[treehau5]

> You live in a democracy

> People pretending they are morally superior or lead better lives through ignorance never cease to amaze me.

First of all, we don't have a direct democracy. This concept that everyone has to be 100% engaged (or even 90, or 80, or whatever subjective figure in your head that qualifies good enough is, which is another issue, your concept of being engaged enough doesn't match another) need not apply. Just enough people have to be engaged, which historically speaking has happened.

Second of all, I don't think anyone is claiming a moral high ground here, and if they are you are correct to say shame on them.

Third of all, people who place the same onus of keeping up with whatever the hell is going on in the world as some moral duty never cease to amaze me because it is so easy to flip the script on you and say you don't know enough. There is an endless amount of information out there. "News" as a concept is not even a fraction as old as the concept of government and democracy. We face information overload. How can you blame people for just wanting to live their lives? What if I never signed up for this system? Most people care more about their issues locally (which is in line with human psychology, we weren't meant for these large social networks) but people who sit here and cast stones at people who aren't keeping up with what happens with the Mueller investigation, for example, (which something happens every 2.5 seconds) is what never ceases to amaze me.

[whorleater]

> First of all, we don't have a direct democracy.

This isn't an argument against being informed, it's a pointless debate over semantics. You and anyone reasonable understood what GP meant, they meant democracy as a "national built on foundations of democratic values, such as freedom of press, freedom of speech (to varying extents), right to assemble, etc" in contrast to "authoritarian regime where those values are not enshrined in the government legislature or cultural values".

> There is an endless amount of information out there. "News" as a concept is not even a fraction as old as the concept of government and democracy. We face information overload

The concept of modern news may not have been a invented at the same time, yet it remains a fundamental core part of many democratic-leaning nation's values.

> How can you blame people for just wanting to live their lives? What if I never signed up for this system?

You're probably free to move to an authoritarian regime if you cared to. No one chose to be born into a government system, but to claim no responsibility in a system that you've benefited from since you were born is passing the buck.

[treehau5]

> You're probably free to move to an authoritarian regime if you cared to. No one chose to be born into a government system, but to claim no responsibility in a system that you've benefited from since you were born is passing the buck.

Ah yes, the "if you don't like it, you can go back to where you came from" argument, in different clothing of course. This is just never a good rhetorical device. What a person did or did not benefit for is up for debate -- even North Korea provides basics -- but that's not what is being argued here. If I was born into an environment I had no say in building, and I find it incompatible with my way of life (imagine being a white boy from the south on a plantation and against slavery, then shoved into the Civil war), I am, by definition now oppressed -- I am forced to be subservient to a system I had no say in building. I brought this up not to argue it but as a counter example to the person who just says "I am fine just living my life"

[JauntyHatAngle]

>Ah yes, the "if you don't like it, you can go back to where you came from" argument, in different clothing of course.

I really don't think that is a fair analogy to what he was saying. He's saying if you grow up in a particular system you can't just ride it out and claim willful ignorance.

Go back to where you came from is different, that would be saying you chose to come here and therefore why are you trying to change it.

I don't necessarily agree with either argument, but they are definitely significantly different ones.

[jacalata]

> What a person did or did not benefit for is up for debate -- even North Korea provides basics --

What

[hitekker]

> This isn't an argument against being informed, it's a pointless debate over semantics.

Agreed.

The post you're replying to is less a thoughtful disagreement and more mental-gymnastics made literal.

[musage]

> Most people care more about their issues locally (which is in line with human psychology, we weren't meant for these large social networks) but people who sit here and cast stones at people who aren't keeping up with what happens with the Mueller investigation, for example, (which something happens every 2.5 seconds)

The actual context here is someone talking about how they pay zero attention, while mocking people who talk about "the apocalypse" or anything, really. So clearly not people worrying about their local issues.

[Cleisthenes]

We live in a democracy is a completely and fully accurate statement. Being pedantic that it's not a direct democracy may be accurate but doesn't invalidate the statement. A representational democracy or a republic is a democracy.

Additionally, many states have several elements of direct democracy. For instance many states have direct referendums.

As to your second point, I will concede the first person did not claim to be morally superior, but they are included in the second category included in the sentence. The individual, like many others I've met, spoken with, and who broadcast their opinions loudly, claim to lead better lives by ignoring politics nearly completely.

Voting is a fundamental responsibility of living in a democracy. Like paying taxes, serving jury duty, etc. Yes, I consider it a moral imperative to fulfill your obligations as a citizen. And part of your obligations of voting should be for the voter to try to be informed on the matters they are voting on.

I don't need people to be policy wonks, but I do need people to know what the person they are voting for plans to do. Instead we have a situation where a sizable percentage of people are confused about whether Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-kno...)

How can I blame people for just wanting to live their lives? Easy. When they either vote for something abhorrent without knowing or don't show up to vote against something abhorrent because they're just wanting to live their lives. Especially when either group then complains about the something abhorrent.

My problem isn't with people who are ignorant, it's with those who put a high value on ignorance. Yes, we have limited time. Yes, we have limited attention. But reading a few headlines and articles once a week isn't going break anyone. Oh, and if someone has new bit of information about something you don't know and wants to talk about, don't claim they should avoid reading news.

Since this is hackernews, I think we can move the discussion from politics to something like programming. I don't expect a programmer to know everything about all of the latest frameworks, but I do expect them to be familiar with current trends in programming and have spent at least a little time evaluating the impact of those trends and events to their work. Imagine hiring a full-stack developer who doesn't even know about React nor that it has some potentially troubling patent-litigation language in the license?

[ux-app]

>But reading a few headlines and articles once a week isn't going break anyone.

Mightn't this be a worst of both worlds scenario? If you totally ignore politics and abstain then you have a neutral impact. If you only "read a few headlines" as you suggest, and base your actions off those then you're highly susceptible to fake news and easy manipulation (while having a false sense of satisfaction for "participating").

What follows is that, only those who steep themselves in the minutia of each issue should have strong opinions, which actually seems about right.

[TeMPOraL]

Also remember that the common pattern of journalism today is to lie in the headline and then correct the lie in the article itself.

Which means that if you only skim headlines, you're learning bullshit.

[lovich]

I'd argue that we're more an oligarchy than a democracy. Yea we technically allow for a democracy but the reality is that someone with good ideas and no money is going to lose vs someone with bad ideas but a lot of money.

Especially with our first past the post voting system and the two parties ignoring the plebs whenever they decide on a candidate, ala the DNC pushing Hilary over Bernie. Trump getting picked when the Republican establishment didny want was probably the most democratic part of the previous election, but it wouldn't have happened if he was not independently wealthy