4 ms·
I would argue that politics is ok to talk about if you are talking about in in the meta sense, as he is. If people were all "accidental moderates," there would
by robbrown451 7y ago
I would argue that politics is ok to talk about if you are talking about in in the meta sense, as he is.
If people were all "accidental moderates," there would be no need to keep politics off HN. The problem is that people pick one of two tribes, and discussions get ugly. If people weren't tribal like that, less of a problem, it's just a bunch of people with opinions all over the place.
- totalZero 7y agoAll politics is meta. Eking out a decision from the great power jumble requires self-awareness about the forces that gyre and gimble therein. Not all politics is tribal. PG explicitly establishes two different cohorts, each with its own way of thinking, from the outset. His argument reifies tribalism.
- robbrown451 7y ago"all politics is meta" That doesn't make sense, or you just don't understand my usage
- totalZero 7y agoYou're saying talking about politics is somehow different than talking about issues. Your "usage" creates this magical escape route where you somehow consider it apolitical (or more acceptable) to comment on political discourse itself. I disagree. Talking about issues is inherently a conversation about politics itself, insofar as the power dynamics involved in making decisions don't magically disappear when we don our academic or self-referential hats. And talking about politics inherently touches the base issues that underpin the discussion, otherwise there is no objective way to judge right and wrong, strong and weak. All politics satisfies both conditions. All politics is about issues, and all politics is meta. In other words, your "usage" is not really meaningful.