4 ms·

You certainly can, but if you're going to be published in The Atlantic, I'd like to see more. This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) o

You certainly can, but if you're going to be published in The Atlantic, I'd like to see more. This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something.

rsynnott 3y ago
So your proposed solutions are: > This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) The author tells people what to do, with, one would assume, no chance of success > or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). The author proposes, well, I've no idea really, some form of radical social reform? How would one do that, artificially? Is it even desirable? > Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something. The author makes wide-ranging predictions based in a political moment (these are rarely if ever accurate, realistically). Honestly, all of the above are, I think, common _failings_ of this sort of article and the author has done well to avoid them.
- erehweb 3y ago
  Sure, if you don't say anything, then you won't say anything wrong. I'd like an article to give me a bit more to think about, even (or especially?) if I don't agree with their point of view.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    I mean, item one is just kind of nonsense, and item three is just pure speculation on a complex issue; it’d be no better than guesswork. For item two there is an answer, but it’s boring at this point; the way to make a country, absent mind control, less partisan is to shift to multiparty democracy, which requires a change to the electoral system (and arguably abandonment of the executive presidency; multiparty states are usually parliamentary). The US’s constitutional setup makes this, for practical purposes, impossible, and neither existing side wants it anyway, so it is not going to happen. Everyone already knows this. The author _could_ have repeated it, but I’m not sure it would have added anything.

rsynnott 3y ago

So your proposed solutions are: > This could be personal (should partisans become less selective?) The author tells people what to do, with, one would assume, no chance of success > or societal (how could we reduce partisanship?). The author proposes, well, I've no idea really, some form of radical social reform? How would one do that, artificially? Is it even desirable? > Even just asserting with evidence "nothing can be done, and here's what's in store for society" would be something. The author makes wide-ranging predictions based in a political moment (these are rarely if ever accurate, realistically). Honestly, all of the above are, I think, common _failings_ of this sort of article and the author has done well to avoid them.

erehweb 3y ago
Sure, if you don't say anything, then you won't say anything wrong. I'd like an article to give me a bit more to think about, even (or especially?) if I don't agree with their point of view.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, item one is just kind of nonsense, and item three is just pure speculation on a complex issue; it’d be no better than guesswork. For item two there is an answer, but it’s boring at this point; the way to make a country, absent mind control, less partisan is to shift to multiparty democracy, which requires a change to the electoral system (and arguably abandonment of the executive presidency; multiparty states are usually parliamentary). The US’s constitutional setup makes this, for practical purposes, impossible, and neither existing side wants it anyway, so it is not going to happen. Everyone already knows this. The author _could_ have repeated it, but I’m not sure it would have added anything.