4 ms·

Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when

by mejari 10y ago

Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when they very clearly aren't.

wonder_er 10y ago
You're right, both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems. I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid. I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)
- mejari 10y ago
  >Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. >I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
  - wonder_er 10y ago
    You're completely right on both points. I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it. Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!" It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly. This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this. So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. It kinda depends on what you mean by "across-the-board reduction of government power." I do believe that everyone is interested in peace. And justice. And creativity. And hope. And being able to relax and do what they want. And even if government isn't in opposition to these things in every case, empire certainly is. And people recognize that. So yes, deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support; certain aspects enjoy consensus.
    - alchemism 10y ago
      > deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support While 'No Empire' seems to be a Good Thing, in general, if the question was instead, "Which country should lead the global Empire if not America?" I wonder what the survey results would be.
- FabHK 10y ago
  > ...both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. That is (by way of the Median Voter Theorem) a consequence of the two-party system, which is (by way of Duverger's law) a consequence of winner-takes-all or first-past-the-post (and not proportional) voting, I'd say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

by mejari 10y ago

Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when they very clearly aren't.

wonder_er 10y ago

You're right, both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems. I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid. I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)

mejari 10y ago
>Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. >I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  You're completely right on both points. I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it. Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!" It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly. This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this. So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)
- jMyles 10y ago
  > Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. It kinda depends on what you mean by "across-the-board reduction of government power." I do believe that everyone is interested in peace. And justice. And creativity. And hope. And being able to relax and do what they want. And even if government isn't in opposition to these things in every case, empire certainly is. And people recognize that. So yes, deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support; certain aspects enjoy consensus.
  - alchemism 10y ago
    > deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support While 'No Empire' seems to be a Good Thing, in general, if the question was instead, "Which country should lead the global Empire if not America?" I wonder what the survey results would be.
FabHK 10y ago
> ...both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. That is (by way of the Median Voter Theorem) a consequence of the two-party system, which is (by way of Duverger's law) a consequence of winner-takes-all or first-past-the-post (and not proportional) voting, I'd say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting