Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> it's more of a "what can really be done" attitude

I once offered to help to host a breakfast for my Congresswoman to show there was a base of motivated people, in New York, who would back her if she put forward anti-NSA legislation. This was post-Snowden. Her office was open minded. Attendance was dismal. We all agreed to re-focus on other issues.

Another example! Two bills in Albany. One regarding Equifax. One regarding something with teachers. I'm helping with the Equifax bill. Guess which one had phones ringing off the hook with supporters calling in? Guess which one I had to concede had a more-motivated base, and was therefore--politically--the policy to put forward?

People still control the country. It's just the people who show up. If you don't show up and participate, that's fine, that's your choice. But it's a choice.

View on HN

Simply labeling anyone without the time to join you, or the belief that it can help as the problem is bullshit. Your premise, that if more people banded together is a false one. The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent. You see the end results of that in a broad population and conclude the problem is with the population not seeing your point, but that is the point.

> The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent

The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted.

In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out.

The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted.

It’s expected, because they are a minute fraction of the population and concentrated on the coasts. They are not needed to win elections, and generally have the most to lose through radical action.

It depends on what that change is. If it’s some minor policy issue or a social issue, you can be right. If it touches the MIC then frankly you haven’t paid attention to the last century of American politics. We are divided, and we are conquered, and showing up at your shindig isn’t changing that. For most people life is too hard and their place in society is too tenuous to care so deeply about mass surveillance. If you want them to care, improve their lives in tangible ways first. People struggling with two jobs and a mountain of debt, who are one hospitalization away from bankruptcy have more immediate concerns.

> The ability of politicians and corporate entities to divide people with wedges, to destroy public education and healthcare, and to gerrymander is potent.

Boom. You really hit the nail on the head there.

Let's take it as fact that your suggestion works, whether it does or not. Is that really the best or only way to affect political change? The poor, uneducated and disenfranchised wouldn't even think to do something like this simply out of pure ignorance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com