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 agency to fight for what I believe in, no matter how hopeless the cause is. That's an integral part of my philosophy in what it is to be human; and preserving any optimism in a future of my country's governance is a hill I'm more than willing to die on.
>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.
This quote from Atticus Finch has made the rounds recently, so I'm feeling very trite in reposting it, but:
I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.
Also, avoiding social media helps. If you want to hear someone's opinion (whether you agree or disagree), talk to them in person. Play WoW as a release, but don't give up on your convictions, whatever they may be.
You're not alone, but we can't withdraw. Moderate your news consumption, go get some exercise, see a therapist, but don't just tune out. What are you going to do, tune out for the rest of your life?
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).
Imagine telling future generations "We could have stopped it, but it was too stressful, so we played video games."
People died fighting to end slavery. People died fighting for an 8 hour work day. People died fighting to oppose Hitler. You are just as strong as those people.
No matter how bleak it seems, do not give up. Write, Complain, Vote.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Ok, maybe I'm being too tough. OP, you should know that it's OK to feel sad. Everyone replying to this comment wants you to know that you're not alone, and we hope you can find your way out of a dark place. Please take care of yourself.
Is it because of the last sentence? I'm not saying only do those three things.
Or is it because I mentioned hitler. Sorry, I was thinking of my Grandpa. He fought in WW2, and whenever I feel like scared, I think of him because he was a brave person.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in). I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.
I think most people would agree that the US healthcare system is overly-expensive, complicated, and excludes a vulnerable portion of the population. That doesn’t mean the right solution is federal health insurance or even single payer.
tl;dr I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
>I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in)
can you show me anything (other than your most charitable interpretation of the realization of that political identity) that suggests this is what they want?
>I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.
can you explain to me why we should operate this way? sure i can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for why environmentally friendly energy sources are good (solar jobs blah blah blah) that might be more amenable to climate-change deniers but why does it have to be this way?
how about anti-vaxxers and the like? how about birthers? how about sovereign-citizens? how many different narratives do i need to construct in order to get buy-in for something that's rigorously verified and people are simply obdurate with respect to? is the reason that that's how it is now because certain groups have as much power as they do?
>I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
there are people with whom you do not have common cause. or maybe not you. but there are certainly peoples that are marginalized to such an extent that they do not have common cause with any in power. should they being playing these creative games as well?
I’ve only spent a small amount of time reading about the motivations of flat earthers, but IIRC, the best I could come up with was TPTB hiding the truth from the populace. It seemed like a lot of effort to me for little benefit, but there are areas where I think we would all benefit from odd things the government has done. The others are mostly the same - distrust in government - something the left seems to be embracing whilst out of power.
In many of those cases, flat earth, birther, sovereign citizen - there is no obvious impact to me except maybe some
Minor annoyance. I could see an argument for anti-vaxxers potentially being dangerous, but people should have control over what goes into their own bodies - and from what I know about them, it’s not the vaccine that’s largely a concern, but the other stuff which may or may not come with it.
Charity (and charitable interpretation) is a big portion of it. In many cases people have fears that aren’t being addressed and want to protect themselves and their families. In some cases there may be mental health issues that predispose certain types of thinking. But ultimately, we’re all humans with differing priorities. If another group is making a good faith attempt at pursuing their priorities, treating eahcother fairly and with respect should be the default.
If someone threatens to harm me or my family based on our differing beliefs, affiliations, or priorities, it only makes forward progress difficult. Based on my own family, I prefer to think communication is a more likely issue than 50% of the population being wrong and stupid.
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.
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.
I don't know if Handmaid's tale can be considered Dystopian because, frankly, it is not that scary for two mains reason:
Firstly, it is completely unrealistic. No one would separate a child from their parent in any world.
Secondly, the characters are unsympathetic. Sure something terrible happens to them but then you realize that they broke the law. Clearly, they are at fault for breaking the law.
It astounds me that people get downvoted for the factual observation that illegally crossing the border is, in fact, illegal and results in deportation.
They are forced to make these crimes not because of good life and equal access to opportunities, and likely want better future for their kids. It is very easy to look on those people from above sitting in office chair, empathy only distracts from first class citizen problems.
After fighting for a decade of my adult life to even get a green card, the corollary of "Sneak into our country and have sex here for free citizenship" is not appealing.
> No one would separate a child from their parent in any world.
This was regularly done in the USSR for idealogical reasons.
> but then you realize that they broke the law.
I'm not familiar with the show, but the law isn't the ultimate arbiter of what you should do all the time. I think this should be obvious from history.
>No one would separate a child from their parent in any world.
I'm guessing very few HN readers have exposure to this, but Child Protective Services removes hundreds of children per week from their parents and sends them into foster care. Usually for the justifiable health and welfare of the child, but sometimes for very controversial reasons that the public does not support. So there is precedent already that society can, and does, exercise this power. There are about half a million kids in the US foster care system at any point in time.
"consonant with an American body politic waking up to the reality of the Trump era"
Sorry, but this is bullshit! It's not okay to keep alluding to the "Trump era" as some kind of problem. For many of us, Trump's policies are FIXING what is wrong, not adding to the corrupt pile of crap that is the US Government. I lived through Clinton, Bush, and Obama and I'm telling you this: Populism and reform are good for the USA, they are not boogeymen or dystopias to be feared. We live in a nation of laws and certain highly-placed people chose to ignore those laws and are as yet un-prosecuted despite the mountains of evidence. We are now getting back to RULE OF LAW which is so much better than the opposite. If you don't like these laws, there is a process for changing them that doesn't involve being little bitch crybabies. In case you haven't figured it out yet: If you are of leftist persuasion, you are being used as a pawn in a game you don't understand. Free your mind and maybe your ass will follow, too. Remember, the rank and file people who brought about the various communist revolutions were the first ones murdered after the takeover.
56 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadMay you be well and may we all find strength, together.
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 agency to fight for what I believe in, no matter how hopeless the cause is. That's an integral part of my philosophy in what it is to be human; and preserving any optimism in a future of my country's governance is a hill I'm more than willing to die on.
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.
I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.
Also, avoiding social media helps. If you want to hear someone's opinion (whether you agree or disagree), talk to them in person. Play WoW as a release, but don't give up on your convictions, whatever they may be.
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).
People died fighting to end slavery. People died fighting for an 8 hour work day. People died fighting to oppose Hitler. You are just as strong as those people.
No matter how bleak it seems, do not give up. Write, Complain, Vote.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Ok, maybe I'm being too tough. OP, you should know that it's OK to feel sad. Everyone replying to this comment wants you to know that you're not alone, and we hope you can find your way out of a dark place. Please take care of yourself.
Is it because of the last sentence? I'm not saying only do those three things.
Or is it because I mentioned hitler. Sorry, I was thinking of my Grandpa. He fought in WW2, and whenever I feel like scared, I think of him because he was a brave person.
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
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...
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.
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.
I think most people would agree that the US healthcare system is overly-expensive, complicated, and excludes a vulnerable portion of the population. That doesn’t mean the right solution is federal health insurance or even single payer.
tl;dr I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
can you show me anything (other than your most charitable interpretation of the realization of that political identity) that suggests this is what they want?
>I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.
can you explain to me why we should operate this way? sure i can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for why environmentally friendly energy sources are good (solar jobs blah blah blah) that might be more amenable to climate-change deniers but why does it have to be this way?
how about anti-vaxxers and the like? how about birthers? how about sovereign-citizens? how many different narratives do i need to construct in order to get buy-in for something that's rigorously verified and people are simply obdurate with respect to? is the reason that that's how it is now because certain groups have as much power as they do?
>I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
there are people with whom you do not have common cause. or maybe not you. but there are certainly peoples that are marginalized to such an extent that they do not have common cause with any in power. should they being playing these creative games as well?
In many of those cases, flat earth, birther, sovereign citizen - there is no obvious impact to me except maybe some Minor annoyance. I could see an argument for anti-vaxxers potentially being dangerous, but people should have control over what goes into their own bodies - and from what I know about them, it’s not the vaccine that’s largely a concern, but the other stuff which may or may not come with it.
Charity (and charitable interpretation) is a big portion of it. In many cases people have fears that aren’t being addressed and want to protect themselves and their families. In some cases there may be mental health issues that predispose certain types of thinking. But ultimately, we’re all humans with differing priorities. If another group is making a good faith attempt at pursuing their priorities, treating eahcother fairly and with respect should be the default.
If someone threatens to harm me or my family based on our differing beliefs, affiliations, or priorities, it only makes forward progress difficult. Based on my own family, I prefer to think communication is a more likely issue than 50% of the population being wrong and stupid.
But some are not. I don't know why. But they are not. They rig the system in their favor. They hurt others.
Maybe we can all evolve into enlightened beings of pure energy. Until then, we have to put in hard work to make our world a better place.
Everything you enjoy as a free person - someone had to fight for it.
(I'm not literally saying fight like beat someone up. I mean fight for your rights and the rights of others. Get involved in something.)
I'd also like to add: we need to organize.
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.
Firstly, it is completely unrealistic. No one would separate a child from their parent in any world.
Secondly, the characters are unsympathetic. Sure something terrible happens to them but then you realize that they broke the law. Clearly, they are at fault for breaking the law.
Is this sarcasm? We are literally less than a week off the tail of the US government doing literally this.
Except current US immigration policy..
FTFY
This was regularly done in the USSR for idealogical reasons.
> but then you realize that they broke the law.
I'm not familiar with the show, but the law isn't the ultimate arbiter of what you should do all the time. I think this should be obvious from history.
I'm guessing very few HN readers have exposure to this, but Child Protective Services removes hundreds of children per week from their parents and sends them into foster care. Usually for the justifiable health and welfare of the child, but sometimes for very controversial reasons that the public does not support. So there is precedent already that society can, and does, exercise this power. There are about half a million kids in the US foster care system at any point in time.
Sorry, but this is bullshit! It's not okay to keep alluding to the "Trump era" as some kind of problem. For many of us, Trump's policies are FIXING what is wrong, not adding to the corrupt pile of crap that is the US Government. I lived through Clinton, Bush, and Obama and I'm telling you this: Populism and reform are good for the USA, they are not boogeymen or dystopias to be feared. We live in a nation of laws and certain highly-placed people chose to ignore those laws and are as yet un-prosecuted despite the mountains of evidence. We are now getting back to RULE OF LAW which is so much better than the opposite. If you don't like these laws, there is a process for changing them that doesn't involve being little bitch crybabies. In case you haven't figured it out yet: If you are of leftist persuasion, you are being used as a pawn in a game you don't understand. Free your mind and maybe your ass will follow, too. Remember, the rank and file people who brought about the various communist revolutions were the first ones murdered after the takeover.