4 ms·

Stating that America has always had division and thus the degrees of division are irrelevant is quite the logical leap. Thankfully the author puts this up front

Stating that America has always had division and thus the degrees of division are irrelevant is quite the logical leap. Thankfully the author puts this up front so you can avoid most of the culture warring in the rest of the article. Politics is the same as it always has been: to the victor go the spoils. There is no objective what or whom America is for.

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
>Thankfully the author puts this up front so you can avoid most of the culture warring in the rest of the article. Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" >Politics is the same as it always has been: to the victor go the spoils. There is no objective what or whom America is for. So in your view, the ends justify the means? Or am I missing something? I take a different view, that politics is "the art of the possible." As far as the "objective" as to what or whom America is/for, that's the entire point of the discussion/division/discord/violence that's defined the political landscape of the United States since before its founding(s)[0]. If discussing differences in world view is "culture warring" and not to your liking, what's the alternative? Civil War? Terrorism? Something else? Please do elucidate -- since that's why we're here. Isn't it? Edit: Added link. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding
- iioapapala 1y ago
  > Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" When that comparison is a thin veil over “right wing bad”, yes. Though, it’s pretty laughable he considers JD Vance a white Christian nationalist. Same guy with an Indian wife who wore traditional Indian garb when visiting India, wore a Kippah while touching the wailing wall, yet refused to kiss the ring of the pope. > I take a different view, that politics is "the art of the possible." Politics is coalition building. If enough people decide it’s for white Christian nationalists, then that’s what it is. If enough people decide it’s a diverse, secular economic zone then that’s what it is. > If discussing differences in world view is "culture warring" and not to your liking, what's the alternative I have issue with the authors framing - pretending there is an objective truth and then telling you what it is (without explicitly saying that) is dishonest. State your views plainly and let readers decide. I have no issues with discussion in principle.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    I get your frustration with TFA. I don't necessarily agree, but that's not really important IMHO. Perhaps you might focus on the issues discussed rather than the author and their opinions? The article certainly seems to have gotten your rhetorical "juices" flowing. So why not focus that energy on making reasoned arguments for the type of governance you think would be most appropriate for the tech industry, the US and the world? I get it. You disagree with TFA's author. What do you agree with? What governance model do you think would serve the tech industry, the US and the world at large the best? A monarchy (with you as monarch, of course!)? Ancient Egypt style autocracy? Hoxhaism? Parliamentary system? Francoist Fascism? Anarcho-Capitalism?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago

>Thankfully the author puts this up front so you can avoid most of the culture warring in the rest of the article. Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" >Politics is the same as it always has been: to the victor go the spoils. There is no objective what or whom America is for. So in your view, the ends justify the means? Or am I missing something? I take a different view, that politics is "the art of the possible." As far as the "objective" as to what or whom America is/for, that's the entire point of the discussion/division/discord/violence that's defined the political landscape of the United States since before its founding(s)[0]. If discussing differences in world view is "culture warring" and not to your liking, what's the alternative? Civil War? Terrorism? Something else? Please do elucidate -- since that's why we're here. Isn't it? Edit: Added link. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding

iioapapala 1y ago
> Is a comparison of world views or a discussion of the stated goals of various groups really "culture warring?" When that comparison is a thin veil over “right wing bad”, yes. Though, it’s pretty laughable he considers JD Vance a white Christian nationalist. Same guy with an Indian wife who wore traditional Indian garb when visiting India, wore a Kippah while touching the wailing wall, yet refused to kiss the ring of the pope. > I take a different view, that politics is "the art of the possible." Politics is coalition building. If enough people decide it’s for white Christian nationalists, then that’s what it is. If enough people decide it’s a diverse, secular economic zone then that’s what it is. > If discussing differences in world view is "culture warring" and not to your liking, what's the alternative I have issue with the authors framing - pretending there is an objective truth and then telling you what it is (without explicitly saying that) is dishonest. State your views plainly and let readers decide. I have no issues with discussion in principle.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  I get your frustration with TFA. I don't necessarily agree, but that's not really important IMHO. Perhaps you might focus on the issues discussed rather than the author and their opinions? The article certainly seems to have gotten your rhetorical "juices" flowing. So why not focus that energy on making reasoned arguments for the type of governance you think would be most appropriate for the tech industry, the US and the world? I get it. You disagree with TFA's author. What do you agree with? What governance model do you think would serve the tech industry, the US and the world at large the best? A monarchy (with you as monarch, of course!)? Ancient Egypt style autocracy? Hoxhaism? Parliamentary system? Francoist Fascism? Anarcho-Capitalism?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]