4 ms·
Political dichotomies are also a myth.
by teawrecks 9y ago
Political dichotomies are also a myth.
- calcifer 9y agoSure, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Even with multiple opposition choices, everyone chooses something.
- sp332 9y agoThere might not be only one opposing view, but it's true that "staying out of politics" usually means handing more power to whoever is in power already.
- yndoendo 9y agoHow about the view of looking for exceptions and false statements and questions politician not by a party line nor a policy but by individual reasoning for said content? Being critical of all.
- sp332 9y agoThat seems... very politically active?
- Slansitartop 9y agoNo, "staying out of politics" just means refusing to try to tip the scales one way or another and/or being indifferent the outcome.
- calcifer 9y agoThat’s just a fancy way of saying “I’m fine with the status quo”.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoNo, that's just a way of saying "I don't care either way, and if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won't care".
- calcifer 9y ago> if the status quo completely changes tomorrow, I still won’t care … and would implicitly be supporting the new status quo.
- Slansitartop 9y agoIndifference ~= I support status quo Q, for any value of Q under consideration. Indifference is a thing, and it's not a positive statement in support of anything. Attempts to portray it as such seems to be a trick to try to draw people into polarized political debates.
- CompanionCuuube 9y agoIt's a hip rebranding of "if you're not for us, you're against us"
- dbingham 9y agoExcept for the dichotomy between "Change things" and "leave them more or less as they are". If you choose to be politically active, there are a million roads you could go. But if you are inactive, then you are choosing a single road: allow those with power to keep on as they are.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoStill, inactivity is not equivalent to choice. Otherwise we wouldn't have the term "negligence" (for when you really should be acting, but aren't), and the life in society would be an impossibility - after all, you and I, and most of us here, are very inactive about world hunger, human trafficking, human rights abuse, climate change, social justice, etc. Moreover, inactivity/neutrality is different from just "supporting status quo" in the sense that when the status quo changes, you still remain inactive/neutral, instead of fighting against the "new normal".
- dbingham 9y agoIt's interesting to me that you assume I am as inactive as you are. As it happens, when I'm not writing code for my job, I'm engaged in activism for those very causes. Remaining inactive or neutral is a choice. Even when that choice is made from apathy. And notice, when negligence leads to direct harm, we treat it as if it were a conscious choice -- with equivalent consequences. Of course there are limits to what any of us can achieve, and we all prioritize things differently. My point wasn't that we can be perfectly active, attempting to solve all problems at once. My point was that choosing not to engage is, in itself, a choice. A choice to let the course of events go as it will, with out attempting to affect it. History shows that often means letting those with power keep it and continue to govern as they will. That only changes when enough people choose to work to change things.
- gowld 9y ago"negligence" means, "choosing inaction when you _should have_ acted. It's a kind of choice. There is a bias that weights action more heavily than inaction, but that bias isn't 1:0, and that bias isn't supported by the authority of moral philosophical consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem