4 ms·

They violently forced you to click on the link in HN and violated your individual rights?

gragas 10y ago
Not at all. Still, it seems that every single op-ed in the Times has to do with why X liberal opinion is moral and, if you think otherwise, then you are either stupid or immoral. I have yet to see a single NYT opinion article that isn't formatted in such a way.
- gipp 10y ago
  That description really doesn't apply to this article at all. I'm not sure how "working on a small, local level is probably more effective for individuals" is a liberal opinion, and any judgments on _you_ from the author would seem to just be your own projections, as there's nothing like that in here.
  - gragas 10y ago
    >I'm not sure how "working on a small, local level is probably more effective for individuals" is a liberal opinion Sure, the overall message may not be liberal. But there are numerous liberal ideologies that the author subtly sticks in to his article as if they are untenably true. E.g., liberal views about - Syrian refugees - The European migrant crisis - Globalism - Pope Francis He even uses these views to say "hey, you should care about these things and take my side if you want 2017 to be better than 2016". Perhaps I should've pointed these things out in my original comment, since these subtleties might not be very obvious when reading them, if you are a liberal yourself.
    - jonas21 10y ago
      The author of the piece is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. I'm not sure why you would find his views particularly liberal.
  - hsitz 10y ago
    I agree. If anything, the idea tends to be a conservative one, given that conservatives tend to avoid problem solving of any kind at the federal (i.e., large scale) level. Conservatives fight against solving almost everything at national level, want problem solving to be smaller, more local. This tends to be an issue for progressives because rich localities have fewer problems (but many resources to solve them) and poor localities tend to have more problems (but fewer resources to solve them).
    - WalterSear 10y ago
      And, then, when they have power at the state level, they invariably do shit like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/30/yes-this-is-real-michigan-just-banned-banning-plastic-bags/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20... Forcing their will and the will of their lobbyists on those below them. Conservatives' professed interest in smaller more, individualized and localized solutions is a shell game.
- pmyteh 10y ago
  The writer is a prominent (free-market) conservative. As a liberal, I much prefer that we live in a world where my political opponents are also trying to make the world a better place rather than being mustache-twirling Hollywood villains. So please don't assume that 'giving a shit' is a liberal characteristic: it's (indirectly) slightly flattering but profoundly unhelpful for actually getting things done.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Not at all. Still, it seems that every single op-ed in the Times has to do with why X liberal opinion is moral and, if you think otherwise, then you are either stupid or immoral. I have yet to see a single NYT opinion article that isn't formatted in such a way.

gipp 10y ago
That description really doesn't apply to this article at all. I'm not sure how "working on a small, local level is probably more effective for individuals" is a liberal opinion, and any judgments on _you_ from the author would seem to just be your own projections, as there's nothing like that in here.
- gragas 10y ago
  >I'm not sure how "working on a small, local level is probably more effective for individuals" is a liberal opinion Sure, the overall message may not be liberal. But there are numerous liberal ideologies that the author subtly sticks in to his article as if they are untenably true. E.g., liberal views about - Syrian refugees - The European migrant crisis - Globalism - Pope Francis He even uses these views to say "hey, you should care about these things and take my side if you want 2017 to be better than 2016". Perhaps I should've pointed these things out in my original comment, since these subtleties might not be very obvious when reading them, if you are a liberal yourself.
  - jonas21 10y ago
    The author of the piece is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. I'm not sure why you would find his views particularly liberal.
- hsitz 10y ago
  I agree. If anything, the idea tends to be a conservative one, given that conservatives tend to avoid problem solving of any kind at the federal (i.e., large scale) level. Conservatives fight against solving almost everything at national level, want problem solving to be smaller, more local. This tends to be an issue for progressives because rich localities have fewer problems (but many resources to solve them) and poor localities tend to have more problems (but fewer resources to solve them).
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    And, then, when they have power at the state level, they invariably do shit like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/30/yes-this-is-real-michigan-just-banned-banning-plastic-bags/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20... Forcing their will and the will of their lobbyists on those below them. Conservatives' professed interest in smaller more, individualized and localized solutions is a shell game.
pmyteh 10y ago
The writer is a prominent (free-market) conservative. As a liberal, I much prefer that we live in a world where my political opponents are also trying to make the world a better place rather than being mustache-twirling Hollywood villains. So please don't assume that 'giving a shit' is a liberal characteristic: it's (indirectly) slightly flattering but profoundly unhelpful for actually getting things done.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]