3 ms·
> There's no need to partisanize this. On the contrary, the only way to drive change in a democracy is via partisanship. Demanding we all adhere to an artific
by ajross 11mo ago
> There's no need to partisanize this.
On the contrary, the only way to drive change in a democracy is via partisanship. Demanding we all adhere to an artificial both-sides framing is manufacturing consensus for the status quo. Politicians only change their positions if they think they'll lose votes because of it.
Also, obviously, because the analysis in this case is clearly wrong. This is a 100% partisan issue. Period. There are good guys and bad guys in the story, and if you won't point out who they are you're just running cover for the bad guys.
- Lammy 11mo ago> Politicians only change their positions if they think they'll lose votes because of it. And you won't convince any of that party's voters to care about location privacy enough to make it a vote-changing issue if you open your argument by criticizing their party (which, yes, almost universally sucks) instead of talking about the actual issue, which is location privacy.
- ajross 11mo agoThis is HN, no one here is ignorant of the issue. Even granting your framing, you're addressing the wrong audience. This is the choir here, not the laity. Look, no, that's just wrong. Immigration enforcement overreach (and law enforcement overreach more generally) is an almost purely republican issue. Period. Trying to silence criticism, especially in this forum, is simply trying to deflect blame.
- Lammy 11mo ago> Trying to silence criticism, especially in this forum, is simply trying to deflect blame. You are misinterpreting me in bad faith here.
- ajross 11mo agoHow so? You don't want us discussing the fact that republican policymaking is behind the CBP overreach in the linked article. You... literally said so.
- jkestner 11mo agoMost voters are independent.