3 ms·

I think knowing about the branches of your government is a prerequisite to having an opinion or good argument about it. It’s not sufficient to just know that bu

I think knowing about the branches of your government is a prerequisite to having an opinion or good argument about it. It’s not sufficient to just know that but it’s a good filter in the USA where a surprising number of people have “opinions” but lack the most basic knowledge.

miyoji 2mo ago
It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes, so you probably don't really care that much about whatever it is you say you care about, since you haven't done the easiest thing you can do to make a change. It's not perfect, and no criteria will be, but there are tons of people who can rattle off "executive, legislative, judiciary" who nevertheless don't know ball.
- dataflow 2mo ago
  > and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes Or, you know, you haven't lived at the same address for twenty years. In your imagined world where every single citizen either has something so pressing to call their representatives about or is just ignorant, you're still basically filtering out everybody who moved for a job/college/SO/whatever recently. I guess in your mind it's only fitting that they're disqualified from having an opinion? For reference about 12% of Americans change residence each year.
  - EA-3167 2mo ago
    As always everyone is entitled to their opinions, the question is how much should the rest of us care.
    - galleywest200 2mo ago
      Just like how sometimes I consider how little I should care about a social media frequenter’s opinions. I am, for better or for worse, getting near the last willing comment I am going to leave on this, or any, social media site. That is not due to age or illness, it is due to enshittification. Not by the admin but by the populace.
      - EA-3167 2mo ago
        Very bottom of the page, you can see links to the long and storied history of people saying “HN is bad now,” and why it’s an opinion you don’t really need to share. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I’d throw in for free that when you’re done at a party… say goodbye to your friends and leave. The party in general doesn’t need an announcement of your dissatisfaction and departure. Safe travels.
  - miyoji 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - stryan 2mo ago
    Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. I've never called anyone about anything political, and I also haven't lived at the same address (or even in the same state) for 20 years but I still know at least who my senators are and some of my representatives. State elections are every two years; you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours.
    - dataflow 2mo ago
      > Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. [...] you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours. Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? If it isn't obvious: typically the first year after a move - likely more, at least until House elections - most people will have zero reason to know their representatives' names, let alone keep remembering it for years. Who ever forgets a name they learned during a campaign a couple years ago, right? For starters, something like almost ~half of students move away from their families to attend college. And then look at moves for jobs and retirement and everything else. And then when an incumbent leaves, all of their constituents end up in a similar boat as someone who just moved. And I'm not even beginning to touch the fact that a lot of people's unawareness of politics is (spoiler, I know) due to them not having the luxury to be able to devote as much bandwidth to it as HNers do. All these people shouldn't have any political opinions whatsoever until they figure out their representatives because... some wise guy on HN thinks knowing your representative's name is a good litmus test for whether you can tell good from bad? Do you expect any other response than "screw you"? > I've never called anyone about anything political Quite a confession given the side you're standing on. You'd think such a model citizen would've at least cared to contact their rep one damn time to suggest something about such a serious issue. Like maybe helping educate people about the government and politics better so they become as enlightened as the others. If you (and/or parent, whoever feels this way) genuinely want a good outcome for something so serious instead of standing on a high horse and looking down on the uneducated, maybe actually go campaign to put your lovely literacy tests in the constitution, or whatever else would advance your cause forward. If you have some integrity, perhaps also campaign to fund the education system better and make it easier for citizens to vote in the same amendment, so that you're actually helping the people you presumably care about. Until you actually do something meaningful about this, I hope you can understand that your opinions about who should have opinions really won't come across the way you'd presumably hope they do.
- strken 2mo ago
  This particular test might be reasonable, but at some point you're just filtering out anyone who's not in your bubble, which is a problem when your beliefs are extreme because your bubble is tiny. Imagine a Marxist who refuses to discuss economics with anyone who can't explain dialectic materialism or enclosure.
  - somenameforme 2mo ago
    Even in his particular test, he's filtering out people who are quite well informed on political topics but also feel that the input of the average person has effectively 0 impact. And this is quite a huge blindspot because political understanding/knowledge tends to precisely trend towards that worldview for many. A sack of money goes much further than a phone or picket.
  - j16sdiz 2mo ago
    IMO. It is ok to filter them out. One simply does not have infinite time and resource to engage with everybody. Aware what you have filtered and don't treat them like idiot
    - strken 2mo ago
      Well, the contention of TFA is that you will turn ideologically crazy if you have an extreme belief and only speak to average people who disagree with you. Turning ideologically crazy sounds like something that would also happen if you only talk to people who have the same extreme beliefs.
- bratbag 2mo ago
  You are filtering out politically engaged people who have assesed the current mechanisms of state to be too flawed to be worth continued interaction. This is likely quite a large group.
  - Gormo 2mo ago
    More fundamentally, you'de be filtering out people's views on policy based on their engagement with the horse-race side of politics. That's not a particularly well-aligned criterion, regardless of the reasons why someone might not be immediately aware of which politicians are in which seats.
- Ntrails 2mo ago
  Having valid opinions about politics and engaging with the existing political system are not the same thing. I am super happy to chat about political questions (of all sorts) irrespective of my interest in voting. Note that when I say "talk politics" I really mean "discuss things controlled by politicians", not "discuss politicians". If you mean the latter it is a super fair bar to set!
- tonyedgecombe 2mo ago
  >It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. It's the fizzbuzz of political debate.
- bigstrat2003 2mo ago
  > The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes.... I see what you're getting at, but I think you need to refine your test a bit. I don't know who my representatives are off the top of my head, and I actually have contacted them within the last 6 months! It's just not information that has stuck in my brain. Likewise, I both vote and pay attention when I vote - I do some research on candidates' policy positions and (if applicable) their track records on issues that matter to me. But if you asked me to name them, I would still be helpless without looking that info up. I think what you're trying to get at is "does this person actually engage with representatives and pay attention when voting", but memorizing the names of your representatives is not 1:1 with that. Some people will be engaged and not have the names memorized, and others will have the names memorized but be disengaged.
MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
[flagged]
hackernud3s 2mo ago
We all learned what the 3 branches are in grade school. Some people forgot it. Liberals are more likely to remember it because liberal discourse (this thread for example) reminds them of it. It's a biased litmus test in other words.
- bot403 2mo ago
  It's inconceivable to me that you could forget the three branches. There are still headlines and news articles about the president , congress, and the supreme court. Those three things , talked about constantly, are a basic reminder of the most visible aspects of each branch.
  - hackernud3s 2mo ago
    That's because your experience is siloed. People in other silos are seeing other headlines and other news articles, and wondering how you could not see them.
    - marky1991 2mo ago
      That makes me, a conservative, wonder what those other headlines are talking about and if those headlines are worthwhile or helpful. Because, regardless of what you are reading, the fundamentals of government are unchanged. So if people aren't reading about them, that to me just suggests they're ignorant.
      - hackernud3s 2mo ago
        The question is, is that a reason to not engage with them, or is it a reason to engage with them? The author seems to suggest we only engage with people in our silos which seems.. incestuous?
  - marjancek 2mo ago
    Yet a lot of people forgot about the most important thing about them: that they must be independent.

miyoji 2mo ago

It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes, so you probably don't really care that much about whatever it is you say you care about, since you haven't done the easiest thing you can do to make a change. It's not perfect, and no criteria will be, but there are tons of people who can rattle off "executive, legislative, judiciary" who nevertheless don't know ball.

dataflow 2mo ago
> and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes Or, you know, you haven't lived at the same address for twenty years. In your imagined world where every single citizen either has something so pressing to call their representatives about or is just ignorant, you're still basically filtering out everybody who moved for a job/college/SO/whatever recently. I guess in your mind it's only fitting that they're disqualified from having an opinion? For reference about 12% of Americans change residence each year.
- EA-3167 2mo ago
  As always everyone is entitled to their opinions, the question is how much should the rest of us care.
  - galleywest200 2mo ago
    Just like how sometimes I consider how little I should care about a social media frequenter’s opinions. I am, for better or for worse, getting near the last willing comment I am going to leave on this, or any, social media site. That is not due to age or illness, it is due to enshittification. Not by the admin but by the populace.
    - EA-3167 2mo ago
      Very bottom of the page, you can see links to the long and storied history of people saying “HN is bad now,” and why it’s an opinion you don’t really need to share. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I’d throw in for free that when you’re done at a party… say goodbye to your friends and leave. The party in general doesn’t need an announcement of your dissatisfaction and departure. Safe travels.
- miyoji 2mo ago
  [dead]
- stryan 2mo ago
  Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. I've never called anyone about anything political, and I also haven't lived at the same address (or even in the same state) for 20 years but I still know at least who my senators are and some of my representatives. State elections are every two years; you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours.
  - dataflow 2mo ago
    > Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. [...] you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours. Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? If it isn't obvious: typically the first year after a move - likely more, at least until House elections - most people will have zero reason to know their representatives' names, let alone keep remembering it for years. Who ever forgets a name they learned during a campaign a couple years ago, right? For starters, something like almost ~half of students move away from their families to attend college. And then look at moves for jobs and retirement and everything else. And then when an incumbent leaves, all of their constituents end up in a similar boat as someone who just moved. And I'm not even beginning to touch the fact that a lot of people's unawareness of politics is (spoiler, I know) due to them not having the luxury to be able to devote as much bandwidth to it as HNers do. All these people shouldn't have any political opinions whatsoever until they figure out their representatives because... some wise guy on HN thinks knowing your representative's name is a good litmus test for whether you can tell good from bad? Do you expect any other response than "screw you"? > I've never called anyone about anything political Quite a confession given the side you're standing on. You'd think such a model citizen would've at least cared to contact their rep one damn time to suggest something about such a serious issue. Like maybe helping educate people about the government and politics better so they become as enlightened as the others. If you (and/or parent, whoever feels this way) genuinely want a good outcome for something so serious instead of standing on a high horse and looking down on the uneducated, maybe actually go campaign to put your lovely literacy tests in the constitution, or whatever else would advance your cause forward. If you have some integrity, perhaps also campaign to fund the education system better and make it easier for citizens to vote in the same amendment, so that you're actually helping the people you presumably care about. Until you actually do something meaningful about this, I hope you can understand that your opinions about who should have opinions really won't come across the way you'd presumably hope they do.
strken 2mo ago
This particular test might be reasonable, but at some point you're just filtering out anyone who's not in your bubble, which is a problem when your beliefs are extreme because your bubble is tiny. Imagine a Marxist who refuses to discuss economics with anyone who can't explain dialectic materialism or enclosure.
- somenameforme 2mo ago
  Even in his particular test, he's filtering out people who are quite well informed on political topics but also feel that the input of the average person has effectively 0 impact. And this is quite a huge blindspot because political understanding/knowledge tends to precisely trend towards that worldview for many. A sack of money goes much further than a phone or picket.
- j16sdiz 2mo ago
  IMO. It is ok to filter them out. One simply does not have infinite time and resource to engage with everybody. Aware what you have filtered and don't treat them like idiot
  - strken 2mo ago
    Well, the contention of TFA is that you will turn ideologically crazy if you have an extreme belief and only speak to average people who disagree with you. Turning ideologically crazy sounds like something that would also happen if you only talk to people who have the same extreme beliefs.
bratbag 2mo ago
You are filtering out politically engaged people who have assesed the current mechanisms of state to be too flawed to be worth continued interaction. This is likely quite a large group.
- Gormo 2mo ago
  More fundamentally, you'de be filtering out people's views on policy based on their engagement with the horse-race side of politics. That's not a particularly well-aligned criterion, regardless of the reasons why someone might not be immediately aware of which politicians are in which seats.
Ntrails 2mo ago
Having valid opinions about politics and engaging with the existing political system are not the same thing. I am super happy to chat about political questions (of all sorts) irrespective of my interest in voting. Note that when I say "talk politics" I really mean "discuss things controlled by politicians", not "discuss politicians". If you mean the latter it is a super fair bar to set!
tonyedgecombe 2mo ago
>It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. It's the fizzbuzz of political debate.
bigstrat2003 2mo ago
> The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes.... I see what you're getting at, but I think you need to refine your test a bit. I don't know who my representatives are off the top of my head, and I actually have contacted them within the last 6 months! It's just not information that has stuck in my brain. Likewise, I both vote and pay attention when I vote - I do some research on candidates' policy positions and (if applicable) their track records on issues that matter to me. But if you asked me to name them, I would still be helpless without looking that info up. I think what you're trying to get at is "does this person actually engage with representatives and pay attention when voting", but memorizing the names of your representatives is not 1:1 with that. Some people will be engaged and not have the names memorized, and others will have the names memorized but be disengaged.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago

[flagged]

hackernud3s 2mo ago

We all learned what the 3 branches are in grade school. Some people forgot it. Liberals are more likely to remember it because liberal discourse (this thread for example) reminds them of it. It's a biased litmus test in other words.

bot403 2mo ago
It's inconceivable to me that you could forget the three branches. There are still headlines and news articles about the president , congress, and the supreme court. Those three things , talked about constantly, are a basic reminder of the most visible aspects of each branch.
- hackernud3s 2mo ago
  That's because your experience is siloed. People in other silos are seeing other headlines and other news articles, and wondering how you could not see them.
  - marky1991 2mo ago
    That makes me, a conservative, wonder what those other headlines are talking about and if those headlines are worthwhile or helpful. Because, regardless of what you are reading, the fundamentals of government are unchanged. So if people aren't reading about them, that to me just suggests they're ignorant.
    - hackernud3s 2mo ago
      The question is, is that a reason to not engage with them, or is it a reason to engage with them? The author seems to suggest we only engage with people in our silos which seems.. incestuous?
- marjancek 2mo ago
  Yet a lot of people forgot about the most important thing about them: that they must be independent.