11 ms·

the problem is, many, very many people love to tell others how they should live, speak, and especially how they should feel. I have come to the conclusion that

the problem is, many, very many people love to tell others how they should live, speak, and especially how they should feel. I have come to the conclusion that my own political preferences are not with the left, the right or any other particular pole. I just dislike people trying to force their opinion on me, and especially those who try to do it by manipulating my feelings. Doesn't matter what their beliefs are.

AlexandrB 5y ago
I think it's important to be careful, when one identifies as "outside the system", that one is not actually advancing the cause of one of the "sides". In particular, when the status quo is unjust, saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo. I'm not saying this is an inherently wrong position, just that it's important to be aware of whose interests are served by you standing on the sidelines.
- rscoots 5y ago
  You'll notice the post you're responding to never mentioned anything close to "standing on the sidelines". A common tactic used by evangelist partisans is to paint centrists as 'undecided' on some issues and therefore just as evil as the enemy. In reality these people are as opinionated as any partisan on individual topics.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    > You'll notice the post your responding to never mentioned anything close to "standing on the sidelines". That's a fair criticism. I suppose I was responding to the attitude I perceived from the comment rather than the words themselves. I'll admit that what I said may not apply to the GP at all.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Let's say I care about people more than politics. And let's say it plays out this way in my thinking: I'm pro-life, because I see a fetus as a person, or at least a person-in-the-making. And I'm pro-law-enforcement, because I see crime hurting people. And I'm pro-welfare and pro-raising-minimum-wage, because I see poverty hurting people. And I'm anti-death-penalty, because I see that as killing a person. And I'm anti-gun-rights, because I see guns killing people. (Note well: Not all of these are my positions, so let's skip debates about the specifics.) In the great Red-vs-Blue battle, I'm on the sidelines, because I'm on Team People, not Team Red or Team Blue. Both sides have positions that I agree with, and both have positions that I disagree with. I can't be fully on either team, because neither is fully on my team. But I'll get involved on individual issues. I'm not "undecided" on individual issues. Why is that a problem? (I mean, I see that it's a problem for someone who's wholly sold out to Team Red or Team Blue, but why should the rest of us care?)
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I certainly agree with their post. My opinion is that people on the edges of the political spectrum, who have strong opinions and are active in politics, in fact do nothing to change society, and actually entrench the existing power structures. The reason I have come to that conclusion is that politics is tribal, if you want to be part of a group, you have to have exactly the right beliefs, you cannot have an opinion other than the ones shared by the group, if you think a bit differently than the group, but agree with them on a large degree of things and are willing to work with them, the group will reject you. They do not want free thinkers, they want foot soldiers for their culture war. All the culture wars have done is act as a set of wedge issues politicians use to divide their opponents base. When you become politically active, you become a tool for politicians. And somehow, very predictably, midterm elections are already bad for incumbent presidents parties, we always alternate between democratic preaidents and republican presidents, my cities local politics will always be democratic, my state will always be controlled by republicans. The people in power seem to be happy with this status quo, perhaps just because it is predictable.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > The reason I have come to that conclusion is that politics is tribal, if you want to be part of a group, you have to have exactly the right beliefs, you cannot have an opinion other than the ones shared by the group, if you think a bit differently than the group, but agree with them on a large degree of things and are willing to work with them, the group will reject you. They do not want free thinkers, they want foot soldiers for their culture war. If a group is like that, then they're right - I'm not part of their tribe.
- dalmo3 5y ago
  This reads like an overly polite way of saying "you're either with us or against us."
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    That's a little reductive. I just think it's important to be aware that you can't really escape politics, and in a representative democracy there is often someone who will benefit from your choices one way or another. In the US this breaks down into us vs. them because of the two party system. For an example, consider how Nader is sometimes blamed for Bush's victory in 2000. And indeed, whether intentional or not, Nader's campaign probably hurt Gore's chances. But my point is not to condemn (in this example) Nader voters. Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - JohnWhigham 5y ago
      you can't really escape politics Nah, I'm really tired of seeing this cop-out. It can't be escapted because people like you take joy in reducing every conversation down to politics so you can then steer it to your liking. Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray. I'd wager most of those voters voted for Nader because they wanted him to win, not because they were spiting Bush/Gore (while all the same being ignorant of the fact that 3rd party candidates don't work in first-past-the-post systems).
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        I think he was just saying try to be less ignorant. Which sounds like good advice to me.
        5y ago
- psyc 5y ago
  You can just say, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” It’s shorter, and less weasely.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    If I wanted to say that, I would. Clearly I failed at getting my point across. Out of curiosity, who do you think "us" is in this case?
    - slingnow 5y ago
      The "us" is clearly the people inside the system you're referring to (left / right). And for people outside the system, the "us" is often both the left and right interchangeably.
    - dbsmith83 5y ago
      us = the left or the right; the system; etc. You're basically advocating that someone should be on one pole or the other. I think your premise seems dishonest: First you gave an assumption about an 'unjust' system and explain why not choosing a side is bad, but then later on you say that not choosing a side isn't 'inherently wrong' to try to not seem judgemental. It comes across a little manipulative tbh.
- slingnow 5y ago
  The OP said nothing about standing on the sidelines -- just that their views don't neatly fit one way or another. However, if I witness a game where two teams are repeatedly smashing into each other at midfield, causing harm to themselves and making no visible progress, standing on the sidelines seems like a perfectly valid and rational choice. Making the argument that I could have helped / hurt one of the teams by participating holds no water. I'll join the game when it makes more sense.
- yanderekko 5y ago
  >In particular, when the status quo is unjust, saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo. The correct answer to this view is "so what?" If I choose to watch cartoons tonight rather than evangelize about whatever causes on Twitter, does that mean that I'm "OK with the status quo"? I guess in some sense it does - but again, so what? If you want to cast aspersions on me for this choice, I would just say that you have unreasonably high expectations regarding how much people should care about your cause, and I'd strongly suspect you of being a hypocrite on the matter.
- mindslight 5y ago
  > saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo To me, saying that you do identify with either the left or the right (or conversely, that you don't identify with both the left and the right, on some points) means you're OK with the status quo. They're both led by political machines that attract people's mindshare by talking about grassroots problems, and then transmute that support into the policies their sponsors paid for. There's no money to be made in solving the real grassroots problems, and doing so would actually diminish their recruitment. Vote pragmatically all you want, but don't mislead yourself into thinking either political team is actually fighting against the status quo.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The status quo may be broken. That doesn't mean I agree with any given side's approach to fixing it. (And "we have to do something, this is something, therefore we have to do this" is stupid logic.) If the status quo is bad, that doesn't mean we can't make it much worse by applying the wrong fix.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  This is an underhanded way of saying, “If you’re not with me, then you’re against me.” I had a number of extremely unpleasant conversations online that went like this on some well-known tech sites. No room for nuance. Just a constant blast of attacks on character, strawman, and hysterics. So far Hacker news readers don’t tolerate this but sometimes I wonder for how long.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  This is an underhanded way of saying, “If you’re not with me, then you’re against me.” It’s toxic and intolerable.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
What about people who leave you alone but try to push their opinion on others with less political power?
crmd 5y ago
In war games, the only winning move is not to play.
themaninthedark 5y ago
True, and this is an age old argument. Here is the relevant XKCD, just with a narrow scope: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/

AlexandrB 5y ago

I think it's important to be careful, when one identifies as "outside the system", that one is not actually advancing the cause of one of the "sides". In particular, when the status quo is unjust, saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo. I'm not saying this is an inherently wrong position, just that it's important to be aware of whose interests are served by you standing on the sidelines.

rscoots 5y ago
You'll notice the post you're responding to never mentioned anything close to "standing on the sidelines". A common tactic used by evangelist partisans is to paint centrists as 'undecided' on some issues and therefore just as evil as the enemy. In reality these people are as opinionated as any partisan on individual topics.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > You'll notice the post your responding to never mentioned anything close to "standing on the sidelines". That's a fair criticism. I suppose I was responding to the attitude I perceived from the comment rather than the words themselves. I'll admit that what I said may not apply to the GP at all.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Let's say I care about people more than politics. And let's say it plays out this way in my thinking: I'm pro-life, because I see a fetus as a person, or at least a person-in-the-making. And I'm pro-law-enforcement, because I see crime hurting people. And I'm pro-welfare and pro-raising-minimum-wage, because I see poverty hurting people. And I'm anti-death-penalty, because I see that as killing a person. And I'm anti-gun-rights, because I see guns killing people. (Note well: Not all of these are my positions, so let's skip debates about the specifics.) In the great Red-vs-Blue battle, I'm on the sidelines, because I'm on Team People, not Team Red or Team Blue. Both sides have positions that I agree with, and both have positions that I disagree with. I can't be fully on either team, because neither is fully on my team. But I'll get involved on individual issues. I'm not "undecided" on individual issues. Why is that a problem? (I mean, I see that it's a problem for someone who's wholly sold out to Team Red or Team Blue, but why should the rest of us care?)
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I certainly agree with their post. My opinion is that people on the edges of the political spectrum, who have strong opinions and are active in politics, in fact do nothing to change society, and actually entrench the existing power structures. The reason I have come to that conclusion is that politics is tribal, if you want to be part of a group, you have to have exactly the right beliefs, you cannot have an opinion other than the ones shared by the group, if you think a bit differently than the group, but agree with them on a large degree of things and are willing to work with them, the group will reject you. They do not want free thinkers, they want foot soldiers for their culture war. All the culture wars have done is act as a set of wedge issues politicians use to divide their opponents base. When you become politically active, you become a tool for politicians. And somehow, very predictably, midterm elections are already bad for incumbent presidents parties, we always alternate between democratic preaidents and republican presidents, my cities local politics will always be democratic, my state will always be controlled by republicans. The people in power seem to be happy with this status quo, perhaps just because it is predictable.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > The reason I have come to that conclusion is that politics is tribal, if you want to be part of a group, you have to have exactly the right beliefs, you cannot have an opinion other than the ones shared by the group, if you think a bit differently than the group, but agree with them on a large degree of things and are willing to work with them, the group will reject you. They do not want free thinkers, they want foot soldiers for their culture war. If a group is like that, then they're right - I'm not part of their tribe.
dalmo3 5y ago
This reads like an overly polite way of saying "you're either with us or against us."
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  That's a little reductive. I just think it's important to be aware that you can't really escape politics, and in a representative democracy there is often someone who will benefit from your choices one way or another. In the US this breaks down into us vs. them because of the two party system. For an example, consider how Nader is sometimes blamed for Bush's victory in 2000. And indeed, whether intentional or not, Nader's campaign probably hurt Gore's chances. But my point is not to condemn (in this example) Nader voters. Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    you can't really escape politics Nah, I'm really tired of seeing this cop-out. It can't be escapted because people like you take joy in reducing every conversation down to politics so you can then steer it to your liking. Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray. I'd wager most of those voters voted for Nader because they wanted him to win, not because they were spiting Bush/Gore (while all the same being ignorant of the fact that 3rd party candidates don't work in first-past-the-post systems).
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      I think he was just saying try to be less ignorant. Which sounds like good advice to me.
      - 5y ago
psyc 5y ago
You can just say, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” It’s shorter, and less weasely.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  If I wanted to say that, I would. Clearly I failed at getting my point across. Out of curiosity, who do you think "us" is in this case?
  - slingnow 5y ago
    The "us" is clearly the people inside the system you're referring to (left / right). And for people outside the system, the "us" is often both the left and right interchangeably.
  - dbsmith83 5y ago
    us = the left or the right; the system; etc. You're basically advocating that someone should be on one pole or the other. I think your premise seems dishonest: First you gave an assumption about an 'unjust' system and explain why not choosing a side is bad, but then later on you say that not choosing a side isn't 'inherently wrong' to try to not seem judgemental. It comes across a little manipulative tbh.
slingnow 5y ago
The OP said nothing about standing on the sidelines -- just that their views don't neatly fit one way or another. However, if I witness a game where two teams are repeatedly smashing into each other at midfield, causing harm to themselves and making no visible progress, standing on the sidelines seems like a perfectly valid and rational choice. Making the argument that I could have helped / hurt one of the teams by participating holds no water. I'll join the game when it makes more sense.
yanderekko 5y ago
>In particular, when the status quo is unjust, saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo. The correct answer to this view is "so what?" If I choose to watch cartoons tonight rather than evangelize about whatever causes on Twitter, does that mean that I'm "OK with the status quo"? I guess in some sense it does - but again, so what? If you want to cast aspersions on me for this choice, I would just say that you have unreasonably high expectations regarding how much people should care about your cause, and I'd strongly suspect you of being a hypocrite on the matter.
mindslight 5y ago
> saying that you don't identify with either the left or the right often means that you're OK with the status quo To me, saying that you do identify with either the left or the right (or conversely, that you don't identify with both the left and the right, on some points) means you're OK with the status quo. They're both led by political machines that attract people's mindshare by talking about grassroots problems, and then transmute that support into the policies their sponsors paid for. There's no money to be made in solving the real grassroots problems, and doing so would actually diminish their recruitment. Vote pragmatically all you want, but don't mislead yourself into thinking either political team is actually fighting against the status quo.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The status quo may be broken. That doesn't mean I agree with any given side's approach to fixing it. (And "we have to do something, this is something, therefore we have to do this" is stupid logic.) If the status quo is bad, that doesn't mean we can't make it much worse by applying the wrong fix.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
This is an underhanded way of saying, “If you’re not with me, then you’re against me.” I had a number of extremely unpleasant conversations online that went like this on some well-known tech sites. No room for nuance. Just a constant blast of attacks on character, strawman, and hysterics. So far Hacker news readers don’t tolerate this but sometimes I wonder for how long.
nobodyandproud 5y ago
This is an underhanded way of saying, “If you’re not with me, then you’re against me.” It’s toxic and intolerable.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

What about people who leave you alone but try to push their opinion on others with less political power?

crmd 5y ago

In war games, the only winning move is not to play.

themaninthedark 5y ago

True, and this is an age old argument. Here is the relevant XKCD, just with a narrow scope: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/