409
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
409 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3771 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans' political sentiment. "Progressives" capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address. Keep in mind, Republicans have effectively turned being focused on the existential threat that is unchecked climate change into a "progressive" issue and part of their culture war.
Moreover, political spectrum positioning historically shifts only one step one way or another between generations (i.e., children are usually one step more centrist than their parents when they settle into a stable political outlook). What this means is that most people just don't give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives. This isn't to say most people are stupid, but rather they are thoughtless and myopic. It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they're just bumbling along like humans always have and it's the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
You are making the same mistake that economists (used to and some still do) make in that you are baking perfect rationality, at least along some axes, where it just does not exist. And trying to build any sort of model from such a flawed axiom is doomed.
It is an oversimplification, I don't deny that. But just because my analysis is a simplification doesn't mean it is wholly inaccurate or lacking in usefulness.
That's true, although I don't know how many progressives are "doing just fine." Perhaps it's many, or even most, but I don't think anyone can say for certain. I'm not sure it matters, either, whether progressives are just disaffected people or disaffected people and their allies and advocates. The point is, despite their differences, they want radical change, and that is ultimately what puts them at odds with centrists.
I think that's true as well, but I'm not really making a distinction between the people who identify with and lend their loyalty to one political tribe or the other, even if passively, and the thought leaders of said tribes.
Well, I think you might be doing the thing you accused me of and oversimplifying. I don't think societal changes are simply a result of an incidental cascade brought on by bumbling, thoughtless humans flapping around mindlessly. Certainly some people have much more influence on societal change than others, and many people are mostly just passengers, but that doesn't mean societal changes are merely random.