Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

thomasprosser.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#51

Post by rayiner »

sobkas wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #14

A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such as law and medicine. This is usually accompanied by efforts to reframe contentious policy debates as “non-political.” Which of course makes no sense because lots of things that aren’t political in the abstract quickly become political when it comes to people ad…

> A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such as law and medicine. This is usually accompanied by efforts to reframe contentious policy debates as “non-political.” Which of course makes no sense because lots of things that aren’t political in the abstract quickly become political when it comes to people…

Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructure sectors of society. Put differently, stable democracy calls for a well policed distinction between sectors of society that lobby for change, and sectors of society that are expected to neutrally referee, or provide expert guidance, without being agents of change themselves.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#52

Post by kodyo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50
kodyo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. Once you accept that, the absurdity of politicians claiming to speak for large swaths of your country is just comical. Downvoters are free to explain why unimpressive people have any say over how you think or how you should behave.

> Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. That's an interesting mindset, in theory, but not very grounded in reality. Being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom, but it has let more people live in more freedom than any other system. (The great danger is that tyrants convert democracies into pseudo-democracies, keeping the trappings while removing the freedom, a…

You make good points, but I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. However, I want no part of oppressing anybody because I don't find myself to be exceptionally impressive, so don't look at me to come up with a better system of oppression.

People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd.

My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing.

Having said that, I could probably be convinced to follow a truly heroic and impressive person if one were to ever appear. Jesus seemed like a good fit, but the mediocre leaders running his local government killed him because he was a pain in their asses.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#53

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kodyo wrote: post #52
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. That's an interesting mindset, in theory, but not very grounded in reality. Being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom, but it has let more people live in more freedom than any other system. (The great danger is that tyrants convert democracies into pseudo-democracies, keeping the trappings while removing the freedom, a…

You make good points, but I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. However, I want no part of oppressing anybody because I don't find myself to be exceptionally impressive, so don't look at me to come up with a better system of oppression. People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they'…

> I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies.

I disagree, but less strongly than I wish I did. You could be right. Even if you're wrong now, you could be right soon.

> People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd.

Agreed. There was a reason that the original American idea was for a strictly limited government. The current belief seems to be that freedom is getting the government to do what you want to "the others".

> My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing.

I agree or disagree, depending on the specifics of how you mean this. In both cases the depravity comes out of the selfishness in people; so far I agree. If you mean that democracy and authoritarianism are equally depraved, then no, I don't agree. (If you mean authoritarianism and "fake democracy" authoritarianism are equally depraved, then maybe I do agree.)

Re your last paragraph: You know, following Jesus is still an option today. (I mean, his goal then wasn't political power, but you sound like that fits you...)

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#54

Post by prohobo »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49
prohobo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened with an open-source video game I wanted to contribute to, of all things... I thought I'd found a welcoming community that was interested in building something cool, and I could learn some C# while contributing to something really unique and creative. That turned out to be sort of right, but the senior maintainers decided that it's also cool to shove their politics down everyone else's throats and ban an…

> To stop this pathological politicization you have to create an environment of security. But in your example, the problem was the person in charge. If it's your community, then by all means, create the right environment. But if it's a situation like your example, then what? You, the random newcomer, can't really alter the environment very much. You can stay and accept it, or you can leave, but the environment is alr…

I meant general societal stability. Our society is problematic, so there's no escaping that!

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#55

Post by _kbh_ »

kodyo wrote: post #45
mcphage wrote: post #15

> When public firework displays take positions on controversial issues, they provoke partisan reactions, poisoning debate further and turning aggrieved groups away from public spaces. Is support for Ukraine a controversial issue in the UK? In the US, support for Ukraine is pretty widespread.

Support of the Ukraine is synonymous with supporting NATO’s war. There should never have been a war, and there should have been a cease fire by now. Does that opinion make me anti-Ukraine?

> Support of the Ukraine is synonymous with supporting NATO’s war. There should never have been a war, and there should have been a cease fire by now.

Russia should have never invaded I agree, but it's up to Russia to leave now.

No one can stop Russias war but Russia.

Ceasefires also just help Russia so what you should really want is a quick decisive defeat of Russia by Ukraine.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#56

Post by mcphage »

kodyo wrote: post #45
mcphage wrote: post #15

> When public firework displays take positions on controversial issues, they provoke partisan reactions, poisoning debate further and turning aggrieved groups away from public spaces. Is support for Ukraine a controversial issue in the UK? In the US, support for Ukraine is pretty widespread.

Support of the Ukraine is synonymous with supporting NATO’s war. There should never have been a war, and there should have been a cease fire by now. Does that opinion make me anti-Ukraine?

> There should never have been a war, and there should have been a cease fire by now.

>Does that opinion make me anti-Ukraine?

Neither of those facts make you anti-Ukrainian. However, if you think the road to accomplishing that is to have Ukraine surrender, rather than Russian stop invading—that would make you anti-Ukrainian. I do note that you deliberately left out under whose terms a cease-fire should be signed, however.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#57

Post by TheCoelacanth »

rayiner wrote: post #40
1attice wrote: post #7

As a member of one of the minorities whose rights campaigns Prosser cites as ruining his footie, I'll say, apropos nothing, that it's much easier to talk about these issues with detached neutrality when you & your friends are not subject to monotonically increasing levels of stochastic domestic terrorism.

As a member of one of those minorities as well, I think that’s a lazy cop out and also in the long run bad for us. It drove me nuts during the Trump era when non-Muslims acted like banning refugees from Muslim countries with high levels of terrorist activity was the same as discussing how to round up brown people into internment camps. You can’t piss on people’s leg and tell them it’s raining. Those were conversation…

Banning refugees from those countries by itself wasn't perceived that way.

Publicly promising that you're going to ban all Muslims from the US and then immediately afterwards banning travel from some predominately Muslim countries and telling your supporters that you fulfilled your promise was.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#58

Post by skedaddle »

rayiner wrote: post #51
sobkas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such as law and medicine. This is usually accompanied by efforts to reframe contentious policy debates as “non-political.” Which of course makes no sense because lots of things that aren’t political in the abstract quickly become political when it comes to people…

Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructur…

Do you have in mind something like what happened with tobacco in the 60s, when the Surgeon General documented negative health effects publicly and extensively, but ultimately stopped short of recommending any action against it? In my experience, most people see the little label on cigarette packs as grossly inadequate.

Re: The politicization of society is damaging liberal democracy

#59

Post by sobkas »

rayiner wrote: post #51
sobkas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of well meaning people are seriously damaging the country by injecting politics into spheres that the public broadly needs to perceive as “neutral” such as law and medicine. This is usually accompanied by efforts to reframe contentious policy debates as “non-political.” Which of course makes no sense because lots of things that aren’t political in the abstract quickly become political when it comes to people…

Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructur…

Problem with maintaining status quo is that for example someones pay may be the same or can grow a little while economy grows around them, they end up having relatively less and they can afford less. So status quo may squeeze people dry, while they still have things they don't want to loose. And they will loose them maybe not today, but definitely tomorrow.
Post reply on HN