4 ms·

Nah, it doesn't mean they support the status quo. It just means some political tactics are pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive. Political opinions ab

Nah, it doesn't mean they support the status quo. It just means some political tactics are pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive. Political opinions about how things should be don't automatically dictate the actions that should be taken in support of those opinions. I can be mad about a law or a court decision and still have the good sense to, for example, not throw red paint on a lawmaker or judge. Some behaviors just aren't helpful, and neither being right nor being upset changes that.

popalchemist 8mo ago
It intrinsically does. Whatever stance changes nothing or prefers to change nothing is a vote for the status quo, by definition.
- defrost 8mo ago
  > Whatever stance changes nothing .. is a vote for the status quo, by definition. As problematic as the assertion "by definition" is aside, it should be noted that endlessly commenting about politics on internet forums effectively changes nothing. I've been kettled by mounted officers and hit by high pressure hoses on cold evenings, something that also rarely effects change .. but that's a least a fun night out with people and better than wasting bits on the intertubes.
  - popalchemist 8mo ago
    Whether it's a waste is not entirely up to you. There are plenty of people on this forum who are completely naive and live in a bubble. The chance that a comment they see her could make a lightbulb go off is non-zero. But if I were a nihilist I might agree with you.
    - defrost 8mo ago
      So write good comments, neutral in tone, avoid preaching, stick to the facts, gently emphasize how laws are being broken without an excess of righteuosness, see the people whose opinions you oppose and find common ground to pivot to your position, etc. When last we crossed you appeared to be lecturing people while incorrectly paraphrasing their actual position (aka strawmanning)( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46793399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46793399 ). FWiW I recall handing a guitar (I hear they kill facists) to Billy Bragg way back when he was on tour Talking to the Taxman About Poetry and FYI he's back, again, following Springsteen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKOW2ZikGW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKOW2ZikGW8 So, good luck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ2QOwQdHL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ2QOwQdHL8 Maybe sidestep becoming a parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_uEbGJtnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_uEbGJtnY
      - popalchemist 8mo ago
        Why should you be the dictator of what tone is appropriate? Particularly when mass murder is involved. Get real.
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  No, that isn't remotely true. It means that the alternative you offer isn't compelling, not that your interlocutor likes the status quo.
  - popalchemist 8mo ago
    We're talking about the effect of non-action. To not act against a status quo is to enable it. Your feelings don't matter in that equation.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  I wouldn't say that avoiding political discussion yourself because you can't handle it is a vote for the status quo, but telling others not to talk about politics is definitely a vote for the status quo.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    Doesn't that depend entirely on the context? Telling the grocery store not to carry dairy products is an anti-dairy stance. Objecting to dairy products in the vegetable section is not anti-dairy it's pro-keeping-things-organized. Debating whether or not dairy ought to be allowed in the vegetable section is also not anti-dairy, at least in the general case.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      Unlike milk, politics pervades everything. It's not like keeping milk cartons out of the vegetable section, it's like keeping the letter "p" out of the vegetable section.
      - fc417fc802 8mo ago
        You've broken the analogy. The broad categories of food equate to the broad categories of discussion topics. How attention works, whether training on scraped data is legal, and whether or not the latter should be permissible are three distinct topics. Only the third is inherently political. The second has a close relation to politics but is ultimately a legal question as opposed to a political contest. The first has absolutely nothing to do with politics in and of itself. > politics pervades everything That's exactly the problem. Sometimes I don't want it to. If I pull up a spec sheet for a microcontroller I don't want to be bombarded with propaganda pertaining to the political tug of war of the day. The fact that mundane actions can have political impacts when considered en masse does not imply that we can't or shouldn't have spaces for discussions that are reasonably free of political topics. It isn't always appropriate (imo) to discuss the political impacts of the task at hand. It's okay to have a space in which only the task itself is permitted.
da_chicken 8mo ago
Maybe, but telling people who are speaking to their audience on the platforms that audience is voluntarily visiting that they need to shut up is even more pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive. Notepad++ is free, open source software for which there are dozens of alternative packages of equivalent quality. The entire cost of using this software and benefiting from the work of the developer, is having to scroll past or close a few political opinions. If the reaction, if someone vehemently dislikes this sort of thing, is to tell that developer to "just shut up and make your software" rather than to stop using that software? Then I think that's possibly the most entitled and hypocritical position that I think it's possible to have.
- getnormality 8mo ago
  Notepad++ maintainers can do whatever they want. I don't care. I'm just taking apart this tedious, superficial, self-serving activist cliche about how not being an activist is supporting the status quo. Some people want change just as much as activists do, but they have different ideas about when and how it's helpful to be an activist.
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    It's ok for you to have a different opinion. I'm sure both views are well reasoned. Neither one is "wrong".
viraptor 8mo ago
> and still have the good sense to The good sense is your judgement. At some point a real, direct, disruptive protest is going to be the right solution for a big enough group of people. Peaceful protests are just a "we're starting to get there" signal. It's not like politicians normally say "gee, lots of people don't like how I abuse power, I guess I'll stop now". It's all about being collectively upset enough about status quo.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

popalchemist 8mo ago

It intrinsically does. Whatever stance changes nothing or prefers to change nothing is a vote for the status quo, by definition.

defrost 8mo ago
> Whatever stance changes nothing .. is a vote for the status quo, by definition. As problematic as the assertion "by definition" is aside, it should be noted that endlessly commenting about politics on internet forums effectively changes nothing. I've been kettled by mounted officers and hit by high pressure hoses on cold evenings, something that also rarely effects change .. but that's a least a fun night out with people and better than wasting bits on the intertubes.
- popalchemist 8mo ago
  Whether it's a waste is not entirely up to you. There are plenty of people on this forum who are completely naive and live in a bubble. The chance that a comment they see her could make a lightbulb go off is non-zero. But if I were a nihilist I might agree with you.
  - defrost 8mo ago
    So write good comments, neutral in tone, avoid preaching, stick to the facts, gently emphasize how laws are being broken without an excess of righteuosness, see the people whose opinions you oppose and find common ground to pivot to your position, etc. When last we crossed you appeared to be lecturing people while incorrectly paraphrasing their actual position (aka strawmanning)( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46793399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46793399 ). FWiW I recall handing a guitar (I hear they kill facists) to Billy Bragg way back when he was on tour Talking to the Taxman About Poetry and FYI he's back, again, following Springsteen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKOW2ZikGW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKOW2ZikGW8 So, good luck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ2QOwQdHL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ2QOwQdHL8 Maybe sidestep becoming a parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_uEbGJtnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_uEbGJtnY
    - popalchemist 8mo ago
      Why should you be the dictator of what tone is appropriate? Particularly when mass murder is involved. Get real.
bigstrat2003 8mo ago
No, that isn't remotely true. It means that the alternative you offer isn't compelling, not that your interlocutor likes the status quo.
- popalchemist 8mo ago
  We're talking about the effect of non-action. To not act against a status quo is to enable it. Your feelings don't matter in that equation.
direwolf20 8mo ago
I wouldn't say that avoiding political discussion yourself because you can't handle it is a vote for the status quo, but telling others not to talk about politics is definitely a vote for the status quo.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  Doesn't that depend entirely on the context? Telling the grocery store not to carry dairy products is an anti-dairy stance. Objecting to dairy products in the vegetable section is not anti-dairy it's pro-keeping-things-organized. Debating whether or not dairy ought to be allowed in the vegetable section is also not anti-dairy, at least in the general case.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Unlike milk, politics pervades everything. It's not like keeping milk cartons out of the vegetable section, it's like keeping the letter "p" out of the vegetable section.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      You've broken the analogy. The broad categories of food equate to the broad categories of discussion topics. How attention works, whether training on scraped data is legal, and whether or not the latter should be permissible are three distinct topics. Only the third is inherently political. The second has a close relation to politics but is ultimately a legal question as opposed to a political contest. The first has absolutely nothing to do with politics in and of itself. > politics pervades everything That's exactly the problem. Sometimes I don't want it to. If I pull up a spec sheet for a microcontroller I don't want to be bombarded with propaganda pertaining to the political tug of war of the day. The fact that mundane actions can have political impacts when considered en masse does not imply that we can't or shouldn't have spaces for discussions that are reasonably free of political topics. It isn't always appropriate (imo) to discuss the political impacts of the task at hand. It's okay to have a space in which only the task itself is permitted.

da_chicken 8mo ago

Maybe, but telling people who are speaking to their audience on the platforms that audience is voluntarily visiting that they need to shut up is even more pointless, incompetent, and counterproductive. Notepad++ is free, open source software for which there are dozens of alternative packages of equivalent quality. The entire cost of using this software and benefiting from the work of the developer, is having to scroll past or close a few political opinions. If the reaction, if someone vehemently dislikes this sort of thing, is to tell that developer to "just shut up and make your software" rather than to stop using that software? Then I think that's possibly the most entitled and hypocritical position that I think it's possible to have.

getnormality 8mo ago
Notepad++ maintainers can do whatever they want. I don't care. I'm just taking apart this tedious, superficial, self-serving activist cliche about how not being an activist is supporting the status quo. Some people want change just as much as activists do, but they have different ideas about when and how it's helpful to be an activist.
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  It's ok for you to have a different opinion. I'm sure both views are well reasoned. Neither one is "wrong".

viraptor 8mo ago

> and still have the good sense to The good sense is your judgement. At some point a real, direct, disruptive protest is going to be the right solution for a big enough group of people. Peaceful protests are just a "we're starting to get there" signal. It's not like politicians normally say "gee, lots of people don't like how I abuse power, I guess I'll stop now". It's all about being collectively upset enough about status quo.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]