aq_ua wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:Pointgod wrote:Yup this thread has gotten to the point where we’re talking about about tweets and tweets that are over reactions to other people’s tweets. The election can’t come soon enough.
Some people are more invested in their personal feelings than they are in actual politics which by their very nature do not reward absolutists unless you succumb to fascism.
Call it a naive world view, but I think it’s a slippery slope when “better than” becomes an actual substitute for “good”. Striving for an absolute “good” and maintaining that moral compass is probably a never ending path but one that can’t stop just because it’s more convenient to focus on the relative. In the short term, sure, incremental improvement is better than none, but I would hate a world where idealism and a constant movement towards that absolute good isn’t the ultimate goal.
Sure, that's fine. Remaining committed to a long term vision based on a set of aspirational values is what it takes to enact change over time so you should cling to a sense of what a better world means to you. Without that, you'd probably give up.
What does not accomplish that particularly well is putting one's intolerant feelings to the foreground to virtue signal, rage on social media and marginalize anyone who doesn't fit your narrow definition of acceptable.
They are not the same issue, though they sometimes overlap depending on a person's approach. Accomplishing political goals is not the real agenda when someone engages in overly emo behavior. Unmodulated outrage over every act of compromise becomes the infantilization of politics. Then it becomes more about using political forums as a venue to act out personal alienations than it has to do with what actually gets people elected and able to put into action the agenda you support.
