8 ms·

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to m

by slg 7y ago

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better." I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society. You certainly have the right to do that, but that abdication can't be apolitical. It is instead a tacit endorsement of the status quo. How good or bad that is depends on your personal politics and whoever happens to be in political control at the time. One example that I think most people on HN can agree on is climate change. You can either work to fight climate change or you are allowing our current path of ignoring the problem to continue. Think of it like inertia. If we don't interact with a political issue, it will keep moving unchanged forever. The only way it changes is when we apply political force to it.

skybrian 7y ago
If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. What organizations do you support, and why? Not this content-free guilt-mongering, it doesn't help anyone.
- Clubber 7y ago
  Honestly, for me now, neither of the big two political parties, at least at the federal level. Join any organization that fights for your constitutional rights: all of them. People have to understand that these interests are so entrenched and powerful, and the game is so rigged, it will only get worse.
- weare138 7y ago
  > If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. Asking someone to tell you what you're supposed to do defeats the purpose of participating, which was kind of the point the OP was making.
- slg 7y ago
  >If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. Become involved. I think the minimum you should do is to vote in every election in your municipality. One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. You can even just submit your entire ballot blank. Politicians can't see who voted for what, but they can see if you show up to the polls. They see which demographics vote, what issues those demographics care about, and they adjust their platform accordingly. This is one of the primary reasons that people say there aren't any politicians who represent their values. We need to break that feedback loop. >What organizations do you support, and why? HN is not the place for that discussion. >Not this content-free guilt-mongering, it doesn't help anyone. I am simply trying to get people to give up this notion that political neutrality is a virtue or something to be proud of. Refusing to participate in politics doesn't make politics go away. If this comment gets one person to reconsider that stance, I would consider that helping.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    >> One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. Have you considered why this is, rather than just thinking our population are a bunch of idiots who don't like to vote? Consider the incentives (or lack thereof) that make people do this.
  - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    >Become involved. I think the minimum you should do is to vote in every election in your municipality. One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. Hot take: voting is not ceasing to be apolitical. Voting is something you do, usually once or twice a year every few years. If you vote and don't take part in any collective action beyond that, you are apolitical. >HN is not the place for that discussion. This is typical "radical liberal" cowardice: insist that everyone must stop living apolitical lives, get organized, get involved, agitate, educate, organize... except by involved, you actually mean taking the most individualist, minimal form of political action available, rather than actually being political. For the record, I send regular dues to the DSA and ACLU, as well as belonging to a local Democratic caucus. Socialism, as it turns out, does indeed take up quite a lot of evenings. Being actually political, I am spending my interventions in this thread sticking up for the right of others to be apolitical, because frankly, most political organizations are currently extraordinarily hostile to anyone who wants to get properly involved, to be political in the proper way, without agreeing a priori to a party line. And why shouldn't they be, from their own point of view? Everything from the Republican Party to the Neighborhood Progressives maintain the convenient fiction that they are private clubs with a right to run themselves according to their private standards, rather than being, at least aspirationally, collective community assemblies. All of which is to say: why should you subject yourself to an environment you find unpleasant on a massive and regular basis, while that environment insists you're free to leave at any time? The answer is, as you had said, because that environment also insists that any failure to show up and be part of the private club activities is letting the enemy win. Sort out your distinctions between private and public institutions.
insickness 7y ago
> most people on HN can agree on is climate change. There are many aspects of the climate change issue where disagreement is reasonable. Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How much governmental intervention is helpful? How accurate are predictions of what is coming? What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? There is no correct path forward. To say you think we can all agree on climate change implies that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
- slg 7y ago
  You are right, I could have phrased that better. We certainly won't all agree on the specific path forward. What I meant was that most people on here can probably agree that our current path is not adequately addressing the problem, that changes need to be made going forward, and those changes require political action.
  - avmich 7y ago
    Importantly we need to understand that we can't require first to have that agreement and only after that start addressing the problem itself. Just like with space exploration, where we can't postpone it till there will be no hunger on Earth, we can't postpone acting on climate crisis until we agree on how to act. We have to act without full agreement.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      And at best we will get expansive half measures. The best thing that could happen to climate science would be to decouple from political ideology.
      - avmich 7y ago
        That's a really tall order. To have science - in general, since if that happens with climate it probably happens with other areas - to be decoupled from politics is to significantly change our current practices of governance. Hopefully for better - but it's a hard task to do.
protonfish 7y ago
I think it's even worse than you say. By avoiding politics you tacitly endorse the status quo. You can't opt out - everyone's speech and actions affect the political landscapes no matter how much you would rather pretend that you are above it.
- tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
  > By avoiding politics you tacitly endorse the status quo. A statement wrong on so many levels. Good grief, we really need to start emphasizing philosophy again in our society. > no matter how much you would rather pretend that you are above it. And a very wrong assumption that people who would rather not engage in politics, or at least public displays of political affiliation somehow must all think they are "above" it. I usually have a word to describe people who tend to think along these lines: young.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > I usually have a word to describe people who tend to think along these lines: young. "Ask the young. They know everything."
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >A statement wrong on so many levels. Good grief, we really need to start emphasizing philosophy again in our society. Ironically, many philosophers, from Rousseau to Marx to Marcuse would probably agree at least somewhat with what GP said. It's trivial - think of any "radical" philosopher (and they are usually the ones who drive change) and then I will agree with you - we need to emphasize philosophy, just not in the way you were thinking.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomc1985 7y ago
This is the sort of "you're either with us or against us" attitude that democracy could do without. The average persons' ability to change anything re: climate change is minimal, especially if the bulk of carbon emissions originate in authoritarian regimes on the other side of the planet. Would you accuse the Swiss of endorsing the Third Reich on account of their neutrality? Is an impartial judge abdicating his judicial and political responsibilities by refusing to take sides in a case? As a counterpoint, there are many sides that are worth taking that will never have the kind of popular support they need to make any kind of difference in a democratic society, and the two major political choices (Pub vs Dem, left v right, lib vs conservative) have been so badly confused and crosspolinated that it is difficult to tell them apart. Show me a calm, multiparty democracy with coalition-building as a core tenant and I would gladly join the ranks of political advocates -- but I will NOT be told to pick one shitty side over another.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  > Would you accuse the Swiss of endorsing the Third Reich on account of their neutrality? Is an impartial judge abdicating his judicial and political responsibilities by refusing to take sides in a case? Yes and yes, by the original principle.
- forgingahead 7y ago
  It's a pity to see the downvotes you're getting for a very reasonable comment. This is exactly the problem with the original parent comment, "you're with us or against us". Zealotry for political issues is still zealotry, and has no place in a civil society. It's a shame if the HN zeitgeist has really turned into that.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    this sounds like a strawman. The OP was asking for a politically engaged citizenry, not "zealots". The status quo in many democratic countries is apathy in large segments of the population and not even conscious abstention. the message of the original post was that democratic citizens need to recognise that duties and freedoms come together, that the latter don't exist without the former. Many people appear to take their rights for granted.
forgingahead 7y ago
Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You can disengage. In fact, I highly encourage it, and one's mental health greatly benefits from it. You're not more "enlightened" or "wise" if you follow along the twists and turns of every silly development, most of which can ultimately turn out to have no impact on daily life. Forest for the trees and all that. Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. If you have specific ideas and a platform that you feel isn't represented, jump into the political arena yourself, it's certainly your right. But please don't force the rest of us to tag along.
- iron0013 7y ago
  “Trust the system”?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I would paraphrase what you're saying like this: Don't hyperengage. Don't live and die by every news cycle. Don't let outrage consume you. Don't "other" those who disagree with you. Retain your civility, and your humanity. But, I would say, still engage to the degree of learning about the issues, learning about candidates' positions, and voting.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. The people are the system in a democracy. While I can understand not worrying about every little decision the government makes, ignoring it completely is what leads a community to decay. Any illusion of the system self correcting is a consequence of the US and western world’s dominance after winning WW2. With the kind of economic advantage, everyone was lifted up simultaneously. The real test is what happens when resources have to start being rationed.
  - drdeca 7y ago
deogeo 7y ago
You conflate allowing something to happen, with endorsing it.
icelancer 7y ago
>> Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society I was never assigned this role. I do not accept your premise.
roenxi 7y ago
In some sense ok. But practically we really need to accept that there are a range of apolitical opinions. There is a massive issue with this proposed alternative - it is divisive. That line of thinking leads to the classic "with us or against us" style model where one group accepts there is a problem, defines group boundaries then labels everyone not in the group as part of the problem. If that framing takes hold (and if "can't be apolitical" becomes the dominant philosophy then it will take hold amongst the activists); what is the plan for resolving the issue? Once people are publicly labelled as 'tacitly endorsing' something that they aren't going to be receptive to new ideas. In terms of actually doing something there is more power in inclusive ideologies where everyone puts their preferences on the table, listens to alternatives and discusses options with people they don't necessarily agree with, and pick a solution that is as fair and reasonable as possible and the people who are disadvantaged accept it on the grounds that they'll get a win next time. Division is one of a couple of easy paths to conflict. Best to avoid it and let people claim neutrality.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
>I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Sounds like an argument against democracy, so I think you should either reevaluate your notion of "being apolitical", or reevaluate your argument.
circute 7y ago
"if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" -descartes
fulafel 7y ago
Working to make the world better involves value judgements and societal change, this is means you are pursuing a political agenda. Unless your definition of political = party politics, which I'd argue is a harmful definition.
ivoras 7y ago
I'd argue that everyone has an agenda, and so everyone's political. Us tech people were for the longest time arrogant enough to think we can "get around" the normal political system, e.g. hack it, disrupt it, change it from without. Facebook is political. Uber is political, Airbnb is political, Google, ... Hopefully there's going to be some mind shifts. We need to work with the "other side", not around them.

by slg 7y ago

skybrian 7y ago

If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. What organizations do you support, and why? Not this content-free guilt-mongering, it doesn't help anyone.

Clubber 7y ago
Honestly, for me now, neither of the big two political parties, at least at the federal level. Join any organization that fights for your constitutional rights: all of them. People have to understand that these interests are so entrenched and powerful, and the game is so rigged, it will only get worse.
weare138 7y ago
> If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. Asking someone to tell you what you're supposed to do defeats the purpose of participating, which was kind of the point the OP was making.
slg 7y ago
>If there is something specific you would like people to do, please do go ahead and advocate for it. Become involved. I think the minimum you should do is to vote in every election in your municipality. One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. You can even just submit your entire ballot blank. Politicians can't see who voted for what, but they can see if you show up to the polls. They see which demographics vote, what issues those demographics care about, and they adjust their platform accordingly. This is one of the primary reasons that people say there aren't any politicians who represent their values. We need to break that feedback loop. >What organizations do you support, and why? HN is not the place for that discussion. >Not this content-free guilt-mongering, it doesn't help anyone. I am simply trying to get people to give up this notion that political neutrality is a virtue or something to be proud of. Refusing to participate in politics doesn't make politics go away. If this comment gets one person to reconsider that stance, I would consider that helping.
- icelancer 7y ago
  >> One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. Have you considered why this is, rather than just thinking our population are a bunch of idiots who don't like to vote? Consider the incentives (or lack thereof) that make people do this.
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago
  >Become involved. I think the minimum you should do is to vote in every election in your municipality. One of the main causes of the problems in our current system is the atrocious voter turnout rate. Hot take: voting is not ceasing to be apolitical. Voting is something you do, usually once or twice a year every few years. If you vote and don't take part in any collective action beyond that, you are apolitical. >HN is not the place for that discussion. This is typical "radical liberal" cowardice: insist that everyone must stop living apolitical lives, get organized, get involved, agitate, educate, organize... except by involved, you actually mean taking the most individualist, minimal form of political action available, rather than actually being political. For the record, I send regular dues to the DSA and ACLU, as well as belonging to a local Democratic caucus. Socialism, as it turns out, does indeed take up quite a lot of evenings. Being actually political, I am spending my interventions in this thread sticking up for the right of others to be apolitical, because frankly, most political organizations are currently extraordinarily hostile to anyone who wants to get properly involved, to be political in the proper way, without agreeing a priori to a party line. And why shouldn't they be, from their own point of view? Everything from the Republican Party to the Neighborhood Progressives maintain the convenient fiction that they are private clubs with a right to run themselves according to their private standards, rather than being, at least aspirationally, collective community assemblies. All of which is to say: why should you subject yourself to an environment you find unpleasant on a massive and regular basis, while that environment insists you're free to leave at any time? The answer is, as you had said, because that environment also insists that any failure to show up and be part of the private club activities is letting the enemy win. Sort out your distinctions between private and public institutions.

insickness 7y ago

> most people on HN can agree on is climate change. There are many aspects of the climate change issue where disagreement is reasonable. Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How much governmental intervention is helpful? How accurate are predictions of what is coming? What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? There is no correct path forward. To say you think we can all agree on climate change implies that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

slg 7y ago
You are right, I could have phrased that better. We certainly won't all agree on the specific path forward. What I meant was that most people on here can probably agree that our current path is not adequately addressing the problem, that changes need to be made going forward, and those changes require political action.
- avmich 7y ago
  Importantly we need to understand that we can't require first to have that agreement and only after that start addressing the problem itself. Just like with space exploration, where we can't postpone it till there will be no hunger on Earth, we can't postpone acting on climate crisis until we agree on how to act. We have to act without full agreement.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    And at best we will get expansive half measures. The best thing that could happen to climate science would be to decouple from political ideology.
    - avmich 7y ago
      That's a really tall order. To have science - in general, since if that happens with climate it probably happens with other areas - to be decoupled from politics is to significantly change our current practices of governance. Hopefully for better - but it's a hard task to do.

protonfish 7y ago

I think it's even worse than you say. By avoiding politics you tacitly endorse the status quo. You can't opt out - everyone's speech and actions affect the political landscapes no matter how much you would rather pretend that you are above it.

tyri_kai_psomi 7y ago
> By avoiding politics you tacitly endorse the status quo. A statement wrong on so many levels. Good grief, we really need to start emphasizing philosophy again in our society. > no matter how much you would rather pretend that you are above it. And a very wrong assumption that people who would rather not engage in politics, or at least public displays of political affiliation somehow must all think they are "above" it. I usually have a word to describe people who tend to think along these lines: young.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > I usually have a word to describe people who tend to think along these lines: young. "Ask the young. They know everything."
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >A statement wrong on so many levels. Good grief, we really need to start emphasizing philosophy again in our society. Ironically, many philosophers, from Rousseau to Marx to Marcuse would probably agree at least somewhat with what GP said. It's trivial - think of any "radical" philosopher (and they are usually the ones who drive change) and then I will agree with you - we need to emphasize philosophy, just not in the way you were thinking.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomc1985 7y ago

This is the sort of "you're either with us or against us" attitude that democracy could do without. The average persons' ability to change anything re: climate change is minimal, especially if the bulk of carbon emissions originate in authoritarian regimes on the other side of the planet. Would you accuse the Swiss of endorsing the Third Reich on account of their neutrality? Is an impartial judge abdicating his judicial and political responsibilities by refusing to take sides in a case? As a counterpoint, there are many sides that are worth taking that will never have the kind of popular support they need to make any kind of difference in a democratic society, and the two major political choices (Pub vs Dem, left v right, lib vs conservative) have been so badly confused and crosspolinated that it is difficult to tell them apart. Show me a calm, multiparty democracy with coalition-building as a core tenant and I would gladly join the ranks of political advocates -- but I will NOT be told to pick one shitty side over another.

guerrilla 7y ago
> Would you accuse the Swiss of endorsing the Third Reich on account of their neutrality? Is an impartial judge abdicating his judicial and political responsibilities by refusing to take sides in a case? Yes and yes, by the original principle.
forgingahead 7y ago
It's a pity to see the downvotes you're getting for a very reasonable comment. This is exactly the problem with the original parent comment, "you're with us or against us". Zealotry for political issues is still zealotry, and has no place in a civil society. It's a shame if the HN zeitgeist has really turned into that.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  this sounds like a strawman. The OP was asking for a politically engaged citizenry, not "zealots". The status quo in many democratic countries is apathy in large segments of the population and not even conscious abstention. the message of the original post was that democratic citizens need to recognise that duties and freedoms come together, that the latter don't exist without the former. Many people appear to take their rights for granted.

forgingahead 7y ago

Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You can disengage. In fact, I highly encourage it, and one's mental health greatly benefits from it. You're not more "enlightened" or "wise" if you follow along the twists and turns of every silly development, most of which can ultimately turn out to have no impact on daily life. Forest for the trees and all that. Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. If you have specific ideas and a platform that you feel isn't represented, jump into the political arena yourself, it's certainly your right. But please don't force the rest of us to tag along.

iron0013 7y ago
“Trust the system”?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I would paraphrase what you're saying like this: Don't hyperengage. Don't live and die by every news cycle. Don't let outrage consume you. Don't "other" those who disagree with you. Retain your civility, and your humanity. But, I would say, still engage to the degree of learning about the issues, learning about candidates' positions, and voting.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. The people are the system in a democracy. While I can understand not worrying about every little decision the government makes, ignoring it completely is what leads a community to decay. Any illusion of the system self correcting is a consequence of the US and western world’s dominance after winning WW2. With the kind of economic advantage, everyone was lifted up simultaneously. The real test is what happens when resources have to start being rationed.
- drdeca 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

You conflate allowing something to happen, with endorsing it.

icelancer 7y ago

>> Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society I was never assigned this role. I do not accept your premise.

roenxi 7y ago

In some sense ok. But practically we really need to accept that there are a range of apolitical opinions. There is a massive issue with this proposed alternative - it is divisive. That line of thinking leads to the classic "with us or against us" style model where one group accepts there is a problem, defines group boundaries then labels everyone not in the group as part of the problem. If that framing takes hold (and if "can't be apolitical" becomes the dominant philosophy then it will take hold amongst the activists); what is the plan for resolving the issue? Once people are publicly labelled as 'tacitly endorsing' something that they aren't going to be receptive to new ideas. In terms of actually doing something there is more power in inclusive ideologies where everyone puts their preferences on the table, listens to alternatives and discusses options with people they don't necessarily agree with, and pick a solution that is as fair and reasonable as possible and the people who are disadvantaged accept it on the grounds that they'll get a win next time. Division is one of a couple of easy paths to conflict. Best to avoid it and let people claim neutrality.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

>I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Sounds like an argument against democracy, so I think you should either reevaluate your notion of "being apolitical", or reevaluate your argument.

circute 7y ago

"if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" -descartes

fulafel 7y ago

Working to make the world better involves value judgements and societal change, this is means you are pursuing a political agenda. Unless your definition of political = party politics, which I'd argue is a harmful definition.

ivoras 7y ago

I'd argue that everyone has an agenda, and so everyone's political. Us tech people were for the longest time arrogant enough to think we can "get around" the normal political system, e.g. hack it, disrupt it, change it from without. Facebook is political. Uber is political, Airbnb is political, Google, ... Hopefully there's going to be some mind shifts. We need to work with the "other side", not around them.