4 ms·

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

by 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.
rapind 7y ago
I think it's perfectly legitimate to reject a two party system, but I would argue that actively rejecting it w/ a protest write-in is more effective if and when you can. I have friends who complain about the "system", but have a hard time going into detail on what they claim is busted (even when I agree with them). For them it boils down to laziness and/or apathy. I wish they'd vote like Rhino or w/e to at least make a statement. I also have a pretty unpopular opinion that voting should be mandatory, much easier to do (time off work), enforced by fine, and that you should be able to write in whatever you want on the ballot rather than vote for a specific candidate (I like ranked voting).

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.

rapind 7y ago

I think it's perfectly legitimate to reject a two party system, but I would argue that actively rejecting it w/ a protest write-in is more effective if and when you can. I have friends who complain about the "system", but have a hard time going into detail on what they claim is busted (even when I agree with them). For them it boils down to laziness and/or apathy. I wish they'd vote like Rhino or w/e to at least make a statement. I also have a pretty unpopular opinion that voting should be mandatory, much easier to do (time off work), enforced by fine, and that you should be able to write in whatever you want on the ballot rather than vote for a specific candidate (I like ranked voting).