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

How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#41

Post by unimpressive »

aphextron wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm not alone in reaching a breaking point recently. Kennedy retiring and giving Mitch McConnel two supreme court picks has pushed me over the edge. We're heading for a dark, dark place as a country and I just can't care anymore. It's too much. It's not even anger, just inconsolable depression. I'm turning off the news and going back to playing World of Warcraft.

A great deal of the strategy here is meant to be demoralizing you out of putting up any resistance. When you begin feeling that, it's a sign you've been insufficiently ruthless with your opponent. The biggest question in electoral politics right now, which the future of the country hinges on is whether exasperation and despair drive or depress turnout. If they depress turnout then the only way you'll know peace is if you figure out how to make those other guys stressed and exhausted to the breaking point instead of you.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#42

Post by zyxwvu »

hguant wrote: post #30
riku_iki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But topic is about subsequent parents and child separation, with putting children into foster care.

Which is what happens (or, should happen) to citizens who are criminals and endanger their child's life for familial gain.

Children shouldn't be placed into concentration camps. That should be the end of the argument.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#43

Post by jonhohle »

mlevental wrote: post #37
mattcaldwell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we have to fight for this stuff? Why can't people just be decent humans? That is the part that I struggle with.

>Why can't people just be decent humans? because everyone has a different definition of what it means to be decent - the people on the other side of the debate do believe they're being decent as well

I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just different.

Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives add value.

Miyazaki comes to mind quite a bit. For the most part the "villains" in his movies are easy to empathize with and the protagonists learn about their goals and view points and work within those to solve the problem they originally set out to solve. I'd like to think people within a country are more like Ashitaka, San, and Lady Eboshi than Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine.

My own personal conviction would like to see more constructive action from everybody. I don't consider threatening people, screaming at others, demeaning them, or name calling constructive. I think if more people found thing they thought could make _any_ impact, and went and helped real people, a lot more would be done than by lamenting the current state of the universe. And unless you need help, don't talk about it, don't expect anything in return, and don't put down others for not thinking the areas you choose to focus on aren't as important as the areas they've chosen to focus on.

0 - https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind , https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#44

Post by krapp »

existencebox wrote: post #14
aphextron wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm not alone in reaching a breaking point recently. Kennedy retiring and giving Mitch McConnel two supreme court picks has pushed me over the edge. We're heading for a dark, dark place as a country and I just can't care anymore. It's too much. It's not even anger, just inconsolable depression. I'm turning off the news and going back to playing World of Warcraft.

How is that in any way a response that shouldn't engender more frustration and anger that you're suggesting it be a viable course of action? Be angry. You should be. Get your friends angry. Don't let people shut off and tune out. That's a large part of how we got to this point, to my eyes. When we truly give up, well, then you'll get to see what "too much" really feels like. As long as I live I will not give up my ag…

>That's a large part of how we got to this point, to my eyes. When we truly give up, well, then you'll get to see what "too much" really feels like.

That's true. The other side saw globalism, liberalism, feminism and multiculturalism as a threat to the world they wanted, and they got angry, and fought against it, and arguably are winning. The world is shifting towards an embrace of right-wing, racialist and authoritarian populism in part because the people who could and should stand against it have become disillusioned and cynical and have decided to drop out.

They've somehow convinced themselves that effort and political action doesn't work, despite the world around them being the result of effort and political action having worked against them.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#45

Post by mlevental »

jonhohle wrote: post #43
mlevental wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why can't people just be decent humans? because everyone has a different definition of what it means to be decent - the people on the other side of the debate do believe they're being decent as well

I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just different. Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives a…

I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#46

Post by krapp »

TrevorJ wrote: post #36
aphextron wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm not alone in reaching a breaking point recently. Kennedy retiring and giving Mitch McConnel two supreme court picks has pushed me over the edge. We're heading for a dark, dark place as a country and I just can't care anymore. It's too much. It's not even anger, just inconsolable depression. I'm turning off the news and going back to playing World of Warcraft.

Yeah, judges that are constitutionalists are literally going to ruin the country! /s

There's no such thing as a "constitutionalist."

The premise that there is a single, correct and uncontroversial interpretation of the Constitution that is both aligned with the original intent of the Founding Fathers (who were hardly united in their politics) and always relevant to case law in the 21st century is absurd.

What people tend to mean when they say they want "strict constitutionalists" and not "activist judges" is that they want judges who interpret the Constitution according to modern conservative and likely Christian ideology. It's not that they don't want judges to interpret the law - because that's what judges are supposed to do, they just don't want liberal judges to interpret it.

Whether or not this will "ruin the country" is, of course, a matter of debate. But people who want "constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court also tend to want the country ruined for certain segments of the population who believe in and depend on progressive ideals.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#47

Post by pmoriarty »

mlevental wrote: post #28
smacktoward wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that tuning out is a luxury that only those not currently being targeted can afford. Once you're on the list of targets, the news has a way of arriving on your doorstep whether you're paying attention to it or not.

i don't understand why you're being downvoted. it's true (even if your diction is severe - "targeting"). when i heard the news about kennedy yesterday i commented to my friends that hey we really could move - we're all educated and white and etc. and i immediately felt like a coward because there are millions of people that aren't and don't have the option.

As they say, you have a choice: you can live under US domestic policy or under US foreign policy.

There's definitely something to be said for staying and trying to do what's right from within the belly of the beast, but I also understand those who wish to escape.

I am curious as to where you're going to escape to, though. So many places are turning fascist in lock-step with the US, or have to bend over and do what the US tells them. And for those places that don't, it's usually not easy to immigrate unless you're a refugee (which some of us may well become after a few more cycles of this madness).

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#48

Post by jonhohle »

mlevental wrote: post #45
jonhohle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just different. Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives a…

I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

I don't believe in moral relativism either, however, what you believe is moral and just is likely different from what I believe is moral and just. I'm sure I'm right (except where I'm wrong ;-) and I'm sure you believe you're right. If we differ, I believe one of us is wrong.

However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it, respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things do opposing groups have in common and how can that be built on?

With the knowledge that I'm stepping into the deep end: many conservatives are convinced that life starts at conception and believe abortion is equivalent to murder. How would you react if your government was legally permitting selective death of a class of people who could not defend themselves?

Another group of people are convinced that separating children from families detained at the border is equivalent to putting them in concentration camps. How would you react if your government was allowing a class of people to be detained without charge?

For whatever reason, it seems many people choose to think one is OK and not the other (sure, there's nuance), but in both cases the outraged party has complete conviction that their view is correct and logical justification for why.

Calling the other group regressive, libtard, or any other demeaning name and showing disgust for them rather than understanding the perspective that their coming from makes it easier to treat the other with disrespect and dismiss their views no matter how sane or logical they may be. Both political cultures have deep contradictions. I see the current political climate as not dissimilar from Cowboys vs. Packers fans. Flip flop on issues all you want, as long as it means winning.

It may not seem like it, but there are very good and culturally healthy reasons to have conservative and progressive viewpoints. I say this outside of a political context.

Re: How to Live in a Dystopian Fiction

#50

Post by mlevental »

jonhohle wrote: post #48
mlevental wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

I don't believe in moral relativism either, however, what you believe is moral and just is likely different from what I believe is moral and just. I'm sure I'm right (except where I'm wrong ;-) and I'm sure you believe you're right. If we differ, I believe one of us is wrong. However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it, respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things…

>no matter how sane or logical they may be

this presumes all perspectives are equally as sane/logical. that's not the case: any group of people can choose to believe anything they'd like and structure their politics around those beliefs. that doesn't mean they're legitimate beliefs or politics.

i can understand why someone might believe the earth is flat and why that's a value for them, or why climate change isn't real and that's a value. that doesn't mean i'm going to try to compromise with either of these political identities.

Post reply on HN