The correct answer to this view is "so what?" If I choose to watch cartoons tonight rather than evangelize about whatever causes on Twitter, does that mean that I'm "OK with the status quo"? I guess in some sense it does - but again, so what? If you want to cast aspersions on me for this choice, I would just say that you have unreasonably high expectations regarding how much people should care about your cause, and I'd strongly suspect you of being a hypocrite on the matter.
For an example, consider how Nader is sometimes blamed for Bush's victory in 2000. And indeed, whether intentional or not, Nader's campaign probably hurt Gore's chances. But my point is not to condemn (in this example) Nader voters. Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray.
Nah, I'm really tired of seeing this cop-out. It can't be escapted because people like you take joy in reducing every conversation down to politics so you can then steer it to your liking.
Just that it's important to be aware of who is likely benefiting from your actions and not pretend that by remaining "neural" or "independent" you're somehow above the fray.
I'd wager most of those voters voted for Nader because they wanted him to win, not because they were spiting Bush/Gore (while all the same being ignorant of the fact that 3rd party candidates don't work in first-past-the-post systems).
Yes. I didn't say otherwise. But voting for Nader probably benefitted Bush as well. Something that's important to consider if you want to vote for Nader. To be clear, despite this, I think that the 2000 Nader campaign was a good thing.
I think the worst thing about "first past the post" electoral systems is that sometimes you end up voting "strategically" because of the above calculus.
The reason I have come to that conclusion is that politics is tribal, if you want to be part of a group, you have to have exactly the right beliefs, you cannot have an opinion other than the ones shared by the group, if you think a bit differently than the group, but agree with them on a large degree of things and are willing to work with them, the group will reject you. They do not want free thinkers, they want foot soldiers for their culture war.
All the culture wars have done is act as a set of wedge issues politicians use to divide their opponents base. When you become politically active, you become a tool for politicians. And somehow, very predictably, midterm elections are already bad for incumbent presidents parties, we always alternate between democratic preaidents and republican presidents, my cities local politics will always be democratic, my state will always be controlled by republicans. The people in power seem to be happy with this status quo, perhaps just because it is predictable.
If a group is like that, then they're right - I'm not part of their tribe.
However, if I witness a game where two teams are repeatedly smashing into each other at midfield, causing harm to themselves and making no visible progress, standing on the sidelines seems like a perfectly valid and rational choice.
Making the argument that I could have helped / hurt one of the teams by participating holds no water. I'll join the game when it makes more sense.
To me, saying that you do identify with either the left or the right (or conversely, that you don't identify with both the left and the right, on some points) means you're OK with the status quo. They're both led by political machines that attract people's mindshare by talking about grassroots problems, and then transmute that support into the policies their sponsors paid for. There's no money to be made in solving the real grassroots problems, and doing so would actually diminish their recruitment.
Vote pragmatically all you want, but don't mislead yourself into thinking either political team is actually fighting against the status quo.
I had a number of extremely unpleasant conversations online that went like this on some well-known tech sites.
No room for nuance. Just a constant blast of attacks on character, strawman, and hysterics.
So far Hacker news readers don’t tolerate this but sometimes I wonder for how long.
A common tactic used by evangelist partisans is to paint centrists as 'undecided' on some issues and therefore just as evil as the enemy.
In reality these people are as opinionated as any partisan on individual topics.
In the great Red-vs-Blue battle, I'm on the sidelines, because I'm on Team People, not Team Red or Team Blue. Both sides have positions that I agree with, and both have positions that I disagree with. I can't be fully on either team, because neither is fully on my team.
But I'll get involved on individual issues. I'm not "undecided" on individual issues.
Why is that a problem? (I mean, I see that it's a problem for someone who's wholly sold out to Team Red or Team Blue, but why should the rest of us care?)
That's a fair criticism. I suppose I was responding to the attitude I perceived from the comment rather than the words themselves. I'll admit that what I said may not apply to the GP at all.
Out of curiosity, who do you think "us" is in this case?
You're basically advocating that someone should be on one pole or the other. I think your premise seems dishonest:
First you gave an assumption about an 'unjust' system and explain why not choosing a side is bad, but then later on you say that not choosing a side isn't 'inherently wrong' to try to not seem judgemental. It comes across a little manipulative tbh.
And for people outside the system, the "us" is often both the left and right interchangeably.
If the status quo is bad, that doesn't mean we can't make it much worse by applying the wrong fix.
It’s toxic and intolerable.