4 ms·

> This is a common kneejerk response to being critical of corporate parties No need to put a negative label on my point of view even if it differs from yours.

> This is a common kneejerk response to being critical of corporate parties No need to put a negative label on my point of view even if it differs from yours. In any case, if you look at the candidates for rep or dem nominee for president, there is a stark difference on how they feel about the mega rich and corporations (Warren, Bernie vs. any rep nominee really). Unfortunately the corporation wing typically ends up on top due to establishment support and money. But if you'd expect any change for the better, it would come from the D side, never from the R. Furthermore, there's a huge array of issues where corporate interests are not as strong as party ideals, and it really matters who has the final say in those. As for the multi-party system, you at least get a more evenly distributed set of ideas in the political landscape: environmental party, religious nutjob party, agrarian party etc. This forces the main parties to take stances and be less extreme.

swed420 3y ago
>> This is a common kneejerk response to being critical of corporate parties > No need to put a negative label on my point of view even if it differs from yours. Writing it off the way I did was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying to intentionally mischaracterize my statements and instead made a simple error, the kind that would be expected to be common in such a disorienting state of affairs. It's confirmed as common because I see it 20x a day on reddit and even in person when these issues come up in conversation. As for the nominee process, the flaws are addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40013399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40013399
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  And if power was distributed in a more proportional manner, Bernie could start his own party and enjoy some 20-30% of the vote, forcing the others to compromise. So again, the two party system is to blame. Edit: of course the two party system was designed by wealthy land owners, so in that sense it was meant to be captured by the wealthy. It was never meant to represent the average Joe.
- xracy 3y ago
  > It's confirmed as common because I see it 20x a day on reddit and even in person when these issues come up in conversation. This sounds like a you problem... If everyone is "mischaracterizing" your statements, then you're not saying what you think you're saying. But given you're complaining about frequency from other people, the problem isn't "everyone else is bad at reading", it's "you're bad at communicating" The good news is that this is a human problem. Maybe take a look back at what you actually wrote, and try and think about how you could change it to better convey what you're trying to say.
  - swed420 3y ago
    > This sounds like a you problem... If everyone is "mischaracterizing" your statements, then you're not saying what you think you're saying. It's not everyone though, just the majority, and though what you said could be true depending on circumstances, it isn't guaranteed to be. A sufficiently brainwashed or otherwise narrow minded person is going to skew their comprehension of statements that don't compute from their perspective. I do agree that it might be worthwhile for me to continue adjusting the presentation to help mitigate this, and I can assure you this process is an ongoing one. Sometimes it's easier said than done in a sea of mixed actors, including bad faith ones. Also even with a perfect wording, sometimes people find it's easier on their cognitive dissonance to just shoot the messenger anyway.
    - xracy 3y ago
      > It's not everyone though, just the majority If the majority of people are misunderstanding what I'm saying, I'm a bad communicator. If your complaint is actually just that people misunderstand you, this is the only thing you can actually change in this equation. Your initial comment is not set up like a complaint of capitalism. No one communicating about the woes of capitalism also brings up "both sides." Most who makes an appeal to "both parties are bad" is making an appeal that it doesn't actually matter who they voted for in the last election. Oftentimes this means justifying an unpopular vote. It's not a useful thing to say "everyone is bad." Especially since, if the Overton Window shifted away from the GOP, I think it would greatly change the acceptability of ideas that would take away the power of capitalism. But the GOP has firmly rooted the Overton Window around the idea that "Capitalism == Good". If you doubt this, I would ask you to consider what the Overton Window of just the Democratic party is. It's not great, but there's 1000000x more acceptable policy than for whatever you get if you include the GOP.

swed420 3y ago

>> This is a common kneejerk response to being critical of corporate parties > No need to put a negative label on my point of view even if it differs from yours. Writing it off the way I did was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying to intentionally mischaracterize my statements and instead made a simple error, the kind that would be expected to be common in such a disorienting state of affairs. It's confirmed as common because I see it 20x a day on reddit and even in person when these issues come up in conversation. As for the nominee process, the flaws are addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40013399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40013399

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
And if power was distributed in a more proportional manner, Bernie could start his own party and enjoy some 20-30% of the vote, forcing the others to compromise. So again, the two party system is to blame. Edit: of course the two party system was designed by wealthy land owners, so in that sense it was meant to be captured by the wealthy. It was never meant to represent the average Joe.
xracy 3y ago
> It's confirmed as common because I see it 20x a day on reddit and even in person when these issues come up in conversation. This sounds like a you problem... If everyone is "mischaracterizing" your statements, then you're not saying what you think you're saying. But given you're complaining about frequency from other people, the problem isn't "everyone else is bad at reading", it's "you're bad at communicating" The good news is that this is a human problem. Maybe take a look back at what you actually wrote, and try and think about how you could change it to better convey what you're trying to say.
- swed420 3y ago
  > This sounds like a you problem... If everyone is "mischaracterizing" your statements, then you're not saying what you think you're saying. It's not everyone though, just the majority, and though what you said could be true depending on circumstances, it isn't guaranteed to be. A sufficiently brainwashed or otherwise narrow minded person is going to skew their comprehension of statements that don't compute from their perspective. I do agree that it might be worthwhile for me to continue adjusting the presentation to help mitigate this, and I can assure you this process is an ongoing one. Sometimes it's easier said than done in a sea of mixed actors, including bad faith ones. Also even with a perfect wording, sometimes people find it's easier on their cognitive dissonance to just shoot the messenger anyway.
  - xracy 3y ago
    > It's not everyone though, just the majority If the majority of people are misunderstanding what I'm saying, I'm a bad communicator. If your complaint is actually just that people misunderstand you, this is the only thing you can actually change in this equation. Your initial comment is not set up like a complaint of capitalism. No one communicating about the woes of capitalism also brings up "both sides." Most who makes an appeal to "both parties are bad" is making an appeal that it doesn't actually matter who they voted for in the last election. Oftentimes this means justifying an unpopular vote. It's not a useful thing to say "everyone is bad." Especially since, if the Overton Window shifted away from the GOP, I think it would greatly change the acceptability of ideas that would take away the power of capitalism. But the GOP has firmly rooted the Overton Window around the idea that "Capitalism == Good". If you doubt this, I would ask you to consider what the Overton Window of just the Democratic party is. It's not great, but there's 1000000x more acceptable policy than for whatever you get if you include the GOP.