5 ms·

lol @ filtering "politically biased content". If you apply this filter you're not neutralizing biases, just adding a bias towards the status quo. The status quo

lol @ filtering "politically biased content". If you apply this filter you're not neutralizing biases, just adding a bias towards the status quo. The status quo being by definition not progressive, that unfortunately means you've given yourself a conservative bias. You've also offloaded the decision about what is political material to an AI - which has a biased view of what is politically biased based on its training data.

freedomben 3y ago
Using traditional (and IMHO more correct) definitions of conservative and progressive, you are of course correct. However, at least in the US those terms have pretty different meanings to most people IRL. For example, the "conservative" position on Roe v. Wade was to change the status quo, and the "progressive" position was largely to stick with the status quo. Conservatives largely want to change the status quo on funding the Ukraine war, while progresses don't. I'm sure there are other examples, but anyway if you limited yourself to the traditional definitions, you'd be utterly perplexed by such a thing.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  I think the person you're replying to is using the term in its academic form. Conservatism seeks to conserve [the status quo]. This transcends any colloquial gobbledygook.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    You could be right, although given that it is explicitly about filtering contemporary political bias, that would be an unhelpful definition to work with. Also many progressives nowadays will say the same thing about issues at work for example. When people say things like, "let's keep politics out of the workplace" they will say that is impossible because that reinforces the status quo, which is a political viewpoint.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Wanting to undo progress isn’t progress. Going back to “the way things were” (not a real thing) is a pretty central idea to conservatism both in theory and in practice in the US. To your example: calling roe v wade the status quo because it was the law from 1973 to 2023 seems like a stretch to me. As for the ukraine war example, yeah that one kinda breaks the mold. My best understanding of it is because the conservative position is to seek national strength, rather than the less concrete strength of unity. Sometimes that means war (e.g. iraq and afghanistan, nominally to prevent future terrorist attacks) and sometimes that means not-war as in the case where the benefit of keeping ukraine free, to the US, is unclear. Ultimately i think you’re right - as a political ideology, conservatism is more fickle than just “don’t change things” - but since that impulse is definitely in there i think my original point stands
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > calling roe v wade the status quo because it was the law from 1973 to 2023 seems like a stretch to me. It sounds like our disagreement is more around "where do we draw the line" of "what is the status quo." 50 years of being the law seems like the status quo to me. For most people that are alive, that's the way it's always been (for anyone born later than 1955, that was the law when you were facing the decision of abortion). There are thousands of years of history, so if the line of status quo isn't drawn at "how are things today" then we have to pick some arbitrary point and draw it there, and IMHO that makes the distinction between the two largely meaningless as there will always be an argument for why the line is in the wrong spot on any given issue, and moving the line on that issue flips the sides of which person is conservative and which is progressive. But largely, it sounds like we are agreement. If the labels are more about "impulse" rather than position, then I agree.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      > For most people that are alive, that's the way it's always been (for anyone born later than 1955, that was the law when you were facing the decision of abortion). Unfortunately for us a ton of lawmakers and at least 3 of the members of the supreme court were born before 1955. Which is the problem.
schleck8 3y ago
Sorry but this just sounds salty and like an anecdote (hn edition). If the status quo was conservatism you would expect to see that reflected in elections globally wouldn't you.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  I took it as more about definitions: conservatism (in theory) is all about conserving the status quo. It's in the name.
- velcrovan 3y ago
  As indeed we do.
  - schleck8 3y ago
    No, what we see is popular parties with watered down centric programmes drawing in the same core voters for decades. Parties that actively advertise resisting change almost never win any elections, unless the political system you use as reference sucks so bad that it's a defacto duopoly.
    - velcrovan 3y ago
      I don’t agree. "Stop this newfangled bullshit and let's go back to the way things used to be" is a very common political message.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      Idk if you’ve noticed, but centrists aren’t usually pushing radical reformations of our society to make it better. Centrism is just “let’s have the illusion of progress without adopting any change that threatens existing power structures.”
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Are we not seeing a rise in far-right leaders across the globe? Italy, Israel, Poland, Hungary... not to mention growing conservative movements in however many countries not currently governed by far-right populists. (America is certainly one of them. I believe France is another.)

freedomben 3y ago

Using traditional (and IMHO more correct) definitions of conservative and progressive, you are of course correct. However, at least in the US those terms have pretty different meanings to most people IRL. For example, the "conservative" position on Roe v. Wade was to change the status quo, and the "progressive" position was largely to stick with the status quo. Conservatives largely want to change the status quo on funding the Ukraine war, while progresses don't. I'm sure there are other examples, but anyway if you limited yourself to the traditional definitions, you'd be utterly perplexed by such a thing.

wildrhythms 3y ago
I think the person you're replying to is using the term in its academic form. Conservatism seeks to conserve [the status quo]. This transcends any colloquial gobbledygook.
- freedomben 3y ago
  You could be right, although given that it is explicitly about filtering contemporary political bias, that would be an unhelpful definition to work with. Also many progressives nowadays will say the same thing about issues at work for example. When people say things like, "let's keep politics out of the workplace" they will say that is impossible because that reinforces the status quo, which is a political viewpoint.
kennywinker 3y ago
Wanting to undo progress isn’t progress. Going back to “the way things were” (not a real thing) is a pretty central idea to conservatism both in theory and in practice in the US. To your example: calling roe v wade the status quo because it was the law from 1973 to 2023 seems like a stretch to me. As for the ukraine war example, yeah that one kinda breaks the mold. My best understanding of it is because the conservative position is to seek national strength, rather than the less concrete strength of unity. Sometimes that means war (e.g. iraq and afghanistan, nominally to prevent future terrorist attacks) and sometimes that means not-war as in the case where the benefit of keeping ukraine free, to the US, is unclear. Ultimately i think you’re right - as a political ideology, conservatism is more fickle than just “don’t change things” - but since that impulse is definitely in there i think my original point stands
- freedomben 3y ago
  > calling roe v wade the status quo because it was the law from 1973 to 2023 seems like a stretch to me. It sounds like our disagreement is more around "where do we draw the line" of "what is the status quo." 50 years of being the law seems like the status quo to me. For most people that are alive, that's the way it's always been (for anyone born later than 1955, that was the law when you were facing the decision of abortion). There are thousands of years of history, so if the line of status quo isn't drawn at "how are things today" then we have to pick some arbitrary point and draw it there, and IMHO that makes the distinction between the two largely meaningless as there will always be an argument for why the line is in the wrong spot on any given issue, and moving the line on that issue flips the sides of which person is conservative and which is progressive. But largely, it sounds like we are agreement. If the labels are more about "impulse" rather than position, then I agree.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    > For most people that are alive, that's the way it's always been (for anyone born later than 1955, that was the law when you were facing the decision of abortion). Unfortunately for us a ton of lawmakers and at least 3 of the members of the supreme court were born before 1955. Which is the problem.

schleck8 3y ago

Sorry but this just sounds salty and like an anecdote (hn edition). If the status quo was conservatism you would expect to see that reflected in elections globally wouldn't you.

HPsquared 3y ago
I took it as more about definitions: conservatism (in theory) is all about conserving the status quo. It's in the name.
velcrovan 3y ago
As indeed we do.
- schleck8 3y ago
  No, what we see is popular parties with watered down centric programmes drawing in the same core voters for decades. Parties that actively advertise resisting change almost never win any elections, unless the political system you use as reference sucks so bad that it's a defacto duopoly.
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    I don’t agree. "Stop this newfangled bullshit and let's go back to the way things used to be" is a very common political message.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    Idk if you’ve noticed, but centrists aren’t usually pushing radical reformations of our society to make it better. Centrism is just “let’s have the illusion of progress without adopting any change that threatens existing power structures.”
spondylosaurus 3y ago
Are we not seeing a rise in far-right leaders across the globe? Italy, Israel, Poland, Hungary... not to mention growing conservative movements in however many countries not currently governed by far-right populists. (America is certainly one of them. I believe France is another.)