Not making a decision is, in itself, a decision with consequences. Indifference is a powerful choice with real consequences to society, just like delaying an important decision can take it out of your hands etc. The side doesn't have to be red or blue, but anything is better than "who cares"
And this is why so much energy is spent convincing you that your vote doesn't matter or that both sides are the same, etc.
I say effectively because they are very much in favor of a particular political and economic system, but because that political and economic system is the status quo and, if anything, is getting further entrenched, they can effectively not worry about it.
It's not a coincidence that this same political and economic system has enabled the tech world to accumulate so much wealth and social power. It's not a coincidence that the HN readers are the upper caste within the tech world, not the assembly-line workers, the warehouse workers, the delivery workers upon, the restaurant workers, and the many other kinds of workers who work for a tech company or service tech workers, for minimum or close to minimum wage.
What I want to discuss and engage with on HN is usually very different (and way less political) compared to what I engage with in other social media. So you can't draw any conclusions about me based on my HN behavior alone.
It's sort of hinting at a false dichotomy here. You don't have to be partisan to be engaged. There are many nuanced positions and ideas. Perhaps the author lived in a different time or place that doesn't have two main parties acting the way they do today.
Indifferent people are not moderating influence. They easily end up enablers of whoever is the most aggressive one.
Are you suggesting arguing against indifference is "radical"?
Aren't you in your characterization labeling someone the Enemy?
> Aren't you in your characterization labeling someone the Enemy?
Those who promote this ideology are enemies of us all.
Edit: The discussion of politics is now the parroting of endorsed talking points. There is no unique or independent thought and it isn't interesting.
And, on the content, HN isn’t filled with indifferent people. But we need to have places for politics and places to avoid politics. Indifference is different from deference—deference to the context.
As far as hacker politics goes, it applies well to the intellectual sloth of technological determinism, which Veblem and McLuhan criticised in different ways, and Postman called the most abject form of surrender.
I assume that readers here do not fall into such ambivalence, since the very nature of a hacker is to believe in the ability to meaningfully create and change technology.
I consider it part of our mission to help others overcome the shrugging, cargo-cult acceptance of whatever tech falls into our laps and take the active path to designing and using technology toward a better future for humans. Inescapably, a part of holding values must be stopping some people from using tech in disagreeable ways. And since people are guaranteed to disagree on matters, technology is a new arena of politics and not something that can exist separately from it.
> The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates with great power on history. The indifference operates passively, but it operates. It is fate, that which cannot be counted on. It twists programs and ruins the best-conceived plans. It is the raw material that ruins intelligence. That what happens, the evil that weighs upon all, happens because the human mass abdicates to their will; allows laws to be promulgated that only the revolt could nullify, and leaves men that only a mutiny will be able to overthrow to achieve the power.
- Antonio Gramsci