3 ms·

This reads like an overly polite way of saying "you're either with us or against us."

by dalmo3 5y ago

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.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      The problem is the idea that you can't be above the fray. It's clearly false as a literal claim - I've never met anyone who struggles to avoid discussing communism with their coworkers from China or Modi with their coworkers from India. In practice, whenever I've seen people say that it's impossible to be above the fray, what they mean is that suchandsuch issues are very important so they think everyone ought to be dragged into the fray.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        Yeah. There needs to be a middle ground. Terrible things are happening around the world, and nobody has the time or energy to attend to all of them. On the other hand, if somebody is calling a co-worker some racist term, looking aside is pretty cowardly. Everybody should probably think this through for themselves and figure out what they can live with.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    > I'd wager most of those voters voted for Nader because they wanted him to win... Yes. I didn't say otherwise. But voting for Nader probably benefitted Bush as well. Something that's important to consider if you want to vote for Nader. To be clear, despite this, I think that the 2000 Nader campaign was a good thing. I think the worst thing about "first past the post" electoral systems is that sometimes you end up voting "strategically" because of the above calculus.
bitwize 5y ago
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." --Desmond Tutu
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  given that injustices are perpetrated worldwide every second of the day, doesn't that just reduce down to "everybody is an oppressor"? I'm not particularly active in the Sudan conflict, so I guess I must be passively helping out whichever side is the bad guys? Times that by a thousand for all the other conflicts I'm not involved in, and I must be just about the worst person there is.
- VelkaMorava 5y ago
  Except apartheid was a real issue. Going mental on Tumblr and Twitter over some usage of "master" in Git (ignoring "git" in itself is an offensive word in the UK) is a made up issue. No one is dying because of it, and it's sad the world is conceding to mental illnesses of a few loud individuals. What am I, a Slav, supposed to do now? Should I riot because my ethnicity name is derived from the word "sclavus" (slave)? If we are rioting over words now, I suggest revisiting some of these: * MasterCard - implying only rich people (=plantation masters) have enough money to buy things * boy, girl - they could be transgender * heretic - has "her" in it, men can be pagans too. We can use hisetic for men. * history - feminists already got wind of this one, enjoy it while it lasts. * mastery - implying only rich people (=plantation masters) have time and resources to become experts in something * webmaster - there could be a webmistress too you know While we are at it, can we do something about "nigga"? For some 150+ year old reasons using the proper spelling is offensive as hell, I get that completely. What I am not OK with is black people having no qualms about using it in songs, movies, casual speak and what not, all while being terribly offensive if a white guy uses it in the same context. I am just ranting now but why the hell would you ban a word because it's offensive to your ethnicity and then keep on using mangled version of it? That's just plain stupid. It's as if Jewish people started wearing slightly modified yellow stars they had to wear in Nazi Germany, and called Nazi anyone who pointed out or asked why they are wearing said star. Looney town.
- ponow 5y ago

This reads like an overly polite way of saying "you're either with us or against us."

by dalmo3 5y ago

This reads like an overly polite way of saying "you're either with us or against us."

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.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    The problem is the idea that you can't be above the fray. It's clearly false as a literal claim - I've never met anyone who struggles to avoid discussing communism with their coworkers from China or Modi with their coworkers from India. In practice, whenever I've seen people say that it's impossible to be above the fray, what they mean is that suchandsuch issues are very important so they think everyone ought to be dragged into the fray.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Yeah. There needs to be a middle ground. Terrible things are happening around the world, and nobody has the time or energy to attend to all of them. On the other hand, if somebody is calling a co-worker some racist term, looking aside is pretty cowardly. Everybody should probably think this through for themselves and figure out what they can live with.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > I'd wager most of those voters voted for Nader because they wanted him to win... Yes. I didn't say otherwise. But voting for Nader probably benefitted Bush as well. Something that's important to consider if you want to vote for Nader. To be clear, despite this, I think that the 2000 Nader campaign was a good thing. I think the worst thing about "first past the post" electoral systems is that sometimes you end up voting "strategically" because of the above calculus.

bitwize 5y ago

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." --Desmond Tutu

beaconstudios 5y ago
given that injustices are perpetrated worldwide every second of the day, doesn't that just reduce down to "everybody is an oppressor"? I'm not particularly active in the Sudan conflict, so I guess I must be passively helping out whichever side is the bad guys? Times that by a thousand for all the other conflicts I'm not involved in, and I must be just about the worst person there is.
VelkaMorava 5y ago
Except apartheid was a real issue. Going mental on Tumblr and Twitter over some usage of "master" in Git (ignoring "git" in itself is an offensive word in the UK) is a made up issue. No one is dying because of it, and it's sad the world is conceding to mental illnesses of a few loud individuals. What am I, a Slav, supposed to do now? Should I riot because my ethnicity name is derived from the word "sclavus" (slave)? If we are rioting over words now, I suggest revisiting some of these: * MasterCard - implying only rich people (=plantation masters) have enough money to buy things * boy, girl - they could be transgender * heretic - has "her" in it, men can be pagans too. We can use hisetic for men. * history - feminists already got wind of this one, enjoy it while it lasts. * mastery - implying only rich people (=plantation masters) have time and resources to become experts in something * webmaster - there could be a webmistress too you know While we are at it, can we do something about "nigga"? For some 150+ year old reasons using the proper spelling is offensive as hell, I get that completely. What I am not OK with is black people having no qualms about using it in songs, movies, casual speak and what not, all while being terribly offensive if a white guy uses it in the same context. I am just ranting now but why the hell would you ban a word because it's offensive to your ethnicity and then keep on using mangled version of it? That's just plain stupid. It's as if Jewish people started wearing slightly modified yellow stars they had to wear in Nazi Germany, and called Nazi anyone who pointed out or asked why they are wearing said star. Looney town.
ponow 5y ago