# Politics is Dangerous



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Although it makes me feel a little out of touch with the important things in society, I think I'm going to have to experiment with totally shutting myself off from all mainstream politics. My theory is that it is so ****** up, and that the most vocal people right now are such reactionary moralisers, that the induced stress it causes every time I see a headline or link to a news story that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted without hope of redemption is enough to shorten my life-span considerably.

Yes, this also means less random threads from me. 

Music, music, music. Nothing but music, please!


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

Sounds wise to me. After all there is not much we can do to change things as all the politicos are pretty much the same.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Indeed. If there's a revolution, I'll join in, but otherwise I quit!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Although it makes me feel a little out of touch with the important things in society, I think I'm going to have to experiment with totally shutting myself off from all mainstream politics. My theory is that it is so ****** up, and that the most vocal people right now are such reactionary moralisers, that the induced stress it causes every time I see a headline or link to a news story that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted without hope of redemption is enough to shorten my life-span considerably.
> 
> Yes, this also means less random threads from me.
> 
> Music, music, music. Nothing but music, please!


Is UK news really that bad? How does it compare with US news?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Is UK news really that bad? How does it compare with US news?


UK politics certainly isn't as crazy as US stuff (though a lot of the stuff I read in general revolves around the US because of its dominance on the world stage). Having said that, even on the less contentious social topics - especially economics and how to deal with the deficit - all we get from all sides of the political spectrum is tribalist, ideological repetition. No one cares about historical precedence, data, statistics and evidence and, therefore, no matter how much attention I pay and how vocal I get, no one is going to listen because no one is using logic.

I think I'm happy to just coast along seeing as I have pretty much all the freedoms in the UK that I could want, content in the knowledge that society tends to get more progressive anyway. I might just keep an eye on financial stuff every few years to see if I should emigrate!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hmm? I don't know about society getting more progressive? Seems like most folks here in America just grind it out every week at their mind numbing jobs, and then go shopping/watch sports on the weekends. In the meantime, the country is turning into a police state. You think you got freedoms? Just get organized and start making a fuss, disrupting business as usual and see what happens. I don't work in an office, but I can't make a move without my company knowing it. I'm being tracked by satellite constantly. 

I've stopped voting in the past two years. I think it's useless. I don't want to give legitimacy to these corrupt politicians by casting my vote.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I have the most grave doubts about two types of professionals in this world, that the world apparently really needs: Politicians and Psychiatrists/Psychologists. Its seems like a lot of delusion goes into the making of many of these types of professionals. Can anyone help make me less cynical?


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I have the most grave doubts about two types of professionals in this world, that the world apparently really needs: Politicians and Psychiatrists/Psychologists. Its seems like a lot of delusion goes into the making of many of these types of professionals. Can anyone help make me less cynical?


I can only help make you more cynical, as I completely agree. Something is wrong with these people, almost as if they barely understand their own jobs.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Anyone who would like to be less cynical about politicians is an idiot.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Hmm? I don't know about society getting more progressive?


I suppose in not all areas. I meant with regards to civil rights really, but I see I was being too broad.



starthrower said:


> Seems like most folks here in America just grind it out every week at their mind numbing jobs, and then go shopping/watch sports on the weekends.


Indeedly doodly. Which is a great shame. And I think the real antidote to this is _not_ some government policy, but better front-line education. At the moment, we instil our youth with the most turgid load of useless facts to slap statistics on their foreheads, and they're left with a total disregard for knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge. I bet we could encourage at least 100x more people to interested in science, culture, and logical debate if only we hadn't put the education system in such a strait-jacket.



starthrower said:


> In the meantime, the country is turning into a police state. You think you got freedoms? Just get organized and start making a fuss, disrupting business as usual and see what happens. I don't work in an office, but I can't make a move without my company knowing it. I'm being tracked by satellite constantly.


We have problems, but we have far fewer problems than in other countries. Maybe I could improve a little if I moved to one of the Scandinavian countries, but really what I mean is that I can live out my life in a way that would make me happy without (much) fear of being shunned, hated, assaulted or worse. If I were in the US, depending on where I was, I would feel much greater anxiety than I do in the UK.



starthrower said:


> I've stopped voting in the past two years. I think it's useless. I don't want to give legitimacy to these corrupt politicians by casting my vote.


I pay no attention to the system, and it does seem corrupt beyond repair, but I do think it is important to at least vote for the lesser of the astronomically dire evils. Nobody hears your protest in your silence; all it does is allow the fanatics to get other fanatics in the White House. Then you're screwed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Although it makes me feel a little out of touch with the important things in society, I think I'm going to have to experiment with totally shutting myself off from all mainstream politics. My theory is that it is so ****** up, and that* the most **vocal people right now are such reactionary moralisers*, that the induced stress it causes every time I see a headline or link to a news story that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted without hope of redemption is enough to shorten my life-span considerably.
> 
> Yes, this also means less random threads from me.
> 
> Music, music, music. Nothing but music, please!


I'm pretty apathetic, and basically agree about the bit I bolded. & the gist overall.

But I just on the whole stay away from eg. the big run newspapers. As you say, too much ideology and hardly anything positive.

I do listen to music radio (non-classical) & hear short news bulletins on that, so I don't totally avoid news, but I just have the minimum.

What I do is sometimes read the local newspaper, eg. which has a smaller run restricted to my part of the city, a specific group of suburbs it serves. Of course a lot of advertising in these local papers, that's the reason they're for free, but on the whole they are different from the big run papers. More positive stories in those, stories about "real" people, more grassroots stuff, eg. what's going on in local schools, businesses, councils, churches, not for profit organisations, various groups run by and for citizens (eg. hobbies, sports), stuff like that.

So maybe not avoid all news totally, but if you can access some more locally based or run newspaper or something like that, I find the ones here can be of use, more practical, and I don't have to know about things that are not in my immediate sphere. I am becoming more pragmatic in my view of these things now, I'm more in tune with things on the local level, not all this state/national stuff that's just very distant to me most of the times...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> I can only help make you more cynical, as I completely agree. Something is wrong with these people, almost as if they barely understand their own jobs.


Applied arts are pretty good, as they add functional beauty to life. Fine arts nourish the soul. Hard science actually _works_, I think. Mathematics and Theoretical physics, speculative science is the fine arts of science, it seems. Softer sciences, I'm most wary of, Psychology, Politics, many aspects of Medicine, some of the people in these vague seeming fields are quite brilliant and wonderful people, but most are not(though many think they are) and should be doing something less potentially harmful or more exactingly helpful in ways they can honestly wrap their minds around, or else confine themselves to purely scholarly pursuits in direct connection to their field.

I'm trying to communicate how I view the world right now, so people may correct me if they disagree.

But forgive me if I derail this thread.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Applied arts are pretty good, as they add functional beauty to life. Fine arts nourish the soul. Hard science actually _works_, I think. Mathematics and Theoretical physics, speculative science is the fine arts of science, it seems. Softer sciences, I'm most wary of, Psychology, Politics, many aspects of Medicine, some of the people in these vague seeming fields are quite brilliant and wonderful people, but most are not(though many think they are) and should be doing something less potentially harmful or more exactingly helpful in ways they can honestly wrap their minds around, or else confine themselves to purely scholarly pursuits in direct connection to their field.
> 
> I'm trying to communicate how I view the world right now, so people may correct me if they disagree.
> 
> But forgive me if I derail this thread.


I think perhaps the reason why all the wrong people go into politics is because to set about making one's entire _career_ that of a politician, you must be fundamentally driven by imposing your ideologies on other people, however magnanimous you believe they are. Those who are not politicians but write intelligently on the subject may well stay away because they are more keenly aware of their fallibility, and so make great use of their intellect in the arguing of political systems, advocating what they think is right, but never seeking to actually legislate as that requires a special kind of hubris.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

That about sums it up, Poley! Politics does not attract those of great intellect, or integrity. I get so frustrated listening to all of these wonderfully thoughtful and intelligent people covering politics because the power is in the hands of the half-witted idealogues and self serving con artists.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I'm reading the Moon is a Harsh Mistress right now by Robert Heinlein. I know Heinlein has a lot of 1960s ideologies that may be out there, but one thing I like is that the one to lead their revolution is selected by others almost against his will based on raw ability. That seems ideal, but such ideals are probably very rare. That's genius and it doesn't happen very often. So apart from that rare phenomenon, the best we can do is hope that our arrogant overlords who achieved their positions through ambition, have some traits to counterbalance their hubris and ambition...And maybe in the future, systems will be radically different so we don't have to be supported by this phenomena of questionable stability...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

And this may be a strange comment, but its in the vein of some of the slightly fatalistic ideas I've been expressing: I hope that I have enough natural tendency(less extreme equivalent of "genius" used above) to at least find a soul mate of sorts and suitable career. If not, I'll struggle around with ambition, but only as far as those things, I hope to never have enough to get into politics ect.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I actually think that most politicians are okay, they want to do good, they want to do something for the community or country.

But the problem is, as you said in your OP, is the vocal ones who dominate public discourse, they often have very unhelpful attitudes. & ideology, dogma, etc.

I think it's basically the system that's not as good as it maybe can be. Churchill said democracy is the best thing we have, given the various alternatives (which basically amount to some kind of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise).

I can rattle off some politicians here in this country that have done good, but nobody of the world knows them. All you know about is probably Pauline Hanson, the politician of the 1990's who was of the far right. Formed her own party called _One Nation_. She got heaps of press here and overseas. Basically everything she said, which was out of step with most people here, got plastered over front pages and on headlines. It sells newspapers, you know. & the far left wasn't much better, organising various protests against her, even one notorious one involving school children, when the best thing was to just ignore her. Her career was brief, and I think her party even in her home state of Queensland is now largely a spent force, a thing of the past.

So I think I agree with what you said in your OP, it's the vocal ones, and more extreme ones, that often get the limelight. Politicians who are basically serving their constituencies and not having delusions of grandeur, they don't get the front page, or not often. They are not like film stars acting on the stage of parliament, they are often in their electorate dealing with the grassroots issues. & for them, it's a thankless job. To be a politician, I think you have to be a workaholic. How many times do you hear of pollies retiring, even quite prominent ones, with the quote "to spend time with my family." That's what the job entails, not have a life and spend it in the office, parliament, on the ground with your local constituents, in meetings of various kinds, etc. I don't envy them really, not the ones who do their job in this way, the small fry (not the prima donna types, of which I think there are comparatively few)...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Very eloquently stated, Clavi. I think it's almost impossible to be yourself in the political/media arena today. Every move has to be carefully choreographed. It's all bullsh#t. A total farce. The salesmen are having a field day. Statesmen are irrelevant.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Well, Poley, I think it would still be pleasant for you, as it is for me, not to worry about politics for the time being. Too many confusing and frustrating things are happening...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The people that actually vote in our country have become complacent, voting in the same vaguely centrist parties again and again. The problem is that this turns people away from what I believe is a duty to one's country, people think every party is the same so they don't vote, or they vote BNP because they are ludicrously thick. I was especially pissed off when we threw away our chance to potentially break free of the three party system with alternative voting, which I think was mainly down to media spin only showing people saying "with alternative voting... THE LOSERS WIN!!1111!!"

Our "democracy" is a joke by the people at the expense of the people. Laziness and complacency on the part of the people is the lifeblood of slime like Cameron. Wake up, you sloth-ridden *****.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

People are too busy watching college basketball, or "reality" TV. I really got turned off to politics after the 2010 elections. Some good people got booted out of office in favor of party hacks because of frustration an ignorance. One of them being my new congressman for the first time in decades after the previous party hack retired. So it's true. People get the crappy government they deserve.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> The people that actually vote in our country have become complacent, voting in the same vaguely centrist parties again and again. The problem is that this turns people away from what I believe is a duty to one's country, people think every party is the same so they don't vote, or they vote BNP because they are ludicrously thick. I was especially pissed off when we threw away our chance to potentially break free of the three party system with alternative voting, which I think was mainly down to media spin only showing people saying "with alternative voting... THE LOSERS WIN!!1111!!"


This is where the media also has to be held greatly to account. While we can say that most politicians are (perhaps) good, when we say that the most "vocal" politicians and other groups are the reactionary weirdos, what we mean is that they're the ones getting the most press. And if they're getting the most press, it means they're making the greatest impression on the public at large. And when the public are bombarded with extremism, it only bolsters extremist tendencies, leading to more dogged kinds of bigotry. So with such a feedback loop, you eventually get to a point where the politicians are hearing (again through the media): "You are here to serve your people, and your people want more discrimination and inequality."

So while the "vocal" extremists are, numerically, a negligible minority, they punch _far_ above their weight in the political system - worryingly so.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I'd say that's an accurate assessment of the press/politics relationship. It would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> And this may be a strange comment, but its in the vein of some of the slightly fatalistic ideas I've been expressing: I hope that I have enough natural tendency(less extreme equivalent of "genius" used above) to at least find a soul mate of sorts and suitable career. If not, I'll struggle around with ambition, but only as far as those things, I hope to never have enough to get into politics ect.


_Poley_ and you may be unaware of Heinlein's recipe for fixing the ******upedness of politics - which was to get involved in politics, starting at 'ground level' (my phrase not his). His theory was that republican government works from the bottom up.

However the social/political experiments upon that theory work out in the Middle-East, I believe it is delusional to think that approach will work in the West. The 'common people' that Heinlein relied on have been thoroughly snowed by the plutocrats' spin doctors... and you young middle class folks who _may_ know better are too too discouraged/alienated/apathetic to lend a hand in a realistically effective way.

I could be even more insulting, but I am old and tired, and my leg is sore, and you intellectuals are damn near all I have to talk to nowadays.

:tiphat:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think I grok what you are saying, but I had to look up Plutocrat and 'spin doctor' and assume that 'snowed' meant befuddled and mislead, or something to that effect.

And thank you for understanding my case, which is a common one of alienation and discouragement, kept in place by comfort and information overload induced apathy.

You aren't being insulting, its nice to hear an idea of someone who knows more.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the extent you do, of the implications of working from the ground up. Is it because one on the bottom comes to understand what its like to be 'one of the people'? Is there anymore to it? Also, how do you believe it would work in the middle east?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Thankyou, _Krumm_, for moderating my pungency.

Heinlein's methodology was to work within the political system of his time (in the case of his book on the subject, middle 50s). He conceived of this as an urbanite, working in wards as a base. I don't even know if we still have 'ward bosses' and 'wardheelers' (whatever they are) nowadays - my small town in Vermont didn't have such things. I suppose 'working from the ground up' must involve the Internet now - it apparently has in the Middle-East - and in China to some extent.

Changing the political climate in the West will not be done with 'Occupies'; they can be tolerated as minor hiccups by the plutocrats. I think it is necessary first to counteract the work of their spin doctors, and their control by euphemistically concealed bribery of government; first by coordinated use of the Internet and any other anti-propaganda means available, and then by electing good people who are willing (but not eager) to stand for office.

How that can be accomplished I don't know - and Heinlein is dead. It's up to to you folks. Or you can just go on bitching about it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Politics used to matter to me, until I realized that I didn't matter to politics.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> Politics used to matter to me, until I realized that I didn't matter to politics.


Yep, pretty much agreed, sums up a whole lot of people I know here, or at least those in my "circle."

Maybe they should make an _Apathy Party_? I mean a party of the political kind, a party for us apathetics!...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Changing the political climate in the West will not be done with 'Occupies'; they can be tolerated as minor hiccups by the plutocrats. I think it is necessary first to counteract the work of their spin doctors, and their control by euphemistically concealed bribery of government; first by coordinated use of the Internet and any other anti-propaganda means available, and then by electing good people who are willing (but not eager) to stand for office.
> 
> How that can be accomplished I don't know - and Heinlein is dead. It's up to to you folks. Or you can just go on bitching about it.


More technologically savvy people than me are already doing that, but it is impossible for it to have any mass effect because all people give a **** about is job security and entertainment. Although governance translates into that, few people give a toss about ethical politics. To most people, the political system has been the same since they were born and they see no reason to change it.

I think there is something very telling about the different frames of mind people inhabit. For example, here in the UK, a banker in charge of an 83% publicly owned bank is set to take a £975,000 bonus after a £1.2 million salary. To me, given the current economic difficulties and the extent to which our own people suffer, I find this grossly obscene and cannot understand anyone who doesn't - but many people don't.

Like I said before, the problem is that people are so comfortable in their ideologies and don't want them to be questioned even when they are being hypocritical (such as the laughable conservative policy over here whereby it's fine to spend nearly £1 billion on the Olympics because the investment will in turn boost the economy, but we must cut, cut, cut all public services because the country is like a household in debt and you wouldn't spend more money if you were in that situation!).


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I'm just wondering, is it illegal to march on Buckingham Palace or Downing Street? The latter always seemed like the perfect spot to protest if you want to get through to the ****** inside, while the former is not only one of the biggest examples of government approved obscene wealth in the country but also a place of high visibility. I happen to think those are good ideas, but the Occupy movement, at least in my city, was just a lot of people sat around eating Greggs sausage rolls. It was a picnic, not a protest.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

I paid a lot more attention to politics in middle school and high school than in college, because by college I felt discouraged and powerless. But now I'm applying for internships with (among other organizations) the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Friends Service Committee, so I expect to become more involved, more directed, and more useful soon. And hopefully less discouraged.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Although it makes me feel a little out of touch with the important things in society, I think I'm going to have to experiment with totally shutting myself off from all mainstream politics. My theory is that it is so ****** up, and that the most vocal people right now are such reactionary moralisers, that the induced stress it causes every time I see a headline or link to a news story that's racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted without hope of redemption is enough to shorten my life-span considerably.
> 
> Yes, this also means less random threads from me.
> 
> Music, music, music. Nothing but music, please!


I'm right there with you! Everyone's always sounding the alarm bells and moralising way too much. No more news broadcasts for me, and good riddance. But papers from professionals and official resources interest me (for example, Congress' day to day proceedings are publicly accessible). Even then, I still feel undereducated on the subject, so I have to roll my eyes when people start getting their crazy original ideas without any proper research.

There's a great saying: 
"If you'd not have yourself considered a fool,
then close your lips tight,
lest you let loose and remove all doubt."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...
> Like I said before, the problem is that people are so comfortable in their ideologies and don't want them to be questioned even when they are being hypocritical (such as the laughable conservative policy over here whereby it's fine to spend nearly £1 billion on the Olympics because the investment will in turn boost the economy, but we must cut, cut, cut all public services because the country is like a household in debt and you wouldn't spend more money if you were in that situation!).


Speaking of the Olympics in Sydney in 2000, the campaign for it was started under the conservatives at the State level and by the time it came governments had changed. Labor was in charge of the State (New South Wales), and governments had changed on the Federal level as well. So in Australia's case, the people behind the Olympics bid were not strictly either conservatives or progressives.

As for what positives the Olympics did, it did give exposure to the world of Sydney and Australia. It was like advertising or publicity. They also spent on infrastructure ahead of the Olympics, but I think that was mainly in Sydney, not in other areas of the State.

The main bad thing is that it triggered a rise in house prices and rents. This is what the Olympics everywhere tends to do. It definitely added to Sydney being the most expensive city to live in Australia, but of course there are other factors (eg. there being a long term housing shortage and not enough land is released by the government for development of housing, apartments, etc. to meet demand).

I don't know if the Olympics were worth it in the end but it may well have been a case of "bread and circuses for the people," budgets in other vital areas where cut here as well, it must be a common phenomenon. No wonder the Berliners, when their government launched a bid for that 2000 Olympics, when out en masse to protest on the streets. They didn't want it. So the government stopped their bid, which is understandable, there were other priorities like spending more on unifying Germany, which had only happened in 1990...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I have no problem with the Olympics, or with spending money on the Olympics if it is indeed the case that it will boost the economy - my point was to point out their hypocrisy. With the Olympics, they make a special case where they spend money to make money. With much more vital and important public services, they make this idiotic comparison to a household and debt and say we must cut, cut, cut. That latter thing is what I think is wrong.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yeah well that's what politics is about. Cut a bit of the budget here, and spend it there. Then say some waffle how it will be good for the electorate at large. Sometimes they do it in a better and more thoughtful way than others. Here, I think the Federal Government shuffled around aspects of the health budget, they didn't raise spending (or not much, I didn't follow it in depth), all they did is put same or similar amount of money into different baskets, spend it in different ways. Took a bit off there, put the same amount there. Carrot and stick, the same old tricks. That's what they always do, I'd just wish they'd give it us straight what's their agenda. 

I think back in history, when the Brits invaded South Africa to get rid of the Boers (old Dutch colonists) in the Boer War (around 1900), they were honest. I think the British government quite openly said they were invading for the diamonds. They didn't give a damn about anything else. I wish the pollies of today just said it straight like that, cut the smoothing over and gloss. I accept the hard reality if it's given to me straight and not manipulated, sugar coated, etc....


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> UK politics certainly isn't as crazy as US stuff (though a lot of the stuff I read in general revolves around the US because of its dominance on the world stage). Having said that, even on the less contentious social topics - especially economics and how to deal with the deficit - all we get from all sides of the political spectrum is tribalist, ideological repetition. No one cares about historical precedence, data, statistics and evidence and, therefore, no matter how much attention I pay and how vocal I get, no one is going to listen because no one is using logic.
> 
> I think I'm happy to just coast along seeing as I have pretty much all the freedoms in the UK that I could want, content in the knowledge that society tends to get more progressive anyway. I might just keep an eye on financial stuff every few years to see if I should emigrate!


Swine flu shot should be all you need.


----------

