstructionism, fueled by a persecution complex on both sides. Trump and Cruz are ideologues which have valid criticisms of some things but take those to extremes. Cruz acts like Christians are getting beheaded on American streets in his complaints about religious liberty. It's just more of the same in different packaging. The other party is "the enemy" instead of people with valid complaints to be engaged.

walshemj 10y ago

well to do that you'd need to move to 1m1v (one member one vote) and scrap the primary system.

LionessLover 10y ago

You would be more believable if you had practiced what you preach and picked one of your favorite politicians to criticize, not one from the other side. Seem hypocritical.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
I just criticized Clinton, Trump, Sanders, and Paxton, people across the political spectrum. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've taken a criticism of our political system as a whole and turned it into targeting your person. How?
- LionessLover 10y ago
  > into targeting your person Eh, what???

mikeash 10y ago

If Clinton wins, it won't be because her email stuff is dismissed as a conspiracy, it will be because we only have two choices and the other one is vastly worse. (Don't try to tell me about other choices. Third party candidates are the frictionless pulleys of American politics.)

colmvp 10y ago
Trump might talk a lot, but we know what Clinton has done with her voting record and her interactions behind the scenes interactions with Obama as Secretary of State. It's surprising /frustrating to me so many Democrats on my Facebook glaze over this when considering her over Trump or even Sanders. Yeah, she has experience. But she also has some very poor choices in her voting record (including Iraq) and is simply part of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Yes, we know what to expect from Clinton, and I don't particularly like it, but it's still way, way, way, way better than Trump. If she wins it'll be because a lot of people share that opinion, not because the masses actually like her.
douche 10y ago
If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  Misogyny has no place here.
  - douche 10y ago
    You're projecting. I simply said I cannot tolerate the frequencies of her speaking voice. There are men whose voices are profoundly unpleasant to listen to also - it has no bearing on which variety of wedding tackle they are packing. It's like nails on a chalkboard.

H0n3sty 10y ago

Re Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's post: "Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy," the statement said. "The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday...We regret the unfortunate timing of these posts and ask everyone to join us in praying for the people of Orlando in this awful time." http://www.people.com/article/texas-dan-patrick-tweets-bible-verse-orlando-shooting http://www.people.com/article/texas-dan-patrick-tweets-bible...