[dxdm]

It's stupidly obvious. Politics is about how we organize government and distribute power to solve the problems of living together as a society of individuals. "Big" vs "small" government is a particular way of interpreting one aspect of that. It's an important aspect and a useful perspective, but even if taken at face value it completely neglects other important things like the rules for making policy and their actual content. Of course, the face value of big vs small has become a mask for something else.

But if you've spent the time since your teens to come to the opposite conclusion in spite of everything going on around, then I suspect there will be very little I can say to you that will make sense to you.

[trimethylpurine]

Oh everything you said makes sense so long as I imagine wrongly that everyone is doing what's best for society, and that's why they got into politics.

But politics is really about negotiating ownership in companies that the politician will approve for government projects. And if you aren't doing that, then no other politicians will care to work with you, because it's not profitable for them. You'll be an irrelevant politician that accomplished nothing.

Which side of the aisle you sit on is more typically about where your lobbyists' marketing team agreed would better depict their brand, actually having very little to do with big or small government. Both sides want big government because it means more money for big projects for companies that they will or do own in part.

Sorry to dishearten you if you planned on going into politics.

[dxdm]

Well, you could stop undermining what you seem to care for.

You don't have to "wrongly imagine" anything. Everyone not doing what's "best for society" is how the world works, authoritarianism and the rule of rich elites is the default that everything wants to regress to. There are only ever islands where people managed to push this back towards the corners and make room for more of us.

Human societies have taken millenia to come up with a system (or a few similar systems) which have a chance of holding things somewhat at bay. Is it perfect? Far from it. Does it work? Just honestly compare how things are for disadvantaged or even normal, ordinary people in places that work differently. Could it be better? You bet, there's lots to criticize. But notice that you _can_ criticize. Usually, elsewhere, you can't. Is it getting worse? Yes. The lesson is that you have to keep defending this system that gives you a chance to hold people to account and remove them from power.

Comments like yours above, which claim that everything is maximally bad and rigged, do nothing but help things decay further. "There's nothing that can be done! It's the same everywhere! Why even try?" That's how you get other people to stop caring, too, and then the real assholes take over. You're playing right into their hands. You think it's already as bad as it gets? You think you're no longer naive? Well, then maybe you're doing this on purpose; or you're just a new kind of naive. Either way: you are an active part of this problem.

[trimethylpurine]

I didn't say I don't care. I vote locally, in every election. And I often speak with lobbyists that are friends and acquaintances.

You think people pointing out problems in a broken system are the problem.

Respectfully then, YOU'RE the problem. Before you decide to fix something, you ought to stop and ask what people have already tried.

That's called team work.

[dxdm]

> You think people pointing out problems in a broken system are the problem.

Not what I said, nor does it follow from what I said. Also, not really what you were doing. There's a difference between pointing out problems, or using the existence of problems to trash the reputation of something or someone. Problems are easy to find. It's a convenient excuse to hide behind. But in the end, you can tell from how things are being presented and contextualized, and from what conclusion is actually being promoted.

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you. I think I've done enough to counter this corrosive narrative, no matter where it comes from.

If you're genuine and you do in fact care, you might want to ponder what you're doing, and if it's making things better or worse.

Have a nice day.

[trimethylpurine]

I've provided an opinion, you've insulted me. Then told me to have a nice day.

I'm sorry to tell you, you're simply in the wrong. It's you causing the problems. Self reflect.

Read again, and honestly self reflect.

You're pointing at everyone but yourself and spreading discord. Ask yourself if that's what peace looks like.

[dxdm]

Okay, I've reflected on our conversation. Please let me try to explain my position. At the end, you'll have my answer to what you wanted me to ask myself.

You have your opinion, and you're free to express it. However, you chose to express it in a way commonly used by the enemies of democracy and liberty. That does not make you one of them, not at all. But it should give you pause. Why do they say the things they do? They are after a certain effect. Is this the effect that you also want?

They use it, have used it, are using it, because they know it's effective in undermining trust in the system and because it helps their agenda of replacing it with something much worse. This has worked in the past, and we can see it working in the present. Yes, the system is flawed, but your way of expressing opinions about it is demonstrably not helping to make it better, on the contrary.

As I tried to make clear, there are constructive and destructive ways to "point out problems". That's why I asked you to consider the danger of your words. So, of course you can provide opinions, but you are also responsible for their effect, and if you do care, you should be mindful of it. Criticism is fine and necessary, but a I said before, what conclusion it promotes matters a great deal.

My goal in this conversations was mainly to not let your position stand undisputed, to show up how unfairly reductive it is, and how much that only serves to undermine what we should all care for.

I did not intend to insult you. I did point out what I perceive as flaws and real-life consequences of your position, and I turned your heavy insinuation of naivete back at you. I stand by the stance that comments like yours above are problematic, for the reasons given.

I do realize you feel insulted nonetheless. I also realize that my comments were lacking empathy for your position. In the end, I do care more about pushing back this narrative than about how you feel, but maybe that's the wrong way to go about it. My words were harsh, and you must have felt bad. For that, I feel bad, and I'm sorry.

Differences of opinion exist, and discussing them and their consequences is a necessary part of dealing with them. This is in fact what peace looks like, and how you defend and preserve it: by talking it out. And having said that, I again wish you a nice day.