4 ms·

> A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such

by sobkas 4y ago

> A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such as law and medicine. This is usually accompanied by efforts to reframe contentious policy debates as “non-political.” Which of course makes no sense because lots of things that aren’t political in the abstract quickly become political when it comes to people advancing specific remedies or ways of restructuring society. And there are people who pretend that progressive changes to society are inherently political, and also imply/openly advocate that conservative keeping of status quo isn't. Just because status quo benefits them doesn't mean that keeping it, is rational non-political option.

rayiner 4y ago
Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructure sectors of society. Put differently, stable democracy calls for a well policed distinction between sectors of society that lobby for change, and sectors of society that are expected to neutrally referee, or provide expert guidance, without being agents of change themselves.
- skedaddle 4y ago
  Do you have in mind something like what happened with tobacco in the 60s, when the Surgeon General documented negative health effects publicly and extensively, but ultimately stopped short of recommending any action against it? In my experience, most people see the little label on cigarette packs as grossly inadequate.
- sobkas 4y ago
  Problem with maintaining status quo is that for example someones pay may be the same or can grow a little while economy grows around them, they end up having relatively less and they can afford less. So status quo may squeeze people dry, while they still have things they don't want to loose. And they will loose them maybe not today, but definitely tomorrow.

by sobkas 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructure sectors of society. Put differently, stable democracy calls for a well policed distinction between sectors of society that lobby for change, and sectors of society that are expected to neutrally referee, or provide expert guidance, without being agents of change themselves.

skedaddle 4y ago
Do you have in mind something like what happened with tobacco in the 60s, when the Surgeon General documented negative health effects publicly and extensively, but ultimately stopped short of recommending any action against it? In my experience, most people see the little label on cigarette packs as grossly inadequate.
sobkas 4y ago
Problem with maintaining status quo is that for example someones pay may be the same or can grow a little while economy grows around them, they end up having relatively less and they can afford less. So status quo may squeeze people dry, while they still have things they don't want to loose. And they will loose them maybe not today, but definitely tomorrow.