9 ms·

As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc. It's nice to t

As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc. It's nice to think of aspects of life that should be free from politics, but in reality that seems hard to achieve.

mehrdadn 8y ago
Is it only becoming more clear or are they actually becoming more intertwined too?
- adjkant 8y ago
  I think both as tech becomes more ubiquitous, but I think the clarity is coming from a lag in perception because of the exact sentiment of "keep politics out of tech". I think a lot of programmers, particularly ones from a generation older than the average tech worker today, got into the field for partially the reason of that separation. It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally. That type of ignorance is no longer possible in tech for the most part, but the desire for it still is there for some, in all generations.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally. I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally. Because most political involvement is precisely the opposite of effective helping. Politics is arguing that climate change is a communist/leftist/whatever invention. Tech is launching a satellite letting us quantify the actual impact. Politics is talking that education is important (except it must be the right education). Tech is giving people access to it (all of it) for free. Politics is driven by conflicting ideologies, and mostly detached from reality. Tech culture used to stick to the real world. Dilution of that is what people complain when they lament tech mixing with politics. (Yes, I'm probably older than average tech worker.)
    - adjkant 8y ago
      What politics in the US government currently is or what it is in a typical discussion between two people on the street does not define politics. I'm also not talking political science. I'm also talking morality, not just politics. Your grievances seem to be about the current political climate rather than politics generally. I'm with you on the political climate currently for sure. Given HN's opinion of itself, I'd hope they'd at least strive for better in political discussions though. The classic example is the building of the atom bomb. Sure some people may build a satellite, but far more will program things to show ads. The choice alone to work on the satellite and not the ads is both a moral and political decision. If you don't make the distinction, you're ignoring the underlying issue. And it's of course not as black and white as "make a satellite to get data for science" and "make ads". You're right that tech can power change in a positive way, but it's much more about the choices we make in regards to what tech we work on. That's exactly my point. All tech is a tool that must be used with care.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        We seem to be in agreement after all. I wish there were two simple, distinct words - one for what you meant by "politics", and one for what I meant. My gripe isn't with US political climate though - it's the same thing everywhere, at every level. The same issues apply to New York and San Francisco, and to my hometown of Kraków. They apply to my country of birth, Poland, and they apply to every other country in Europe, and to EU. My problem is with the facet of politics that involves ingroup-outgroup mentality, appeals to emotion, following ideologies, and doing literally everything else except solving problems at hand. This is what I wanted to never see tech mixed up in. You're very right that doing tech inherently involves a lot of moral choices about what to work on, how to work on it, and how to use the result.
        adjkant 8y ago
        Here's the thing: that "how to use the result" part means that you have to get involved in politics as known by common definition and all its mess, inefficiency, terrible campaigning, and more. It's a game of slowly moving things by inches (not to say that radical thinkers and politicians don't have their effects, but rather they help pull towards a side). You clearly care about the morality and would want to have political action based off it (in so that it was effective, etc). So given that, why is time spent on changing political mechanisms and enacting change using new technology any less important than the tech itself? In fact, why isn't it more important than the tech? I'm not trying to make the case for one side here, but more tease out that no matter the sad state of politics everywhere right now, it's still crucial to taking the tools to have any effect. I can't say I know the specific path to change, but I think it's important we value the problem and not dismiss politics as a whole. I personally am interested and have stuff on my reading list for the role of technocratic government setups over democratic decisions for certain fields/areas of government like infrastructure. If you work and discuss ways to fix a political system you do a lot more than trying to stay out - who are you then leaving all those decisions to? Going back to the original thread, you said this: > I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally If you ignore the political side, it doesn't matter if you invent the cure for cancer if all the politicians decide to burn your paper upon reading it.
gameswithgo 8y ago
Nothing can be free from politics, or ever is, no matter how much you wish it was or imagine it is.
danjayh 8y ago
This situation in particular is more complicated than the media portrays. Separating children from parents is obviously bad, and needs to stop. Zero tolerance for illegal crossings, on the other hand, is probably actually good. The prior policy of letting anyone with children go & handing them a court date heavily incentivized human trafficking of children, because a child was a golden ticket into the USA (and indeed, many children were trafficked as a result). To eliminate that incentive, deportation after an illegal crossing needs to be enforced, even when a child is in tow. I think that the best answer is detention as a family during the process of prosecution and deportation, but I understand that there are some legal hurdles to that. They need to work them out, and fast.
- mc32 8y ago
  One of the issues --which I think has been recently addressed, is that not only political prisoners and people persecuted by a bad government could seek asylum, but other things would qualify --even things which affect Americans, would be grounds for asylum. Obviously many are economic migrants (the congress need to work on seasonal work visas), but that's not grounds for asylum. You even hear of how they get coached for the interview. What keywords to blurt out which trigger a greater consideration.
- adjkant 8y ago
  The basic problem with that line of thinking is that most don't think immigration is such a large problem that we must have a zero-tolerance policy that does such harm. Immigration is a highly politicized issue that in reality has limited effects. Yes, it's more nuanced than "this is evil", but it's pretty inhumane and overly nationalistic / American-centered if you ask me.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > is that most don't think immigration is such a large problem that we must have a zero-tolerance policy that does such harm. According to who? I don't think that's true at all. I think immigration is the most important policy to get right.
coliveira 8y ago
The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.
- vinhboy 8y ago
  HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible. The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    There are many forums for discussing and debating politics. HN can decide not to be one of them; nothing reprehensible about it.
    - zorpner 8y ago
      We are discussing politics, in every single post here. When people say we shouldn't, they're saying they want things to stay the same.
    - adjkant 8y ago
      I read this as "HN can decide that technology and morality don't ever come into conflict" and see it as both ridiculous and false. What else are all the posts about Facebook/Uber/Net Neutrality/Security about? These are primarily moral issues that relate to tech, not tech itself. Most commenters here regularly engage in these conversations, as they should. But not allowing for other conversations to veer into the discussion of politics and morality isn't realistic. We need to be having those conversations more and more as tech becomes a part of the world. The original post in this thread is 100% correct. You can't just isolate tech.
  - star-castle 8y ago
anoplus 8y ago
The relation between politics and tech is the main reason I upvoted this post. I am now more than ever recognize both can either enable or disable each other function smoothly. That is, improving everyone lives. Edit: down voting this message won't discourage me to say it
int_19h 8y ago
Any time three or more humans interact, it's politics.
- ionised 8y ago
  It's not though, is it?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    We are conditioned in many ways to think of the myriads of unwritten rules and customs that surround our day-to-day interaction as natural and obvious. But they are a product of our society and its culture, and a very political product at that - they are what makes abstract hierarchies of power in that society concrete. It manifests even in very simple things, like how you address others (think about things like the T-V distinction, or, in some languages, how different names the person has can be used in different combinations to claim or defer to authority). When you have more than one person, and they interact with each other, they need to deal with things like authority, rules, fairness etc - all of which are political. The reason why I wrote "three" is because it's the minimum at which you can have the majority forcing some authority or rules on the unwilling minority, which is when that politics becomes explicit.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
People answering to you that "everything is politics" or that "separating tech and politics is naïve" are - perhaps unwittingly - doing a motte-and-bailey argument. The motte here is "whenever 3+ people meet, it's already politics" and "if it impacts people, it's politics". The bailey is political parties, ideologies, rallies, buzzwords, presidents. There are two definitions of "politics" at play that are being mixed, where they absolutely shouldn't.
- refoundglory 8y ago
  If the people you meet and associate with and and the ways in which you impact other people aren't influencing and being influenced by the parties, ideologies, buzzwords and presidents you support, then you probably need to think a little more deeply about both of them.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  “Ideology” is sufficiently broad a concept that it infects literally everything.
- dabbledash 8y ago
  Ah. I see this rhetorical slight of hand all the time. Didn’t know there was a name for it!

mehrdadn 8y ago

Is it only becoming more clear or are they actually becoming more intertwined too?

adjkant 8y ago
I think both as tech becomes more ubiquitous, but I think the clarity is coming from a lag in perception because of the exact sentiment of "keep politics out of tech". I think a lot of programmers, particularly ones from a generation older than the average tech worker today, got into the field for partially the reason of that separation. It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally. That type of ignorance is no longer possible in tech for the most part, but the desire for it still is there for some, in all generations.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > It's honestly a great way to live a fulfilling life without having to address the bigger problems in the world personally. I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally. Because most political involvement is precisely the opposite of effective helping. Politics is arguing that climate change is a communist/leftist/whatever invention. Tech is launching a satellite letting us quantify the actual impact. Politics is talking that education is important (except it must be the right education). Tech is giving people access to it (all of it) for free. Politics is driven by conflicting ideologies, and mostly detached from reality. Tech culture used to stick to the real world. Dilution of that is what people complain when they lament tech mixing with politics. (Yes, I'm probably older than average tech worker.)
  - adjkant 8y ago
    What politics in the US government currently is or what it is in a typical discussion between two people on the street does not define politics. I'm also not talking political science. I'm also talking morality, not just politics. Your grievances seem to be about the current political climate rather than politics generally. I'm with you on the political climate currently for sure. Given HN's opinion of itself, I'd hope they'd at least strive for better in political discussions though. The classic example is the building of the atom bomb. Sure some people may build a satellite, but far more will program things to show ads. The choice alone to work on the satellite and not the ads is both a moral and political decision. If you don't make the distinction, you're ignoring the underlying issue. And it's of course not as black and white as "make a satellite to get data for science" and "make ads". You're right that tech can power change in a positive way, but it's much more about the choices we make in regards to what tech we work on. That's exactly my point. All tech is a tool that must be used with care.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      We seem to be in agreement after all. I wish there were two simple, distinct words - one for what you meant by "politics", and one for what I meant. My gripe isn't with US political climate though - it's the same thing everywhere, at every level. The same issues apply to New York and San Francisco, and to my hometown of Kraków. They apply to my country of birth, Poland, and they apply to every other country in Europe, and to EU. My problem is with the facet of politics that involves ingroup-outgroup mentality, appeals to emotion, following ideologies, and doing literally everything else except solving problems at hand. This is what I wanted to never see tech mixed up in. You're very right that doing tech inherently involves a lot of moral choices about what to work on, how to work on it, and how to use the result.
      - adjkant 8y ago
        Here's the thing: that "how to use the result" part means that you have to get involved in politics as known by common definition and all its mess, inefficiency, terrible campaigning, and more. It's a game of slowly moving things by inches (not to say that radical thinkers and politicians don't have their effects, but rather they help pull towards a side). You clearly care about the morality and would want to have political action based off it (in so that it was effective, etc). So given that, why is time spent on changing political mechanisms and enacting change using new technology any less important than the tech itself? In fact, why isn't it more important than the tech? I'm not trying to make the case for one side here, but more tease out that no matter the sad state of politics everywhere right now, it's still crucial to taking the tools to have any effect. I can't say I know the specific path to change, but I think it's important we value the problem and not dismiss politics as a whole. I personally am interested and have stuff on my reading list for the role of technocratic government setups over democratic decisions for certain fields/areas of government like infrastructure. If you work and discuss ways to fix a political system you do a lot more than trying to stay out - who are you then leaving all those decisions to? Going back to the original thread, you said this: > I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally If you ignore the political side, it doesn't matter if you invent the cure for cancer if all the politicians decide to burn your paper upon reading it.

gameswithgo 8y ago

Nothing can be free from politics, or ever is, no matter how much you wish it was or imagine it is.

danjayh 8y ago

This situation in particular is more complicated than the media portrays. Separating children from parents is obviously bad, and needs to stop. Zero tolerance for illegal crossings, on the other hand, is probably actually good. The prior policy of letting anyone with children go & handing them a court date heavily incentivized human trafficking of children, because a child was a golden ticket into the USA (and indeed, many children were trafficked as a result). To eliminate that incentive, deportation after an illegal crossing needs to be enforced, even when a child is in tow. I think that the best answer is detention as a family during the process of prosecution and deportation, but I understand that there are some legal hurdles to that. They need to work them out, and fast.

mc32 8y ago
One of the issues --which I think has been recently addressed, is that not only political prisoners and people persecuted by a bad government could seek asylum, but other things would qualify --even things which affect Americans, would be grounds for asylum. Obviously many are economic migrants (the congress need to work on seasonal work visas), but that's not grounds for asylum. You even hear of how they get coached for the interview. What keywords to blurt out which trigger a greater consideration.
adjkant 8y ago
The basic problem with that line of thinking is that most don't think immigration is such a large problem that we must have a zero-tolerance policy that does such harm. Immigration is a highly politicized issue that in reality has limited effects. Yes, it's more nuanced than "this is evil", but it's pretty inhumane and overly nationalistic / American-centered if you ask me.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > is that most don't think immigration is such a large problem that we must have a zero-tolerance policy that does such harm. According to who? I don't think that's true at all. I think immigration is the most important policy to get right.

coliveira 8y ago

The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.

vinhboy 8y ago
HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible. The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
- ams6110 8y ago
  There are many forums for discussing and debating politics. HN can decide not to be one of them; nothing reprehensible about it.
  - zorpner 8y ago
    We are discussing politics, in every single post here. When people say we shouldn't, they're saying they want things to stay the same.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    I read this as "HN can decide that technology and morality don't ever come into conflict" and see it as both ridiculous and false. What else are all the posts about Facebook/Uber/Net Neutrality/Security about? These are primarily moral issues that relate to tech, not tech itself. Most commenters here regularly engage in these conversations, as they should. But not allowing for other conversations to veer into the discussion of politics and morality isn't realistic. We need to be having those conversations more and more as tech becomes a part of the world. The original post in this thread is 100% correct. You can't just isolate tech.
- star-castle 8y ago

anoplus 8y ago

The relation between politics and tech is the main reason I upvoted this post. I am now more than ever recognize both can either enable or disable each other function smoothly. That is, improving everyone lives. Edit: down voting this message won't discourage me to say it

int_19h 8y ago

Any time three or more humans interact, it's politics.

ionised 8y ago
It's not though, is it?
- int_19h 8y ago
  We are conditioned in many ways to think of the myriads of unwritten rules and customs that surround our day-to-day interaction as natural and obvious. But they are a product of our society and its culture, and a very political product at that - they are what makes abstract hierarchies of power in that society concrete. It manifests even in very simple things, like how you address others (think about things like the T-V distinction, or, in some languages, how different names the person has can be used in different combinations to claim or defer to authority). When you have more than one person, and they interact with each other, they need to deal with things like authority, rules, fairness etc - all of which are political. The reason why I wrote "three" is because it's the minimum at which you can have the majority forcing some authority or rules on the unwilling minority, which is when that politics becomes explicit.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

People answering to you that "everything is politics" or that "separating tech and politics is naïve" are - perhaps unwittingly - doing a motte-and-bailey argument. The motte here is "whenever 3+ people meet, it's already politics" and "if it impacts people, it's politics". The bailey is political parties, ideologies, rallies, buzzwords, presidents. There are two definitions of "politics" at play that are being mixed, where they absolutely shouldn't.

refoundglory 8y ago
If the people you meet and associate with and and the ways in which you impact other people aren't influencing and being influenced by the parties, ideologies, buzzwords and presidents you support, then you probably need to think a little more deeply about both of them.
TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
“Ideology” is sufficiently broad a concept that it infects literally everything.
dabbledash 8y ago
Ah. I see this rhetorical slight of hand all the time. Didn’t know there was a name for it!