3 ms·

But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divina

by JadeNB 2y ago

But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. You advocate for better civics classes, but better classes would teach people to question things and act for the changes they see needed in today's world, not to accept a historically frozen government.

Alupis 2y ago
The disconnect with reality is people often find themselves inside "information bubbles" where it feels like everyone thinks the same policies need to be enacted. Then they are dumbfounded when the policy doesn't actually get passed. When this happens, it's easy to fall into the propaganda and believe "the other side" is actively trying to subvert the country/constitution and destroy everything. Reality is there is not consensus for those policies. It's that simple. I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. They are each doing what they believe is best, and what they were elected to do... even if personally we don't favor those viewpoints.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. Even the ones who spend July 4 in Moscow, actively support insurrection, and put their hands on the Constitution while swearing to uphold the Bible? The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Can we lay down the propaganda for a minute and actually debate using our brains? This ridiculous propaganda is super exhausting and very unstimulating.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      I've been warned multiple times against participating in flamewars on HN, so I'll pass, thanks. Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the partisans in Congress and elsewhere that I'm referring to.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        > Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the people I'm referring to > The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs. I'm missing something here, because it seems you are the flame war you speak ill of, and when I asked you to tone down the rhetoric you throw your hands up and say you're not going to participate in said flame war. You are right though - it is impossible to have a productive conversation when one person is determined to only believe their flavor of propaganda and not find any common ground. I said it elsewhere in thread: "Sit down with a friend that has the opposite political viewpoints and discuss some hard issues for an hour. There's a 0% chance the two sides don't find common ground..."
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- trealira 2y ago
  I'm sure Viktor Orban thinks he's doing what's best for Hungary, too. It doesn't really matter whether they think they're justified when their values are so alien that you can't reconcile your ideals with theirs. You may as well tell a sick patient that they're being unreasonable because the virus isn't actually a sentient being trying to destroy your body's cells, it's just programmed to reproduce like that.
jancsika 2y ago
> But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. But first things first-- one ought to have an overview of the specification for the form of government, why it was designed that way, and how it's been implemented over the past 200 years. The OP who saw gridlock as an unexpected and undesirable attribute of the federal budget process appears to not yet possess this knowledge. I'd say knowing things is a recommended dependency for questioning them. Otherwise the changes you think you want to see might as well be chosen by a random number generator. (But then at least random() isn't subject to filter bubbles!)
pdonis 2y ago
> act for the changes they see needed in today's world The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed. That is the process for amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change. It is surely a ludicrous claim that our system of government has changed only 27 times. I doubt anyone even believes that the amendments record the 27 most consequential changes! Further, there is absolutely no way that I, or any individual (including any individual in government), can get a Constitutional amendment passed alone, so either there are steps between individual action and amending the Constitution, or there might as well not be an amendment process.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change Sure, if you can "effect change" by following the processes described in the Constitution as it is, you don't have to amend it. But my point is that much, if not most, of what the US government currently does is not following the processes described in the Constitution as it is--those are just being ignored, and nobody even talks about having to amend the Constitution to, for example, allow Congress to delegate legislative power to Executive branch agencies.

by JadeNB 2y ago

Alupis 2y ago

The disconnect with reality is people often find themselves inside "information bubbles" where it feels like everyone thinks the same policies need to be enacted. Then they are dumbfounded when the policy doesn't actually get passed. When this happens, it's easy to fall into the propaganda and believe "the other side" is actively trying to subvert the country/constitution and destroy everything. Reality is there is not consensus for those policies. It's that simple. I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. They are each doing what they believe is best, and what they were elected to do... even if personally we don't favor those viewpoints.

CamperBob2 2y ago
I promise you, there aren't any congress critters that are actually trying to destroy the country. Even the ones who spend July 4 in Moscow, actively support insurrection, and put their hands on the Constitution while swearing to uphold the Bible? The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Can we lay down the propaganda for a minute and actually debate using our brains? This ridiculous propaganda is super exhausting and very unstimulating.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    I've been warned multiple times against participating in flamewars on HN, so I'll pass, thanks. Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the partisans in Congress and elsewhere that I'm referring to.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > Civil discourse has effectively been rendered impossible by the people I'm referring to > The system wasn't designed to tolerate an entire party of saboteurs. I'm missing something here, because it seems you are the flame war you speak ill of, and when I asked you to tone down the rhetoric you throw your hands up and say you're not going to participate in said flame war. You are right though - it is impossible to have a productive conversation when one person is determined to only believe their flavor of propaganda and not find any common ground. I said it elsewhere in thread: "Sit down with a friend that has the opposite political viewpoints and discuss some hard issues for an hour. There's a 0% chance the two sides don't find common ground..."
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
trealira 2y ago
I'm sure Viktor Orban thinks he's doing what's best for Hungary, too. It doesn't really matter whether they think they're justified when their values are so alien that you can't reconcile your ideals with theirs. You may as well tell a sick patient that they're being unreasonable because the virus isn't actually a sentient being trying to destroy your body's cells, it's just programmed to reproduce like that.

jancsika 2y ago

> But "works as designed" isn't the end of argument; things can be working exactly as the founding fathers expected (though only Scalia, with his powers of divination, could tell us for sure what they would think of today's world), and it can still be a bad thing. But first things first-- one ought to have an overview of the specification for the form of government, why it was designed that way, and how it's been implemented over the past 200 years. The OP who saw gridlock as an unexpected and undesirable attribute of the federal budget process appears to not yet possess this knowledge. I'd say knowing things is a recommended dependency for questioning them. Otherwise the changes you think you want to see might as well be chosen by a random number generator. (But then at least random() isn't subject to filter bubbles!)

pdonis 2y ago

> act for the changes they see needed in today's world The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed.

JadeNB 2y ago
> The Constitution provides a process for amending it, and that process has been used twenty-seven times. That is the proper process for "acting for changes" if you think they are needed. That is the process for amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change. It is surely a ludicrous claim that our system of government has changed only 27 times. I doubt anyone even believes that the amendments record the 27 most consequential changes! Further, there is absolutely no way that I, or any individual (including any individual in government), can get a Constitutional amendment passed alone, so either there are steps between individual action and amending the Constitution, or there might as well not be an amendment process.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > amending the Constitution, which neither is, nor should be, the only way to effect change Sure, if you can "effect change" by following the processes described in the Constitution as it is, you don't have to amend it. But my point is that much, if not most, of what the US government currently does is not following the processes described in the Constitution as it is--those are just being ignored, and nobody even talks about having to amend the Constitution to, for example, allow Congress to delegate legislative power to Executive branch agencies.