Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too” • Hacker News Board

Re: Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too”

#121

Post by rayiner » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 3:05 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #119

wahern wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The zealot's standard rejoinder is that everything is political. See, also, you're either with us or against. What contemporary liberal politics has brought to the table is "science" that purports to show a simple, direct link between rhetorical opposition or even mere abstention, and directly consequential, imminent harm. See, e.g., claims re trans-gender suicides, or just today insinuations that compromises made in…

> e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites Are you sure that wasn't largely a southern Democrat thing? For the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, ~80% of Republicans voted for them. Meanwhile, only ~65% of Democrats voted for them. It was mostly southern Democrats filibustering/voting against the bills. https://en.wikipedia.…

And let’s not forget these were very similar parties back then. Southern democrats were FDR democrats. Woodrow Wilson from 1916 is a model of a modern democrat that believes in experts and expert agencies running the country. George Wallace was a big labor guy.

Re: Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too”

#122

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

meragrin_ wrote: post #119

wahern wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The zealot's standard rejoinder is that everything is political. See, also, you're either with us or against. What contemporary liberal politics has brought to the table is "science" that purports to show a simple, direct link between rhetorical opposition or even mere abstention, and directly consequential, imminent harm. See, e.g., claims re trans-gender suicides, or just today insinuations that compromises made in…

> e.g., conservative claims about the how Civil Rights Act would directly lead to blacks and latinos raping and murdering whites Are you sure that wasn't largely a southern Democrat thing? For the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, ~80% of Republicans voted for them. Meanwhile, only ~65% of Democrats voted for them. It was mostly southern Democrats filibustering/voting against the bills. https://en.wikipedia.…

This is comparing apples and basketballs. The lurid arguments against the CRA were in fact from conservatives, but the parties weren't polarized the way they are now.

Before civil rights legislation, the Republicans were the party of capitalism, industry, protectionism, and to an extent urbanism; in the early 20th century they were defined mostly in terms of opposition to progressivism (antitrust, workers rights, regulation) and the New Deal. Democrats were the party of farmers, states rights, and (see previously) progressivism and the New Deal. You can look at this as a "conservative/liberal" split, but it's a different one than we have now.

It was only after the CRA that the process was set in motion to polarize the parties perfectly by conservative/liberal ideology (in the sense we use those terms today). And that process didn't even really finish until around the 1980 election; for example if you look at '70s Republican party platforms, for instance, they're still playing footsie with being pro-choice.

So it just doesn't mean much to rebut someone saying "conservatives opposed the CRA" with "no, the Democrats did". There were essentially 4 parties at the time: the liberal/conservative wings of both parties.

Re: Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too”

#123

Post by blagie » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

feet wrote: post #54

mikkergp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it gets the gnarliest in conversations about discrimination. We have notions of "protected classes" and "non-protected classes", and the recent discussions about caste discrimination are pretty exemplary. And sometimes you can't help but take a side. I don't know that I always think inaction is taking a side, but once you become aware of people taking actions in your company, like a higher caste firing a lowe…

Inaction is absolutely complicity. By doing and saying nothing you're stating the issue doesn't matter enough to you to not let it continue.

Inaction is absolutely complicity. You're (personally) complicit in a lot of things, probably including treatment of refugees from ISIS in Turkey, the famine in Afghanistan, drug cartel in Mexico, and the Yemeni Civil War. I don't know where you live, but I could name dozens of local issues people are complicit in as well.

There are enough issues in the world that everyone's complicit on most of them.

Convince me why others being complicit in issues you care about is any worse than you being complicit in the issues I listed above.

Or consider that others might prioritize issues differently than you do.

Re: Michael Jordan: “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too”

#124

Post by feet » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

blagie wrote: post #123

feet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inaction is absolutely complicity. By doing and saying nothing you're stating the issue doesn't matter enough to you to not let it continue.

Inaction is absolutely complicity. You're (personally) complicit in a lot of things, probably including treatment of refugees from ISIS in Turkey, the famine in Afghanistan, drug cartel in Mexico, and the Yemeni Civil War. I don't know where you live, but I could name dozens of local issues people are complicit in as well. There are enough issues in the world that everyone's complicit on most of them. Convince me why…

What makes you think I don't speak out about those things?