A Few Things to Remember When Speaking of Politics

February 17, 2004 11 Comments
  1. There is no “Other Side”. There are only other people, with differing opinions and differing experience.
  2. There is nothing in this world that “everybody knows”. There are facts born out by a preponderance of evidence, but even they can be, and will be, denied by someone.
  3. Your base premises are not my base premises. Actually, they might be, but you must never assume they are.

    Corollary: Your values are not my values. What you believe the goal of society, government, or the individual aught to be is not necessarily what I think it aught to be.

  4. There are ends, and there are means. Know the difference.
  5. The press are humans, just like you and me, trying to do a job.
    • Corollary 1: They are biased.
    • Corollary 2: Taken as a group, their biases are many, varied, and contradictory.
    • Corollary 3: They are not part of a vast conspiracy.
  6. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
  7. Your politics have consequences.
  8. The conventional wisdom is rarely wise.
  9. Democracy is not the same thing as liberty.
  10. While your values are not be my values, chances are they are closer than our politics. Republicans don’t want to eat the poor, democrats don’t want to turn your children gay, and libertarians don’t want to sell you into slavery to Big Business.
  11. Only Hitler was Hitler.
  12. There are other people just as smart and educated as you that have come to conclusions diametricaly opposed to yours. “Right thinking” is completely subjective.
  13. Every program in history, up to and including genocide, can be and has been justified in terms of “the children”.
  14. Having complex, “sophisticated” politics does not make you any superior (or inferior) to a simple hard-liner.
View All

11 Comments

  1. iq2hi4uok February 17, 2004 at 23:50

    Avdi, can I *please* copy this in my journal, with credit to you?

  2. darkpool February 17, 2004 at 23:51

    Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence
    This is so funny.
    Democracy is not the same thing as liberty
    So many people don’t realize this.
    Only Hitler was Hitler.
    You might also mention that there were many dictators that were much worse than him and even more successful. Although Hitler was a brilliant man.
    There are other people just as smart and educated as you that have come to conclusions diametricaly opposed to yours.
    Yeah, but there are still a lot of people who put no thought into their veiws at all.
    Having complex, “sophisticated” politics does not make you any superior (or inferior) to a simple hard-liner
    Very good point.

    1. avdi February 18, 2004 at 03:35

      Certainly there were worse dictators than Hitler. Stalin, for one. It frightens me the way Naziism has almost completely eclipsed the far greater crimes of Communism in the popular consciousness. People who would never dream of wearing a swastika will wear trendy hammer-and-sickle gear for it’s “retro” factor.

      Yeah, but there are still a lot of people who put no thought into their veiws at all.

      Of course, but one thing I’m trying to counter with this list is the knee-jerk reaction that anyone who opposes you must be either a moron or undereducated – as if ignorance is the only plausable excuse for disagreement. I see this all too often, from all political viewpoints.

      The point about political sophistication is a personal one – I consider myself a hardliner, an extremist, if you will. I think in a lot of people’s books that makes me the political equivalent of a cave troll. All it means to me is that all of my political opinions are derived from a simple set of core values, rather than from expedience or compromise or from “that sounds like a good idea”. I’m a consequentialist, in other words, although I believe in being pragmatic about getting from here to utopia. I don’t see what is so strange about this method of arriving at opinions; but in an age where “fundamentalist” has become something akin to a dirty word, I suppose it shouldn’t seem surprising.

  3. erudito February 18, 2004 at 00:44

    Taken as a group, their biases are many, varied, and contradictory.
    Depends on which bit of the media. Some sections have quite strong congruent biases. Which is why, for example, FoxNews has done so well — a conspicuously different bias.

    1. avdi February 18, 2004 at 03:38

      Perhaps I should have said “Taken as a whole”.

      1. erudito February 18, 2004 at 22:48

        In which case, your statement is clearly true! 🙂

  4. avivahg February 18, 2004 at 20:25

    #13

    Do you mean “pogrom” or did you really mean “program”? This is curiosity, not criticism.

    1. avdi February 18, 2004 at 20:40

      Re: #13

      Yep, I really meant program, as in “government program”.

      Although pogroms have also been justified in terms of The Children, I’m sure.

      1. avivahg February 18, 2004 at 22:27

        Re: #13

        See, you included “genocide” which is why I asked. I’ve only ever heard of genocide being called “pogroms”. Thanks for the clarification.

        Now why the heck haven’t you been on line today? ;-p

  5. bhanfhlaith February 20, 2004 at 14:13

    Kudos

    Unless you have some sort of objection, I’d like to scarf this to post in my LJ. I rather liked it.

    (saw you post on ChristianGoth)

    1. avdi February 21, 2004 at 17:49

      Re: Kudos

      Go fer it 🙂

Comments are closed.