31 ms·

One thing that has slowly eroded American ideals (IMO) is the politicization of literally everything. Not only can you not have or share a "bad" thought on poli

• theplague42 6y ago
  Everything is political; being apolitical just means you support the status quo.
  • ls612 6y ago
    This is just a fancier way of saying “If you’re not with me you’re against me”
    • theplague42 6y ago
      It's literally not; how do you know I don't support the status quo? I'm just pointing out that being "apolitical" is a political stance, whether or not you agree with that stance.
      • AbrahamParangi 6y ago
        By this reasoning my dog supports the status quo.
        • Cyph0n 6y ago
          If your dog had the mental capacity to understand the basics of the two main sides in US politics and chose to support neither, then sure.
          • kortilla 6y ago
            There aren’t “two main sides” in US politics. There are two parties and choosing either comes with a metric fuck-ton of positions. Generally supporting Democrats just because they support one position you agree with is dumber than not supporting either side.
            • Cyph0n 6y ago
              I think not voting at all is the dumbest possible position.
        • ahelwer 6y ago
          Your ability to draw reason out of text is flawed, then. Your dog has no ability to influence human politics whatsoever; you do.
      • nickff 6y ago
        You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable, or because you just don't know what's going on. Separately, not opposing the status quo is more like accepting it than supporting it, and these are all different. Your lack of nuance rather proves the point of the great grandparent post.
        • notJim 6y ago
          Well ironically, the great grandparent also lacks nuance. I think your comment is the one the brings it forward, and is more valuable than the great grandparent for that reason. > You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable Is this apolitical, or is it having a politics that is not well represented? It seems more like the latter to me.
          • nickff 6y ago
            People who feel unrepresented often lapse into apathy; you can only struggle against an uncaring world for so long before you tire or go insane.
            • JAlexoid 6y ago
              Apathy towards issues of policy is a political position. You know the political positions, but you became apathetic about the political system. Being apolitical is implying that you think that it's good enough as it is to not care.
          • buran77 6y ago
            > having a politics that is not well represented I think being apolitical is more about having an objective view and judging opinions based on merit rather than the political spectrum they originated from. Could also mean you're either are against all political views, or have none, but this last one seems less likely to happen in practice. People tend to have an opinion, more or less informed or objective as it may be.
        • catalogia 6y ago
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • roenxi 6y ago
        As I like to say; why would we have a word 'apolitical' if we can't imagine a thing that is accepted as apolitical? It would be a rather useless adjective. It is completely reasonable for someone to say they don't like the status quo but also are uncertain about whether a policy improves on the status quo due to their limited knowledge. If that isn't being apolitical we may as well strike the word from the dictionary. It is technically a political stance, but it is not forceful enough to be called support of anything.
      • amw-zero 6y ago
        It is most certainly a coded message for “you have to believe in what I believe.” Being apolitical is not a political stance.
      • urbaneroust 6y ago
        I keep to myself because I don't trust people to take my slight differences of opinion with appropriate calm. I've been burned one too many times by "you don't agree with my concept/idea/candidate you're a literal fucking monster." No thanks, I could have been your ally but I'll just stay home. I should add, this goes in both directions and I see it from both sides of the political spectrum. I consider myself an independent. I try to judge all issues individually and fall into different camps depending on what we're talking about, but political dialogue has become so toxic that I've gotten to the point where I just cast my vote and move on.
      • drewcon 6y ago
        Fair enough. I read it as condemning apolitical folks for lack of engagement but I see your larger point.
    • alexland 6y ago
      If you are not against the oppressor, if you are okay with allowing oppression to continue happening for any reason, you are on the side of the oppressor. You cannot be an ally from a neutral position, you need to pick your side and commit. This is why if you want to be an ally to people of color it's not enough to not be racist, but rather you need to be anti-racist. We're seeing more and more how neutrality is dangerous in allowing systemic issues to exist and flourish (see elected Democrats in major American cities, the "not racists", allowing the police state to exist and perpetuate systemic racism). If you want to be an ally, you need to become comfortable admitting that the privileged position of neutrality isn't compatible with allyship.
      • hevelvarik 6y ago
        This is religious dogma and I support your right to believe it!
  • shooner 6y ago
    This is a very broad definition of political.
  • chrisco255 6y ago
    No, it's really not. This is just cult like Puritanism that shows your lack of balance and proportionality.
    • atoav 6y ago
      It is. Sorry it is. I am not American and the whole two party thing annoys the heck out of me, but politics is the question of how we (or others) organize how we live with each other. This spans from mundane things like whether you can paint your fence in the color you like to fundamental existential questions that regard your safety and wellbeing. If you think you hold no political opinion this is usually a sign that you can afford to do so. Just like my grandfather who fought in the Wehrmacht and said afterwards that he wasn't convinced, he just went the easy way and didn't question his orders. Was that apolitical? I don't think so — it was more an excuse he told himself to avoid responsibility for what he helped create. Sorry, but sometimes inaction is political, because it means you are willing to give the controls to the next person who grabs it as long as you don't think you will end up worse off. "I don't care what happens to anyone but me", may sound apolitical, but it really isn't.
      • pandaman 6y ago
        People just put different meaning into "support". There are some who honestly believe you can support something through apathy and there are some who, just as honestly, believe that support is an action and hence cannot happen through inaction. Interestingly, both meanings are in the dictionary[1] and the argument that there is just one is either coming from ignorance or bad faith. The GP's "being apolitical just means you support the status quo" definitely looks like a troll. It uses "support" as "endure" (an unusual meaning in such a context) but implies "support" as "promote". 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
        • atoav 6y ago
          This is indeed a quite tricky question. Trickier than one would intuitivly think. Back when I studied ethics we were talking about the famous trolly problem. The professor proposed multiple scenarios and after each asked the auditorium who would act and who wouldn't. I can vividly remember three points: 1. Even seemingly clear cut ethical questions weren't clear cut at all. Rarely as much as 80:20 more often 60:40 2. Doing nothing always gets a perk over doing smomething. If you do something you might have done the wrong thing and feel silly for it - if you do nothing it is easier to brush off. 3. When the professor rephrased a scenario in such a way that you had to take basically the same decision, but your role was more direct (instead of pulling a lever to sacrifice one person, you'd have to push them in front of the trolly) nearly nobody would do so. These differences in perception of indirect and direct effect is what we use to excuse ourselves in cases where our inaction would have saved lives ("I could have easily pulled the lever and saved four lives" VS "I couldn't have pushed that person in front of the trolly, even if it would have saved lives"). Similarily my grandfather's generation would have said: "There was nothing I could have done to stop it anyways" - with the unspoken part beeing "without taking a personal burden". Note that we live in one of the few areas where people were hiding in the mountains to resist the Nazis and these were partely people he personally knew. So he knew one could do something, he just either didn't dare, chose to (conveniently for him) not think about it, or only felt sorry in hindsight. As another data point: At least where I grew up not helping someone in need (e.g. of first aid) is a felony, as long as the circumstances allowed you to help. Not sure how this is in the US tho
  • disposekinetics 6y ago
    You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone. ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
    • pessimizer 6y ago
      > These things are not asking to be judged by you. Somebody needs to tell me what voting is supposed to be about, then.
      • catalogia 6y ago
        Nobody is obliged to vote on a matter. At least not in America, I've heard it might be different in Australia. When I feel as though I cannot make an informed decision, I choose not to vote. Why should my uninformed vote be so valued that I'm obliged to give it? What utility is there in an uninformed vote?
      • hevelvarik 6y ago
        You can vote your opinion and not be a troubled soul. Voting doesn’t require your politics to be a consuming passion.
      • disposekinetics 6y ago
        My politics are outside the Overton window to the point I'm just depending on the rest of my fellow citizens not to make their mess my mess with their choices.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • JPKab 6y ago
    Were you saying this in a comedic way, as a parody of the thinking the parent complained about? Because it's exactly that, intentional or not. Politics is about applying collective power from an entity funded by taxpayers. There is nothing political about the decision of whether or not to assist an elderly woman who is lost, or volunteer to coach a youth basketball team, or you know, just do decent things to make the world a better place that doesn't require the application of the collective power of our government institutions.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • runarberg 6y ago
    Not true. “The Earth revolves around the sun” is not a political statement. “Climate change is real, and is caused by humans”, however is equally true but for some (really bad) reasons, it is a political statement. If we move from scientific facts to moral once: “Slavery is bad and should be illegal” is not a political statement. Meanwhile “Women have the rights to their own bodies” is (also for a very bad reason) a political statement. If we would give climate-deniers and anti-abortion biggots the platform they deserve (i.e. none) their viewpoints would only be as fringe as the once of the flat earth conspiracy theory—i.e. not relevant because their obviously wrong, and therefor not political.
    • pessimizer 6y ago
      > “Slavery is bad and should be illegal” is not a political statement. This is a political statement. I'm not sure how the world "political" drifted away from the meaning of law, rulers, and representation to whatever it means now. Any statement about what the law should be is political. Any statement about how best to change or preserve laws, specifically or generally, is political. edit: Whether global warming is anthropogenic or not is not political. What we should do about it (or not do about it if we don't think it's real or we don't think it's important) is political.
      • mcv 6y ago
        Some of these things should not be as controversial as they are, though. Many people are resistant to supporting the right thing because they fear it will threaten their own comfort.
    • Bostonian 6y ago
      '“Women have the rights to their own bodies” is (also for a very bad reason) a political statement.' You think the morality of abortion is so clear-cut that it should not be a political issue? Lots of women are anti-abortion. I see later that you refer to "anti-abortion biggots" (sic). You appear close-minded.
      • graton 6y ago
  • jupp0r 6y ago
    Being apolitical means you don't care about policy.
  • Konohamaru 6y ago
    Politics is war by other means (Clausewitz), then that would mean everything in life is warfare too.
    • goatlover 6y ago
      It doesn't have to be, if people are willing to compromise.
      • Konohamaru 6y ago
        If people were willing to compromise then it wouldn't have become a political issue to begin with.
    • runarberg 6y ago
      I guess these silly generalizations can go on ad infinitum and we end up with every concept A describes any situation B. It reminds me of what happens to the numbers if we allow for 2 + 2 = 5 to be true. Effectively 1 will end up being equal to 0, and since every number multiplied by 1 is it self, and every number multiplied by 0 is 0, we end up with all numbers being equal to 0. Effectively rendering them useless.
  • RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    I think the one of the big things that makes things political is coercion. If you are using the power of the state to advance a controversial goal then it is political. Take for example how we got to religious freedom. In the past, if you were the wrong religion, you would be tortured and executed. In a lot of places, this led to horrendous religious wars where literally millions of people died. In the end, we ended up with freedom of religion as a compromise. The state would no longer compel you to choose a religion. Of course each religion thought they were right and the others were wrong. But they stopped using the power of the state to compel conversions. They would still proselytize and try to persuade other people to join their faith, but they stopped trying to use the power of the state to compel people. After that, religion became a lot more apolitical. Sometimes begin apoliticial means you don't think it is worth using the power of the state to change the status quo. You may be against the status quo, and think debate or persuasion is more effective. In addition, reference to the status quo in the quote is simplistic. A lot of times the status quo is like an armistice line between two warring sides. Many times the status quo includes things you are for and things you are against. Maybe the way the status quo is right now, the benefit of the things you are for, is greater than the burden of the things you are against. If you try to change the status quo, you may end up destabilizing the status quo so much, that when the new equilibrium is reached, you end up losing some of things you were for.
  • drewcon 6y ago
    Or being apolitical just means you don’t have time or inclination to obsess about the political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in your day because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden that frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change. Not every one needs to be an activist about every thing. If a person feels strongly about some special political cause, fantastic, they ought to make their case convincingly. But the idea of castigating others for not putting in the time or enthusiasm to share their superior moral clarity is exhausting.
    • pwinnski 6y ago
      I generally agree. It's impossible to have a knowledgable position on every single issue, and a full-time job to have a position on whatever is popular in a given week. The end result is that on most issues, most of us default to the status quo, because, well, that's how the status quo works. It's literally the default until enough people care to change it. In other words, "you don’t have time or inclination to obsess about the political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in your day because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden that frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change" is a lot of words to say that you support the status quo. I think everybody does, on issues that aren't important to them.
      • drewcon 6y ago
        Semantics, but I view “support” as an active measure. There are loads of issues folks are just not engaged with enough to have a qualified opinion (their perspective not mine), which is fine. I view that as living in the status quo but not necessarily evidence of endorsing the status quo. For instance, do we really expect your average citizen (American in this case) to have a thought out POV on qualified immunity? Policing tactics? Effective tactics to address diversity in the workplace? Herd immunity? Actuarial risk assessment of economic activity during the pandemic? If not are they supporting the status quo? I think most people just shrug and I don’t blame them. Processing information in the era of the death of expertise has made even having an opinion right now an absolute hellscape.
    • 6y ago
  • jules 6y ago
    You're equivocating on the word "support". Actively supporting whoever is currently in power is not the same as not caring enough to bother or being on the fence as to which side to support.
  • mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Disagree. Often there is simply no option for practical policy choices, in the USA at least.
• jakkyboi 6y ago
  I tire of centrists, among chaos, claiming everything is being politicized. I'm sorry - once in a while bad things happen and a choice must be made.
  • curo 6y ago
    A centrist isn't always someone who's avoiding working on problems or avoiding decisions. A centrist can be someone who believes that different people see different parts of various problems and that solutions can come from people who aren't subscribed to a set political party.
    • Traster 6y ago
      That's not a centrist view, that's an independent view.
      • julianapostate 6y ago
        See! Even the definition of a centrist is political!
    • pessimizer 6y ago
      Centrists see themselves as imminently reasonable, sure. But virtually everyone believes "that different people see different parts of various problems and that solutions can come from people who aren't subscribed to a set political party." It's not a defining characteristic of centrists, it's a a defining characteristic of people who think of themselves as reasonable. IMO, the defining characteristic of centrists is that they think that they're the only reasonable ones and that everyone else is an ideologue.
      • curo 6y ago
        At their worst, sure. At their best, it's someone who aspires to remain "centered" in their analysis, without letting it lead to arrogance over others.
  • 6y ago
• wry_discontent 6y ago
  What's a controversial opinion you (or any other commenters) can share that you would feel comfortable sharing with the right but not the left? Without concrete examples, I don't know what to make of a statement like that besides "I have bigoted ideas I want to keep quiet and can only share w/ other bigots"
  • nickff 6y ago
    You're are demonstrating great prejudice against the parent commenter, and proving their point by example.
    • wry_discontent 6y ago
      Do you want to share an example? My prejudice is based on me listening to one too many people online (and often in person) share their "controversial" opinion with me. I'm genuinely curious what the HN crowd is going to regard as "controversial opinions" that will get you in trouble.
      • nickff 6y ago
        Pretending to know something unknown is somehow 'bad' with no evidence is the definition of prejudice.
      • SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
        I've been explicitly told by the HN moderators that my opinions on policing - which are well within the American mainstream and probably a touch left of center - are so controversial they constitute flamebait and I shouldn't discuss them here.
        • dang 6y ago
          That doesn't sound very likely. People make up all sorts of stories about what moderators supposedly said or did. The tell is that they're invariably linkless. If they came with the relevant links, readers could see what actually happened and make up their own minds.
• wombat-man 6y ago
  It's pretty bad. I have friends that I can't really talk to about politics because they're super on board with trump, and other friends that I need to avoid the topic with because they're so committed to socialism. It's mostly when we speak online where people just feel free to be the shittiest just because you're talking to them over chat instead of to their faces.
• zarkov99 6y ago
  yes, and in my opinion, this is one of the factors behind the abysmal pandemic response from the country as a whole. Bad ideas become good ideas if they come one's team and good ideas become bad if they are not. As a result both halves of the country do stupid things, different kinds of stupid of course, while at the same time both sides refuse to do reasonable things.
  • theplague42 6y ago
    Do you think that both "halves" of the country are responding to the pandemic with equal stupidity?
    • SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
      It strikes me as nonproductive to call it "stupidity" or debate whether there's a precise equality. Both halves of the country have made it clear, in word and in action, that they think some causes are worth spreading the pandemic.
    • zarkov99 6y ago
      I have an opinion of course, but I am not interested in debating which side has done dumber things. It is impossible to discuss that issue productively.
      • shirakawasuna 6y ago
        Kind of pointless to bring it up then, huh?
        • zarkov99 6y ago
          Bring what up? That we are being pushed into suicidal stupidity by our allegiance to our political team? I rather think it is worth to bring it up, so that perhaps we all can do it a little less. Debating who exactly is the most to blame is counter productive to that goal.
• doubletgl 6y ago
  How about this: you're in denial about basically being on the edge of the right, and you're using the "both sides" shtick to cling to your centrist label. Imagine touting "both sides" in the civil war area..
• TulliusCicero 6y ago
  It's generally easier to play the role of the Very Reasonable Person Who's Just Asking Questions when you're defending the status quo; any change you stymie by undercutting people's emotional energy or by slowing things down works to your advantage.
  • woofie11 6y ago
    Not always. I've used the "Very Reasonable Person Who's Just Asking Questions" to ask some very, very uncomfortable questions. Here's one you can try in the current political climate: "Why don't you have ANY [insert minority] employees working in your organization?"
    • skinkestek 6y ago
      To give an example of someone a large subset of HN would like to sh*t on with that question, a company I have worked for: In our case (we have some minorities but not as many as HN would like). Why: because they aren't available. We have KPIs for HR and managers that strongly encourage it, but there just aren't more qualified women/black/etc coders. Which, in our case, translates to less than 5 (but awesome, and highly regarded) black persons[0], about 30% women. [0]: Note however that the demographic is quite different here in Norway. I know people here who never saw black people except on holiday until they were far beyond 20 years old. In their defense though: 1.) Part of why there are so few black peopøe here seems to be that keeping slaves hasn't been popular here for hundreds of years. 2.) Norwegians have accepted a lot of people from other countries over the years: Pakistani, Chilean etc, so I don't think it is about xenophobia.
      • woofie11 6y ago
        Why do you believe [insert minority] coders aren't qualified?
        • spoopyskelly 6y ago
          Why do you believe racist quotas should be inserted into everything?
• bsder 6y ago
  > The people in the middle (which I generally identify with) are left in the cold Quit being a coward and at least own your shitty opinion: > I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice Martin Luther King--1963
• lambdasquirrel 6y ago
  On the flip side, a lot of the more abhorrent things to come out of the current President's mouth are things that were clearly not politically-correct, that a lot of America has been holding back, that are now back in the open. I'm not sure what the solution is. On one hand, it was there all along, and political-correctness did not help it. On the other hand, racists everywhere have been empowered once again, and all manner of groups have to face stereotypes they've fought so hard over the years. I don't think the U.S. will really get its house in order until it becomes an issue of survival, and of geopolitical importance.
  • FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    Faggot fucking redditor. I’d love to watch you bleed to death.
  • kbenson 6y ago
    > On the flip side, a lot of the more abhorrent things to come out of the current President's mouth are things that were clearly not politically-correct, that a lot of America has been holding back, that are now back in the open. It's not hard to see his initial popularity as linked to this. That is, the vilification of having views that are not the same as the majority leading people to feel repressed, and them supporting someone that's unwilling to bend to that, even if they don't support every decision he makes or view he takes. I don't want racists and white supremacists spreading their rhetoric, but I also don't want our society so constrained by mob mentality that having merely unpopular opinions have dire consequences. If we take it as a given that mob mentality (to this degree) is an emergent phenomenon because of our hyper connected world, and that too much mob mentality is causing the problem, how do you mitigate emerging phenomena when you can't really alter what it emerges from? I'd also be happy if someone could convincingly refute that it's an emergent phenomena, or that mob mentality is the problem, since those seem intractable to me.
    • bb88 6y ago
      > I don't want racists and white supremacists spreading their rhetoric, but I also don't want our society so constrained by mob mentality that having merely unpopular opinions have dire consequences. Either you're in favor of free speech or you're not. Republicans, Democrats, and, yes, Hacker News all participate in cancel culture in one way or another. Sure there are bots, provocateurs, and anonymous trolls who have no intent on changing their beliefs. But, please, let the American people have enough credit to make decisions for themselves and see racists for who they truly are.
• baddox 6y ago
  Note however that one way to make a society appear to be less politically polarized is to silence the voice of groups who are not being served well by the current political status quo. When voices fighting for representation and fairness and equality are amplified, and supporters of the status quo resist (which they nearly always do), that will necessarily increase the apparent polarization, but I don't think that's a bad thing, and I certainly don't think it's worse than those voices remaining silenced.
  • fiblye 6y ago
    The problem is America isn’t making an effort to not silence other people and give them a platform to talk about their concerns. It’s becoming a crowd of endless screaming with almost zero listening, and people actively trying to silence those who don’t yell alongside them.
• Traster 6y ago
  The counter to this though, is that the time when things weren't politicized was essentially when minority groups didn't have political, eoconomic, cultural power. There is no new split into two Americas, there was always a split- between those who had political, cultural and economic power, and those that don't. The only difference now is that the people who are in the group with power aren't exclusively rich, white, conservative men. We can go back, we can stop black people from getting loans and decent jobs, we can make all our women secretaries again, and I'm sure that will solve all our political ills.
• betenoire 6y ago
  "The left will ruin you.." I've never ruined anyone Those are the very kind of toxic comments we need to get away from
• shirakawasuna 6y ago
  The idea that "everything is getting politicized" is more often an expression of the loss of normative dominance: ideas that you used to enjoy free of criticism and pushback are now subject to challenge. They haven't become politicized, they were always political. You just didn't have to justify them versus criticism. The only sense in which horseshoe theory is real is that the rejection of the status quo tends to split someone in one direction or the other, and occasionally those new to alternative political ideologies will waffle or get shunted down different pipelines. Example: younger people going down the IDW pipeline who end up socialist once they realize the error. They don't return to dominant liberal narratives because they already figured out the ways in which they are toxic and false, and they also reject their previous pathway. I can't imagine thinking that "bizarro world" is one in which people hold a larger diversity of opinion and criticize within a party.
• abraxas 6y ago
  > Honestly, the Left is the worst at this. They will actively try to ruin your life over wrongthink. This experience must vary a lot with your locale. I live in a medium sized town in Canada and feel very uncomfortable talking to my conservative, suburban neighbours about issues I strongly believe should be a priority for everyone. Like climate change. They know that them and me don’t see eye to eye on these issues but I can’t bring it up in a way that I would with my left leaning friends and it pains me. Because it’s something that both sides of the political spectrum should be able to rally behind. Many conservatives here fancy themselves as sort of “salt of the earth people” so I don’t get the hostility towards some kind of conservation.
  • RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
    Will your conservative neighbors be annoyed and maybe ignore you if you bring up climate change, or will they actively try to get you fired from your job? I think the Left is getting flak for doing the latter.
    • abraxas 6y ago
      They will at best ostracize me from their social circles. And at worst damage my property. Yes, I had a direct experience of the latter when my car was keyed for having a “give peace a chance” bumper sticker during the times of the war on Iraq. And that’s in Canada, bear in mind.
    • cujo 6y ago
      I think you replaced climate change with racist behavior there.
      • dimgl 6y ago
        I'm surprised your mind went to that. Maybe you've classified all conservatives as racist?
    • JAlexoid 6y ago
      Tell that to a gay teacher in a conservative area.
• hintymad 6y ago
  It is dangerous that political differences are now being moralized. You vote for Biden? You're evil and should be fired. You vote for Trump? You're a Nazi and should be fired. Then what? What's the next step? I used to read about the French Revolution in horror. Parisans cheered when a Guillotine dropped, for they thought it was the righteous thing to do. And the history repeated itself in China 55 years ago and then 35 years ago, all in the name of upholding superior morality. Are we going to repeat the history in the US?
  • loopz 6y ago
    Who the next enemy is predictably being determined by the ruling party and Wall Street, and there's nothing anybody can do about that now that it's gone too far. If you wish to compare history, it's close to Weimar Republic, the social unrest, threats of violence, propaganda lies, full-on corruption and domination at cost of human health and lives. It's all sleight of hand, everybody gets fooled into a suckers rally that makes most current matters irrelevant. Ofc I hope I'm wrong, but just watch what they do.
    • skinkestek 6y ago
      > Who the next enemy is predictably being determined by the ruling party and Wall Street, 1. If this was generally true the Wall street and Republicans started #metoo and I can't believe that. > and there's nothing anybody can do about that now that it's gone too far. 2. This is not only pessimistic but too pessimistic and also counterproductive (unless one wish to drive society faster to the edge.) > It's all sleight of hand, everybody gets fooled into a suckers rally that makes most current matters irrelevant. Ofc I hope I'm wrong, but just watch what they do. Kind of agree. I guess if you made a real poll between Americans on if they wanted 1. Trump 2. Biden 3. A randomly selected choice between 5 men and 5 women that were decent, smart, had succeeded in life despite being nice then I guess people would vote for 3 in the poll. The American system seems to favour bad compromises lately.
      • loopz 6y ago
        For leadership with integrity #metoo and #blacklivesmatter is about justice and fairness. Not about creating new enemies for personal gain.
• megameter 6y ago
  It's been brewing since around 1970, plus or minus a few years. What changed then? A lot of things. We can talk about the financial decoupling and tech, of course. But that was also when imported oil became a concern. It was when international shipping settled on a standard intermodal container. It was when the drug wars started. And it was after major victories in the civil rights movement, and failures in Vietnam. There were winners and losers in these changes. The big winners were neoliberal-progressives who could shape all these influences into a new political alignment that pleased globalizing businesses and placated the masses. The losers were the remnants of the supremacist structure post-Reconstruction, who had fell into a decline with the Depression and war years, and saw collapse in the 60's. They were ushered towards religion, nostalgia narratives about the good old days, and apocalyptic fiction about the decline of the world and those few who would stand up to it. The problem that the neoliberal structure faced was the one politicians always face: how to accommodate a divided electorate and keep one's career? The formula that emerged was to force the talking points into a narrower spectrum, a tactic refined over the course of decades. In this space, policy change is blocked where it hurts private property interests(as neoliberalism indicates), and the remainder is a set-aside for partisanship where professionals craft pro and contra arguments. But the consequence of doing that is a build-up of pressure on both left and right, as everything gradually becomes a property issue and gets blocked or deferred. With no enfranchisement, both have radicalized - first the right, and then the left in reaction. And that's the state of things. How does it end? With a new coalition that courts all the defining forces of this era effectively, guided by some overarching ideology. However, if we take this to be a cycle as in Strauss-Howe's theory, this is simply the beginning of the neoliberal decline, a period of crisis management and compromise, not the defining of that coalition.
• cmxch 6y ago
  Then it is time to create a formal, enforceable separation between person and profession. That is, what one does personally is taken separately from professional conduct and vice versa.
• TomSwirly 6y ago
  I'm so sick of this "both sides" garbage. I'm not R or D, I'm not even an American, but one side, the R side, has simply gone insane, and the other has barely changed at all, except to move to the right. > They will actively try to ruin your life over wrongthink. In most cases, the wrongthink is someone saying something so horrible that most people are disgusted. A small number of these cases are definitely an overreach. On the other hand, the Republicans have allowed 140,000 people to die horribly, with hundreds thousands more on the way, and most of these deaths were completely avoidable: https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/faster-response-prevented-most-us-covid-19-deaths/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/faster-response-prevente... This is what baffles me about Americans. "Well, the Ds were rude to some people, and the Rs killed a hundred thousand American. I can't see the difference!"
  • disposekinetics 6y ago
    > I'm so sick of this "both sides" garbage. I'm not R or D, I'm not even an American, but one side, the R side, has simply gone insane, and the other has barely changed at all, except to move to the right. I feel identical, but apparently mirrored politically to you. So in the spirit of charity, how do you feel the R side has gotten more conservative? I don't even need sources, just your perspective.
    • mcv 6y ago
      The Republicans under Eisenhower, and pretty much until Nixon's Southern Strategy, supported social programs, civil rights, fighting income inequality, investments in infrastructure, education, etc. Even under Nixon, they still supported a Basic Income. Since Reagan, the Republican Party has moved very far to the right, focused primarily on lowering taxes for the rich, undermining the social programs they used to support, creative gerrymandering, and suppressing votes they don't like (often black votes). Under Reagan there was still some sanity and reason behind it and especially under George HW Bush, but since Newt Gingrich, the party seems to have abandoned all common sense, embraced lies to justify war under Bush jr, and with Trump, it's just all lies for the sake of lies, with every remaining principle they used to have thrown out of the window, with the lone exception of power for its own sake, and hurting people they disagree with. McCain and Romney seem(ed) to be the last of the old guard that still care (somewhat?) about basic honesty. Though I guess the move towards the current insanity has nothing to do with anything resembling conservatism or "right" anymore. But the party has definitely changed beyond recognition. And I do think it started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was already about sacrificing principles for power. The first step on a very long slide down.
• erichocean 6y ago
  > Horseshoe theory is real. This was literally Hitler's primary argument for establishing the Nazi Party in Mein Kampf in the way that he did. So at least a 100 years old. Based on the results, there's a pretty strong argument that it's true.
• efreak 6y ago
  You're forgetting a group (that probably existed all along): many people simply don't care. Also the fact that people actually feel the need to have bans on talking about politics eg at the workplace doesn't seem like a good sign to me, and that's hardly new at all.
• the_resistence 6y ago
  Seinfeld's skit, "who doesn't want to wear the ribbon?" couldn't have been more true and poignant.