7 ms·

One thing I kind of wonder is why is there an expectation that the political game at large is supposed to be interpretable or legible? In other words, why shoul

One thing I kind of wonder is why is there an expectation that the political game at large is supposed to be interpretable or legible? In other words, why shouldn't politics be strange? In most adversarial games we're bound to encounter sabotage and misinformation, with circumstantial evidence being the only kind you can encounter. So full out dismissal of conspiracies just because they "seem like tin-foil hat stuff" seems naive. It's hard work to dismiss bullshit but equivocally easy to dismiss what might otherwise be viable paths of inquiry. It is possible to take a rational approach. http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20chapter%208.html http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%2...

pizza 10y ago
Just watched a short video by one of my favorite podcasters, Doug Lain, on Althusser's concept of ideology [0]. To Althusser, there are two ways to make a society think a certain way: via repression (military force, economic force, etc) or ideology (why a pine tree in your house during Christmas, anyway?). What you're saying seems to me like using dismissal as a repressive force (by forfeit of social accord/klout/capital) for the sustenance of ideology (in this case, that things are as they seem without need of intricate/conspiracy theories) [0] What is an ideology? (or Althusser was crazy?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4NNDZ4X63I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4NNDZ4X63I
- bordercases 10y ago
  p much yo
  - pizza 10y ago
    word
erikb 10y ago
I think most people just don't know that the political game is a strategical, competitive game. Most people believe the common narrative that politics is the service(!) that should make your life comfortable on a city-wide, country-wide and global level which you pay for with taxes. E.g., $10/month to netflix for that I can watch tv shows. $400/month to government for that I don't get robbed by barbarian hordes from other countries. It's not the smartest point of view, but it's very common.
- pitt1980 10y ago
  Actually I'm not sure the exact opposite isn't what's more common I see a lot of people basically caught up in the narrative soap opera of 'who gets to be in charge', and who the perceive good guys and bad guys are And actually very little object level 'are we getting good customer service here?' analysis I'm sure there's some drama behind who gets to be CEO at Netflix, but the strategy behind that game is largely irrelevant to me
  - erikb 10y ago
    I think we are both right. You explain how politicians misunderstand the public's view. And I explain how the public misunderstands the politician's view. Both exists at the same time. Of course for us it's most important to get a service level as good as possible. But at the same time if we want to understand politicians we can not just assume that they would care about the same thing. They will use arguments about service levels if they are smart, but that's never their intentions. From a purely logic point of view, of course the other people's problem is only important to us if we need to influence them. That happens quite often though, and some people could also argue that if we want to be better than the people we critize than we need to deliver on empathy which is mostly what we miss from others.
- sgift 10y ago
  > It's not the smartest point of view, but it's very common. And the opposite view, that the government is an evil entity lurking in the shadows, out to get you and your family is smarter? Amusing.
  - jerf 10y ago
    That's one of the more naked uses of "false dichotomy" that I've seen in a while.
  - erikb 10y ago
    That's not the opposite view. The contesting view I support is that the government is a group of struggling humans playing game of thrones with each other (but mostly without the killing, firing is enough). E.g. the change of mind of Erdogan (a very common topic in European media these days). Coming from the taxes-for-political-service point of view, one would argue that Erdogan has become a really bad leader, killing and firing many of his people and fighting against the EU who is publicly acting like the big supporter of human rights. From the game of thrones point of view though it looks like he's struggling for years to get support from the EU, but they don't really support him. Now he seems to get support from Russia and maybe even China, so he decides to make EU the big enemy because that gains him favor with his people and strengthens his ties to Russia. From that point of view it's suddenly a very logical, maybe even smart move. One might even argue that he doesn't have another chance and if he wouldn't do it, he would end up losing his job, dead, or in jail and being replaced by another who is more willing to play good boy for the Russians.

pizza 10y ago

Just watched a short video by one of my favorite podcasters, Doug Lain, on Althusser's concept of ideology [0]. To Althusser, there are two ways to make a society think a certain way: via repression (military force, economic force, etc) or ideology (why a pine tree in your house during Christmas, anyway?). What you're saying seems to me like using dismissal as a repressive force (by forfeit of social accord/klout/capital) for the sustenance of ideology (in this case, that things are as they seem without need of intricate/conspiracy theories) [0] What is an ideology? (or Althusser was crazy?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4NNDZ4X63I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4NNDZ4X63I

bordercases 10y ago
p much yo
- pizza 10y ago
  word

erikb 10y ago

I think most people just don't know that the political game is a strategical, competitive game. Most people believe the common narrative that politics is the service(!) that should make your life comfortable on a city-wide, country-wide and global level which you pay for with taxes. E.g., $10/month to netflix for that I can watch tv shows. $400/month to government for that I don't get robbed by barbarian hordes from other countries. It's not the smartest point of view, but it's very common.

pitt1980 10y ago
Actually I'm not sure the exact opposite isn't what's more common I see a lot of people basically caught up in the narrative soap opera of 'who gets to be in charge', and who the perceive good guys and bad guys are And actually very little object level 'are we getting good customer service here?' analysis I'm sure there's some drama behind who gets to be CEO at Netflix, but the strategy behind that game is largely irrelevant to me
- erikb 10y ago
  I think we are both right. You explain how politicians misunderstand the public's view. And I explain how the public misunderstands the politician's view. Both exists at the same time. Of course for us it's most important to get a service level as good as possible. But at the same time if we want to understand politicians we can not just assume that they would care about the same thing. They will use arguments about service levels if they are smart, but that's never their intentions. From a purely logic point of view, of course the other people's problem is only important to us if we need to influence them. That happens quite often though, and some people could also argue that if we want to be better than the people we critize than we need to deliver on empathy which is mostly what we miss from others.
sgift 10y ago
> It's not the smartest point of view, but it's very common. And the opposite view, that the government is an evil entity lurking in the shadows, out to get you and your family is smarter? Amusing.
- jerf 10y ago
  That's one of the more naked uses of "false dichotomy" that I've seen in a while.
- erikb 10y ago
  That's not the opposite view. The contesting view I support is that the government is a group of struggling humans playing game of thrones with each other (but mostly without the killing, firing is enough). E.g. the change of mind of Erdogan (a very common topic in European media these days). Coming from the taxes-for-political-service point of view, one would argue that Erdogan has become a really bad leader, killing and firing many of his people and fighting against the EU who is publicly acting like the big supporter of human rights. From the game of thrones point of view though it looks like he's struggling for years to get support from the EU, but they don't really support him. Now he seems to get support from Russia and maybe even China, so he decides to make EU the big enemy because that gains him favor with his people and strengthens his ties to Russia. From that point of view it's suddenly a very logical, maybe even smart move. One might even argue that he doesn't have another chance and if he wouldn't do it, he would end up losing his job, dead, or in jail and being replaced by another who is more willing to play good boy for the Russians.