Live data from Hacker News

I'm Done with Mullvad

moonwriting.blog

241–243 of 243 posts

Re: I'm Done with Mullvad

#241
post #14
post #5

> Some key issues for the Örebro Party locally include strong secularism, a 30-hour workweek with retained pay, lowered wages for politicians, expanded social housing, abolishing preschool-fees, making public transport free of charge, ending taxpayer funding of what it sees as wasteful sculptures, monuments and art and introducing free dental care. Nationally the party has set out large-scale remigration, closing the…

Every populist party works that way, by promising very "sensible" thing. They work like an echo chamber for trendy political ideas. Whether or not they are actually capable or even plan do any of that it's a different matter. Typically, they only end up being a coverup for political extremism. In then other cases they fumble and somehow mess up the situation even more.

Conversely, the "serious" political parties work by claiming all sensible reforms are in one way or another impossible and sitting on their behinds for the duration of their terms. See Mamdani for an example of a "populist" who somehow managed to push through many sensible, "impossible", "extremist" policies without too much effort.

Re: I'm Done with Mullvad

#242
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find that energy if the alternative is starvation, pestilince and war because a weak king was living in luxury. You will never know, because you are ignorant to that situation, which is totally fine. Understanding your own ignorance is not a weakness, its a strength- it allows you to be open enough understand other peoples convictions and what confluence of actions may motivated them. However you’re having…

Funny. Every bigoted person in history drank water too. Every non-bigoted person also believes they are right. Tell me, who would do something they believe is wrong? I have no idea where you're getting that I'm trying to "force others to live according to those values" or whatever. Seems like you're fighting your own windmills rater than me. Chill out with the name calling and swearing, you're really just coming of a…

Honestly mate, I'm just tired.

I tried to explain that even people living contemporary lives can be completely out of touch with one another (it's why rich people become so unrelatable that we get memes about "how much can a banana cost, like $10") and so imagining what life was like 100 years ago, or 100 years from now, is for all intents and purposes impossible. You went off about understanding individual single differences, which totally misses the point: it's the confluence of those differences in their totality that constitutes an environment, and environments shape opinion.

I wasn't alive before Hitler. I can't imagine what it's like to not have a figure like him in my history, along with the collective lessons we took from two world wars. As a consequence of those wars, European war to me may as well be as far removed as the US civil war or the English Wars of the Roses, except for one thing: I got to speak to someone who lived it, briefly.

My brain can't really picture Europe at war (I've seen movies, but even modern combat movies aren't accurate and sell 1% of the reality). I've only ever seen peace, the longest peace Western Europe has known. That's my entire reality, and it's as different from my ancestors' as theirs was from anyone's before them: a completely different understanding of history and what that might mean next, and totally different access to information and to opposing ideas from people as far away as the other side of the planet. Fog of the future.. right? https://youtu.be/NVGuFdX5guE?t=166 Everything is obvious in hindsight.

Being called a nazi sympathiser for admitting I can't know this (by people who are certain they do) is what I find hard. If you're resolute that you're right, and that you needn't consider the totality of a situation before assuming someone's motives, then you can look coldly at what you believe and judge people on that one aspect alone.

It's a closed loop. If the challenging arguments are the ones you won't engage with, you'll never meet one that moves you.

I'd rather ask myself "what if I'm wrong" and see whether I can attack my own position... maybe the other person has context I don't, or paints a different picture with the same facts. That's usually the more interesting conversation.

Anyway. I'm sorry I called you names. I was trying to shame you into seeing it, which was never going to work and was wrong of me regardless.

Re: I'm Done with Mullvad

#243
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every populist party works that way, by promising very "sensible" thing. They work like an echo chamber for trendy political ideas. Whether or not they are actually capable or even plan do any of that it's a different matter. Typically, they only end up being a coverup for political extremism. In then other cases they fumble and somehow mess up the situation even more.

Conversely, the "serious" political parties work by claiming all sensible reforms are in one way or another impossible and sitting on their behinds for the duration of their terms. See Mamdani for an example of a "populist" who somehow managed to push through many sensible, "impossible", "extremist" policies without too much effort.

I would not call Mamdani a populist, but I don't follow the political situation in usa that closely
Post reply on HN