Hmmmm. I agree that you shouldn't identify with notions and ideas and labels, because that's just dumb and putting the cart before the horse. But generally, and

Hmmmm. I agree that you shouldn't identify with notions and ideas and labels, because that's just dumb and putting the cart before the horse. But generally, and ignoring the sensibilities of HN? No to most of that. I started to care about politics since I saw corpses being shoved into a mass grave with a caterpillar while switching TV channels when I was a kid, and it hasn't let up since. Why should it? Politics by definition affects everyone, in ways that actually matter. Just take the web; it matters because it allows people to communicate, the people make it matter. Even more so with politics, which doesn't just affect everybody, everybody owns an equal share of it. Most people let theirs rot, but they still own it, and if the circus around it has been made that complex and hidden among many bloated layers of euphemisms and misdirection, to encourage apathy and and facilitate deception, then those layers need to be removed, instead of removing the "uneducated" from the debate. If a simple but adult mind can't understand it, something is fishy. Politics really isn't that complex as some people would love to make it out to be, or at the very least, sophistry is not complexity, and this makes for a huge chunk of political debate and opinions. As Chomsky said in some talk or other.. when he talks with intellectuals they have a hard time understanding even the most basic stuff, while some peasants in South America for example get it right away. I guess their being on the receiving end of it, instead of trying to rationalize the bloodshed their own gloved hand is doling out (or the hand of the uncle in whose lap they're sitting), helps. Also, it reminds me of this quote: The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn. -- Sophie Scholl Safe from what, indeed? From being incorrect? From being inefficient? From raised blood pressure? Why not try to be safe from standing for nothing? I don't mean to be polemic but I truly don't get it. What is a "useful conversation"? Useful for what, exactly? Talking about Javascript is terribly useless when it comes to being a decent person. Talking about being a decent person is terribly useless for debugging Javascript. If it has no potential to make anyone sad, angry or happy, it's likely a gimmick in the bigger scheme of things. Which is fine for HN I guess, but not for general advice on what kind of person one should be. Thanks, but no thanks.