Hacker News Reader

Comment by not_kurt_godel | Hacker News Reader

> I have zero interest in politics or anything even slightly political - I can't even describe what left wing vs right wing actually means

Political apathy is toxic. You don't have to be obsessed with politics but it's everyone's civic duty to understand the basic principles and players of our political system. Low voter turnout and low-information voters were major factors in Trump's win. You may think you don't care about politics but it's practically guaranteed you are or will be affected in some way (probably negative) as a result of his election - even if you don't live in the US.

View on HN

Most online discussion sites (reddit and HN, for example) focus overwhelmingly on US politics. This is significantly less relevant for the billion-odd people who use the English language internet but do not live in the USA.

He didn't say anything about US politics - he specifically said anything 'slightly political'. Trump is an example of what happens when a critical mass of people adopt that attitude, and it could just as well happen in any other country under the right circumstances (and indeed has many times in the past).

tbh it's the anti-trump crowd who can't help themselves from turning everything to politics.

Yeah because the Tea Party didn't exist under Pres. Obama. The Birth Certificate truthers exist, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Anti-Bush, and the No Blood For Oil crowds have existed forever across the spectrum. The only thing that's happened is that the internet has made everyone willing to turn everything into politics louder, less willing to listen, and easier to find an echo chamber. People talk about politics because it's the only thing that's literally relevant to everyone.

I focus on being a good person (as best as I can) and I care about being happy. Worrying about what a bunch of quarreling children are doing, with very limited scope to impact or change any of it, is detrimental to being happy. I am under no illusion that the changes driven by Government affect me, in many ways. There's a decent chance ol' trumpy might let off a bomb, ruining hundreds of thousands of lives. Maybe, if it hits New Zealand, that of mine and my children too. But I still chose not to care/worry about it. I focus on enjoying the time I have with my family, trying to teach them to be happy. If they find an interest on politics makes them happy and excited, that's great! I'll encourage that 100%. But I don't care.

That's a convenient attitude to have until you don't have the privilege of being so carefree about the potential consequences. That's exactly how Trump got elected - people who were politically apathetic or ill-informed took the bait of a loud 'charismatic' celeb with a message that was perfectly tailored to appeal to those who couldn't be bothered to learn the basic facts.

I totally agree. But where do I draw the line. How heavily invested do I have to get into politics to get over this line you're alluding to, but haven't defined.

What about global warming? Space junk? Plant and Animal species becoming extinct etc. I expect you'll say those all tie back to politics and yes, they do to a degree. But having a strong political opinion doesn't suddenly change the world. We have limited time on this earth, I chose to invest my time into local things I can have some influence over. I agree I am extremely lucky to be in a privileged position to take this stance.

Here are my suggestions for a line:

1. One should participate in representational political processes as a matter of self-interest and civic obligation, even if it's just the absolute bare minimum of voting

2. Pursuant to that obligation, one should take the time to develop at least a basic understanding of the differences between the major political factions so that one's vote is not a completely random choice. Every adult should be able to write 2 gradeschool-level paragraphs comparing and contrasting the general principles and policies thereof.

3. Even if one does neither of the above, one should recognize that normalizing and rationalizing political non-participation is damaging to society if it influences others to do the same, and should thus be avoided.

Sound fair?

That's a bad way to put things. You can disagree with the outcome of the 2016 election, but it was a _feature_ not a _bug_ of the system the US has in place. The voters who got their way are equal in their right to their preference as you are to yours.

The feature/bug metaphor fails to take into account tradeoffs. Every political system has pros and cons, and which one you choose to describe the system reveals your politics.

For instance: the voters are not equal in their right to preference. Delegates are equal in their right to preference. This means the person with the popular vote lost. So, do you value the republican vote or the democratic vote (government, not party)? There’s no objectively better option; it’s a pick-your-poison type deal.

Sure, and I'm equally in my right to encourage people to take action to effect a different outcome. And, independent of the outcome, I feel quite comfortable in asserting the universal truth that people have a moral obligation to be involved in political processes that are tangibly in their direct self-interest and society's interest to participate in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com