10 ms·

I was talking with people I consider to be very smart and intellectual. We were discussing the California propositions. They did not want to hear the specific

I was talking with people I consider to be very smart and intellectual. We were discussing the California propositions. They did not want to hear the specifics of the propositions. They only wanted to know which organizations were supporting which propositions. This is what political discourse is these days. Figuring out which team you're on based on what political influencers agree with you. Nobody bothers to understand the issues and argue the merits of those issues. It's too easy to make an ideological mistake that way given how arbitrary and complex the rules are these days.

XorNot 5y ago
Why is this a problem? If there's a proposition out there the wording is going to be sufficiently dense that it's not super-likely a casual observer will have a good grasp of it's actual effect, whereas if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose. There's a big difference between "this political party supports this legislation" and "this issue-focused group is supporting it". It's putting blinkers on to pretend that legislation is not frequently titled and described in summary terms, which are quite different to the legal, social or physical specifics of what the individual clauses will do and representative organizations provide a very important function by having the time and people on hand to properly understand issues which affect the groups they represent.
- pjerem 5y ago
  It is not a problem until it becomes a default way of thinking. If you don’t care about a law proposal, yes, why not default to the position of an organization you believe you share opinions with. But if you do care, like it’s a topic that matters to you, or when you do engage in a political debate, it should be your duty as a citizen to have your own point of view and to be ok to change it whenever needed. If you can’t do that, you are not ready for political discussion or debates. And it’s totally ok to answer « I don’t know / I don’t care about this topic » when invited to give your point. « Why should I care? » is totally ok if you think there is something.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Arguably for most propositions it should be absolutely irrelevant to a gay person what the local LGBTQI support organizations think about it, since most propositions are about other, unrelated issues. If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations and gun right fans would be voting on housing law propositions based on what the NRA recommends, that (to me) seems like a big problem for democracy, as the issues don't get evaluated on their merits but purely on tribalism.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    It would however be kind of weird for an lgbtqi support group, which is by definition supposed to be a focus group, turns out to also advocate for completely unrelated stuff. Then again I’m not gay so I don’t know what lgbtqi support groups tend to do.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations. However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that? It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is still possible, workers' rights seem to be very much in scope for these organizations. [To downvoters: What's the point of having an organization, otherwise?]
    - wozniacki 5y ago
      There are plenty of reasons to have a strong organization irrespective of whether it does what it says it does. 1. To silence valid criticism & gag public opinion. 2. To take advantage of a splintered population of insignificant and disorganized clusters and interest groups & gain legislative / political power. 3. To steer discussion & policy directives toward boondoggle initiatives so that there is semblance of progress but very little to show in the way of actual positive outcomes - outcomes deemed not core to the said group's world outlook. 4. To bully lawmakers into shaping public policies in the hopes of creating a moat so big, that it effectively shields said organization from any incursion, for decades to come. Basically all organizations - in the current highly polarized atmosphere - want to concentrate power within themselves for use as currency for various objectives - whose motivations are not necessarily what they appear on the surface. No matter what the organization is, the more powerful it is the more of these things it engages in, by virtue of just being powerful.
- gwright 5y ago
  > if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose. Let's agree to disagree on this. I think it is a bad assumption to think that activist organizations actually "represent" the larger associated community. It is much more likely they they are advocating for the ideas of the vocal leadership of the organization and not for the membership or the larger associated community.
- anton96 5y ago
  Because organization always conflate many ideas and interest together and on top of that organization and their idea changes with time. For example Props 16 in California wanted to amend the state constitution by removing the article that sated that the state doesn't make any difference between different sexes/colors/sexuality. Depending on how you place yourself regarding recent identity politics movement, you can be LGBTQI and prefer a state that doesn't discriminate because it's progressive or a state that discriminate because it can enact affirmative action.
glogla 5y ago
I think that kind of works for negative case - if something is supported by Amazon, Nestle, or Chinese Communist Party, it's probably not something good for the people of the world. Not sure about the positive case - I guess if EFF supports something, it is more likely it might be good?
- flavius29663 5y ago
  This is easily demonstrable to fail. Amazon, for all intents and purposes, supports the EV revolution, should we oppose it? The CCP invests massively in PV panel production, should we oppose PV ? I can find counter examples even from Nazis or the communists. I think there is no easy win here. If you even remotely care about an issue, you should do a minimum effort to read about it from multiple sources. e.g. for American politics, I found that the quickest way to gauge where an issue stands is by reading at least CNN and Fox, because they are diametrically opposed, so you can kind of guess where the middle ground is. Reading more neutral and informed pieces could come later on, if I really want to dive in.
  - confidantlake 5y ago
    Great point. I also like that you look at both CNN and Fox. The one thing I would add to it is to look at additional sources. Ie for health information, look at journals, cdc ect. For economic issues, look at the BLS ect. Oftentimes the truth lies there and CNN and Fox just have shallow interpretations of it.
muyuu 5y ago
Unfortunately people are required to take positions on an inordinately large amount of issues by social pressure and also by participatory politics at several levels. Just staying moderately up to date with the issues is a full time job, which most people cannot afford to perform alongside their running commitments. Most people just outsource their thinking on most issues to a shaky trust structure based on moral myths, and feel righteous and enlightened about it.
alewi481 5y ago
Reminds me of an SMBC comic on "Quantum Hypocrisy": https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gedankendouche https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gedankendouche

XorNot 5y ago

Why is this a problem? If there's a proposition out there the wording is going to be sufficiently dense that it's not super-likely a casual observer will have a good grasp of it's actual effect, whereas if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose. There's a big difference between "this political party supports this legislation" and "this issue-focused group is supporting it". It's putting blinkers on to pretend that legislation is not frequently titled and described in summary terms, which are quite different to the legal, social or physical specifics of what the individual clauses will do and representative organizations provide a very important function by having the time and people on hand to properly understand issues which affect the groups they represent.

pjerem 5y ago
It is not a problem until it becomes a default way of thinking. If you don’t care about a law proposal, yes, why not default to the position of an organization you believe you share opinions with. But if you do care, like it’s a topic that matters to you, or when you do engage in a political debate, it should be your duty as a citizen to have your own point of view and to be ok to change it whenever needed. If you can’t do that, you are not ready for political discussion or debates. And it’s totally ok to answer « I don’t know / I don’t care about this topic » when invited to give your point. « Why should I care? » is totally ok if you think there is something.
PeterisP 5y ago
Arguably for most propositions it should be absolutely irrelevant to a gay person what the local LGBTQI support organizations think about it, since most propositions are about other, unrelated issues. If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations and gun right fans would be voting on housing law propositions based on what the NRA recommends, that (to me) seems like a big problem for democracy, as the issues don't get evaluated on their merits but purely on tribalism.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  It would however be kind of weird for an lgbtqi support group, which is by definition supposed to be a focus group, turns out to also advocate for completely unrelated stuff. Then again I’m not gay so I don’t know what lgbtqi support groups tend to do.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations. However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that? It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is still possible, workers' rights seem to be very much in scope for these organizations. [To downvoters: What's the point of having an organization, otherwise?]
  - wozniacki 5y ago
    There are plenty of reasons to have a strong organization irrespective of whether it does what it says it does. 1. To silence valid criticism & gag public opinion. 2. To take advantage of a splintered population of insignificant and disorganized clusters and interest groups & gain legislative / political power. 3. To steer discussion & policy directives toward boondoggle initiatives so that there is semblance of progress but very little to show in the way of actual positive outcomes - outcomes deemed not core to the said group's world outlook. 4. To bully lawmakers into shaping public policies in the hopes of creating a moat so big, that it effectively shields said organization from any incursion, for decades to come. Basically all organizations - in the current highly polarized atmosphere - want to concentrate power within themselves for use as currency for various objectives - whose motivations are not necessarily what they appear on the surface. No matter what the organization is, the more powerful it is the more of these things it engages in, by virtue of just being powerful.
gwright 5y ago
> if you're gay and the local LGBTQI support organizations are coming out in favor of a proposition, then it's fairly unlikely this is something you want to oppose. Let's agree to disagree on this. I think it is a bad assumption to think that activist organizations actually "represent" the larger associated community. It is much more likely they they are advocating for the ideas of the vocal leadership of the organization and not for the membership or the larger associated community.
anton96 5y ago
Because organization always conflate many ideas and interest together and on top of that organization and their idea changes with time. For example Props 16 in California wanted to amend the state constitution by removing the article that sated that the state doesn't make any difference between different sexes/colors/sexuality. Depending on how you place yourself regarding recent identity politics movement, you can be LGBTQI and prefer a state that doesn't discriminate because it's progressive or a state that discriminate because it can enact affirmative action.

glogla 5y ago

I think that kind of works for negative case - if something is supported by Amazon, Nestle, or Chinese Communist Party, it's probably not something good for the people of the world. Not sure about the positive case - I guess if EFF supports something, it is more likely it might be good?

flavius29663 5y ago
This is easily demonstrable to fail. Amazon, for all intents and purposes, supports the EV revolution, should we oppose it? The CCP invests massively in PV panel production, should we oppose PV ? I can find counter examples even from Nazis or the communists. I think there is no easy win here. If you even remotely care about an issue, you should do a minimum effort to read about it from multiple sources. e.g. for American politics, I found that the quickest way to gauge where an issue stands is by reading at least CNN and Fox, because they are diametrically opposed, so you can kind of guess where the middle ground is. Reading more neutral and informed pieces could come later on, if I really want to dive in.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  Great point. I also like that you look at both CNN and Fox. The one thing I would add to it is to look at additional sources. Ie for health information, look at journals, cdc ect. For economic issues, look at the BLS ect. Oftentimes the truth lies there and CNN and Fox just have shallow interpretations of it.

muyuu 5y ago

Unfortunately people are required to take positions on an inordinately large amount of issues by social pressure and also by participatory politics at several levels. Just staying moderately up to date with the issues is a full time job, which most people cannot afford to perform alongside their running commitments. Most people just outsource their thinking on most issues to a shaky trust structure based on moral myths, and feel righteous and enlightened about it.

alewi481 5y ago

Reminds me of an SMBC comic on "Quantum Hypocrisy": https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gedankendouche https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/gedankendouche