3 ms·

Except 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 y

Except 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 ago
Still, 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 ago
  It'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
Slansitartop 9y ago
> But if you are inactive, then you are choosing a single road: allow those with power to keep on as they are. Reducing politics to "choosing who has power" is a dangerous oversimplification, and one that I think is at the root of our shitty, polarized political culture that's unable to compromise on anything.
jjeaff 9y ago
So what are you doing right now to fight hunger in Africa? Nothing? So you support the status quo in Africa?

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Still, 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 ago
It'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

Slansitartop 9y ago

> But if you are inactive, then you are choosing a single road: allow those with power to keep on as they are. Reducing politics to "choosing who has power" is a dangerous oversimplification, and one that I think is at the root of our shitty, polarized political culture that's unable to compromise on anything.

jjeaff 9y ago

So what are you doing right now to fight hunger in Africa? Nothing? So you support the status quo in Africa?