I doubt that, by consistently saying the same thing, anyone can be right for 24 years. The world changes; what is right 24 years ago may not be right today, and vice versa.
Equal rights for people regardless of race, creed or gender identity is going to be right for a hell of a lot longer than 24 years.
The reality of class struggle is going to be right for a lot longer than 24 years.
"Equal rights for people regardless of race, creed or gender identity" is not a Bernie exclusive. You do not win elections by being right (if you need proof, look at current events). Sometimes, being too absolutely right, and not in sync with the times, makes you lose elections to someone who is very wrong. That is what I mean by saying that you cannot be consistently right for 24 years: the timing of your message also has to be right.
Right - Hillary had the first part, but not the class struggle, which turned out to be more important this election.
The fact that he had been saying it for 24 years too made it more credible, another issue Hillary suffered with this election.
It is very ironic you mention class struggle. You belong to the class of HN users who have the right to down-vote comments. I do not. You use your class' prerogative to down-vote my comments, in an attempt to censor my thoughts. Not because they are inappropriate, but merely because you disagree with them. Talk about class struggle!
I didn't down vote you so I can't speak for the down voters, but I think HN's compromises to prevent fake accounts from having more power than proven ones are not relevant to this discussion.
Class struggle means something much more real than imaginary internet points inside the HN echo chamber. It means a struggle for quality of life and social dignity against establishment forces, and what the value of hard work is in our society. Even though I've worked hard and come from a lower income family, as a white american male who's parents stayed together and worked hard for me, who got into a charter high school, who got financial aid in college it means more than I can truly appreciate.
If this comment is down voted, it's probably for equating those two things (or just generally for complaining about being down voted, which people don't generally like)
"You use your class' prerogative to down-vote my comments, in an attempt to censor my thoughts. Not because they are inappropriate, but merely because you disagree with them. Talk about class struggle!"
Your comments are generally civil and thoughtful. I completely understand your frustration at being down voted, and unfortunately there are some users here (on any side of any contentious issue), that do down vote because they disagree, and there have been comments (including Paul Graham) that support the idea of using down votes to show disagreement. I also have seen that a lot of people don't agree with this practice.
That said, I don't think calling out your parent for down voting you is constructive. For one, voting is anonymous. And the fact that you're engaging on the site indicates to me that you actually want to have a conversation. Accusing someone of censoring you is only going to be inflammatory.
It's not fair, I know. Keep fighting the good fight. Keep posting civil and thoughtful comments. Work to understand and be understood. Help keep HN a good place for useful discussion.
By the way, I'm writing this as much for you as for me. I'm reminding myself of how I want to engage. There's so much acrimony and polarization. Figuring out ways to reach compromise and agreement is crucial.
Thanks for taking the time to read through this :)
I think you are right, and I apologize to @mattnewton for accusing him of downvoting me, without factual proof. I will not erase my comment because I think his response and yours are valuable.
I agree. It's really useful to see how discourse can (and some times can't :/) work. You might want to consider adding an "Edit: see follow-up comment" to call attention to it, but given it's proximity, it's probably not necessary.
Btw, are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"? Given the topic, I think you might find it interesting.
My moral principles are fairly well set, but that's pretty easy because I only have to satisfy myself and my close family. Would I prefer it if the world was such that a strong candidate was always available who shared my worldview exactly? Sure, but that's not realistic. Political candidates have to satisfy a lot of people, and there is going to be some level of balancing different concerns. Some of those concerns may be deeply held personal ethics, but others will be the "dirty business" of day to day politics and governance. So I don't view it as a major failure for a candidate to have arrived at my position later than I did.
Government involves compromise (or at least it did until relatively recently). I find it somewhat childish to rail against the closest allies I have on the basis that they weren't quite close enough for quite long enough.
No. I am saying moral principles change with the times, and politics is a process that reflects and adapts to the times. Remember 2008's Obama: where was he on gay marriage? Was he such an open advocate? What about all previous presidents? Were they all evil because they were not as progressive as we are today?
He changed in plenty of things, for example he went moderate on gun control. But he has been on the right side of a lot of social issues for a long time. Politicians everywhere have gravitated towards the same area he has also been inhabiting.
Also your comment is pretty needlessly rhetorical. Doesn't address anything.
