The Two Kinds of Moderate

Post by erichocean » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 3:11 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #350

erichocean wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California has no power to keep out sick red staters How does Massachusetts manage it then? They don't have the power to keep out those "sick red staters", and yet the entire state has healthcare (by law). Sounds like special-pleading to me. If a wealthy Blue state like Massachusetts can do it, then California can do it. I expect more from my representatives, not "sick Republicans in other states are stopping us!"

How do you think Massachusetts healthcare laws differ from California? They both have Obamacare which most people would say is not the same as universal healthcare.

Post by wbronitsky » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:29 AM UTC

wbronitsky wrote: post #144

Apocryphon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an essay on politics. It goes to show that people in tech are acknowledging more that the industry is not apolitical and has a very real social and political effect on the world at large, and are so dropping the pretense of lacking political interest. That and like the rest of the world, the tech industry has become increasingly politically polarized over the last half decade.

I think you have conflated PGs blog with HN. They are firmly separate entities

Post by tomlockwood » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #340

CPLX wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes let’s always take texts at face value, regardless of context. There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth. There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times. And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political stat…

In those situations, it's appropriate to point out potential biases or agenda from the author, but it is not appropriate to reinterpret their words based on a mental model one has of the author. That model is likely to be flawed and incomplete, but even worse, it makes the text subjective. Two people, reading the same text, won't agree what it said. That prevents honest discussion.

Post by sagichmal » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 6:18 AM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #328

sagichmal wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This political perspective is completely incoherent. Democrats have shifted rightward since WWII, along with every other political group in the country. Former Democrats who become Republicans because they feel the party has shifted out from under them are creating excuses to mask their own changing opinions.

> Former Democrats who become Republicans because they feel the party has shifted out from under them are creating excuses to mask their own changing opinions. To me, this is the incoherent view. Of course the voter base has changing opinions. It's completely to be expected that over the course of decades political alliances will shift. The entire point of what I said is that the political opinions of the Democratic…

Post by elyobo » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 8:09 AM UTC

lukevdp wrote: post #158

elyobo wrote: post #140

> Whereas an accidental moderate's opinions will be scattered over a broad range, but will, like those of the intentional moderate, average to about 50. This is only the case if left and right are equally right and wrong, which is unlikely to be the case. The average place of an accidental moderate could be anywhere, even to the left of the left or the right of right right.

You are not a moderate if you are “left of the left” or “right of the right”.