4 ms·

I have nothing interesting to say about the topic itself, but this struck me: "fed to you by the powers that be". One of the things that's most bizarre to me a

I have nothing interesting to say about the topic itself, but this struck me: "fed to you by the powers that be". One of the things that's most bizarre to me about rhetoric around culture war topics in America right now is that both sides want to take as an assumption that the other side is in charge. I'm not sure if this is more because, as a practical matter, existential threats tend to produce more alarm and action, or if it's more about the American love of the come-from-behind-to-win underdog trope.

thriftwy 9y ago
Exactly the same thing happens in Russian discourse. Both major "sides" see themself as suppressed and the other as being in charge. That allows to throw tantrums without ever admitting of mistakes. I wonder if it's universal in the age of learned helplessness.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > in the age of learned helplessness It's nothing so new...
sidlls 9y ago
What's this "both sides" and "assumptions"? People who have wealth tend to have much better access to politicians and more control over the economic and social conditions and constraints of a society. Consider for example this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... There isn't a need to assume anything. To the extent it's possible to be in a social science, it is a fact that the connected elite (e.g. those who attend Ivy Leagues as a result of their wealth) is "in charge." It's debatable to the extent the data permit, but the "side" asserting the non-elite are "in charge" doesn't have much to offer on that front.
kelukelugames 9y ago
What you point out is true in most political discussions, but I don't believe it is the case here. The powers that be are not Republicans or Democrats. They are the schools and the alums.

thriftwy 9y ago

Exactly the same thing happens in Russian discourse. Both major "sides" see themself as suppressed and the other as being in charge. That allows to throw tantrums without ever admitting of mistakes. I wonder if it's universal in the age of learned helplessness.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> in the age of learned helplessness It's nothing so new...

sidlls 9y ago

What's this "both sides" and "assumptions"? People who have wealth tend to have much better access to politicians and more control over the economic and social conditions and constraints of a society. Consider for example this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... There isn't a need to assume anything. To the extent it's possible to be in a social science, it is a fact that the connected elite (e.g. those who attend Ivy Leagues as a result of their wealth) is "in charge." It's debatable to the extent the data permit, but the "side" asserting the non-elite are "in charge" doesn't have much to offer on that front.

kelukelugames 9y ago

What you point out is true in most political discussions, but I don't believe it is the case here. The powers that be are not Republicans or Democrats. They are the schools and the alums.