4 ms·

I can't know what problem I'm part of until you're more specific. The problem I see is that inconsistent enforcement of both laws and social norms, allow one s

I can't know what problem I'm part of until you're more specific. The problem I see is that inconsistent enforcement of both laws and social norms, allow one side of politics to be more expressive than the other. Compare "if the rich don't start dealing with the problem of inequality, violence is sure to follow", with "if politicians don't start dealing with the problem of non-White immigration, violence is sure to follow".

mindslight 13y ago
The larger problem I'm referring to is the division and conquering of the entirety of political debate, by deflecting anger away from the actual responsible parties and towards the people making up the "other" half. Each group is organized in a different manner, causing the speech-asymmetry you describe - you are correct that the phrases are essentially describing similar things yet are perceived unequally. But to focus on this one specific mechanism is to miss the larger picture of how the people who identify with each side are goaded into using up their energy attacking each other while giving a pass to those in power responsible for the conditions. Your original comment is an illustration of self-defeating groupthink occurring on your side. By misdiagnosing the situation as an instance of political speech asymmetry rather than exploring the specific inconsistency itself (say, leading back to the utter arbitrariness with which one can find oneself being seriously hassled when even just near an airport), you shoehorned the problem as if it is the sole doing of the "other" group, and left it at that. Clearly this resolves nothing.
- QuantumChaos 13y ago
  You claim that the concepts of left and right are not useful because both sides are in fact being manipulated into fighting each other, rather than the true "responsible parties". Who exactly do you think these "responsible parties" are?
  - mindslight 13y ago
    In this case, both the airlines and law enforcement for sustaining an environment where anything called a "threat" is treated as a drop-everything excuse to hassle anybody possibly involved, all without having to compensate the victims of false positives. Their behavior arises out of a cover-your-ass mentality, but that doesn't mean they should escape blame. This is where the corruption begins, and the inconsistency you point out illustrates it. The airlines are able to show any movie because they set the status quo, not because of the movies' political affiliations.

mindslight 13y ago

The larger problem I'm referring to is the division and conquering of the entirety of political debate, by deflecting anger away from the actual responsible parties and towards the people making up the "other" half. Each group is organized in a different manner, causing the speech-asymmetry you describe - you are correct that the phrases are essentially describing similar things yet are perceived unequally. But to focus on this one specific mechanism is to miss the larger picture of how the people who identify with each side are goaded into using up their energy attacking each other while giving a pass to those in power responsible for the conditions. Your original comment is an illustration of self-defeating groupthink occurring on your side. By misdiagnosing the situation as an instance of political speech asymmetry rather than exploring the specific inconsistency itself (say, leading back to the utter arbitrariness with which one can find oneself being seriously hassled when even just near an airport), you shoehorned the problem as if it is the sole doing of the "other" group, and left it at that. Clearly this resolves nothing.

QuantumChaos 13y ago
You claim that the concepts of left and right are not useful because both sides are in fact being manipulated into fighting each other, rather than the true "responsible parties". Who exactly do you think these "responsible parties" are?
- mindslight 13y ago
  In this case, both the airlines and law enforcement for sustaining an environment where anything called a "threat" is treated as a drop-everything excuse to hassle anybody possibly involved, all without having to compensate the victims of false positives. Their behavior arises out of a cover-your-ass mentality, but that doesn't mean they should escape blame. This is where the corruption begins, and the inconsistency you point out illustrates it. The airlines are able to show any movie because they set the status quo, not because of the movies' political affiliations.