Writing Contest #2 \ stacker news ~BooksAndArticles

pull down to refresh

3632 sats \ 13 comments \ @siggy47 18 Feb BooksAndArticles

It’s time for our second writing contest. This will be a pinned post. Submit your entries by replying. The contest will end at midnight, GMT, Friday, February 23rd. A winner will be announced in next Saturday’s newsletter. The winner will be zapped all of the sats generated by this post, which will be pinned here until Friday, and obtain the priceless glory of winning the Books and Articles Writing Contest. There are a few additional rules this week. We will not accept links to articles posted previously on Stacker News or on other sites as submissions to this contest. Submissions cannot be longer than what can be accomodated by the Stacker News current reply character limit, which is 10,000.

Prompt: Discuss how your personal experience has shaped or changed your political beliefs.

Rules: I will use zaps in selecting a winner, unless I notice any suspicious activity. In that event, I will give weight to the quality of the content and the opinions of the community expressed through comments.

Good luck!

view all related items

183 sats \ 0 replies \ @UCantDoThatDotRugged 18 Feb

I've studied the political problems we face, and I've spoken, written, criticized, and complained about them. I've spent time and money trying to change voters' minds -- to superimpose my beliefs on the nation. I've spent time in self-quarantine from the political process entirely.

After decades in politics, including activism, campaigning, and canvassing; trolling, shitposting and mememaking; reading, writing, and online debating; building, volunteering, and grassroots organizing -- my perspective is entirely rebuilt.

I see myself as a free thinker with an open mind, and I believe I held reasonably true throughout, but for some, it involves going against instincts, principles, and even the truth. It should be obvious, but unfortunately it's not - living unnaturally results in burnout.

I found the political circus to be a game that values clout over authenticity. Those with less clout are powerless assets to exploit, then viewed as competition as they gain voters, readers, viewers, or 'followers'. The gatekeepers maintain a watchful eye on the up-and-coming, whom they view as a threat to their status quo empire of influence. If they can use you they will - and if they can't control you, they'll ignore you, laugh at you, or destroy you.

I've learned that these elitists and elitist wannabees -- often the ones who seek megaphones and microphones -- are not always the most honest, not always the most authentic, and not always who we would want to lead us. If we listen only to these megaphones and microphones (or like me, butt up against the brick ceiling they represent), it's easy to think that it is hopeless. But there are a lot of quiet dissenters out there that remain uncounted -- they are the real strength. They are the 99%, the foundation upon which all ambitious heirarchies are built.

I conclude that traditional political involvement, and even modern alternative involvement in some respects, is mostly unaligned with my purpose and personal growth. I fit where ideas and authenticity are of value over political power or superficial status.

Knowing that, there are still ways that I can rationally and effectively be the change that I want to see in the world. It centers around leading by example and includes measured individual actions toward making things better than they otherwise would have been.

First, I make sure I have a clear picture of my goals, and who I want to be. To make my actions maximally effective, I identify and expand my skillset, influence, reach, and reputation through honest effort and proof of work. Then I look for ethical actions that match and have low expense, but high returns.

For instance, writing and speechmaking needs all the pieces in place to be effective, including audience, message, and delivery. But a picture is worth a thousand words. So I meme for free from home. Likewise, time, energy, and effort can be sunk into unsuccessful attempts to persuade non-receptive audiences, resulting in a challenge to optimistic positivity, so I focus on working with allies rather than debating political opponents.

And I'm happier, and I'm more effective.

For all I've seen and experienced, been part of and been through, it is most important that my life and the lives of those closest to me are as good as they can be.

To each his own, but for me, this way I'm free.

158 sats \ 1 reply \ @herschel 19 Feb

This is a great question because politics is fundamentally irrational and experience is fundamentally empirical.

As someone who has volunteered several years of my time, gladly focusing on civil/ human rights advocacy, I have had some experiences with people. For the political class, inherent rights are political capital. The political class are barely people.

It shaped me by hardening myself even more from the system. It confirmed what I had heard from others, and I dug my heels in. That’s how I responded. I suppose the net result of that is that my personal experience strengthened my resolve.

Next, I can say with glee that I’m glad I’m a single-issue voter when it comes to federal offices. Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are the last two votes I cast for president. I’m a non-interventionist. That’s my basic thing. All civil movements in America are tied to the amputation of the Military Industrial Complex from the Americans.

All over the place, we keep hearing how America is more divided than ever. There has never been more agreement about this single issue than ever, either. Washington, DC, and the WEF are having one conversation, and The People of the US are having a different conversation. I’m glad this conversation is happening.

On that point, what I think is that I’m glad my resolve is strengthened, and a second thing is related to the first. It’s my experience that hardened me and strengthened my resolve regarding what I had confirmed about politics through that experience.

Finally, I hope I have room to remind people that many people are 'hypnotizable'. I mean that literally. There are people who can be put under very easily, and there are some people who simply cannot be hypnotized. People are wired differently. It’s nothing personal.

To see the way that political class uses that segment of our society and to see the broken brains is astonishing. I have stood face-to-face with human beings who were so confused when I would be advocating for victims of state abuse. The behavior is inhumane, and the contempt for their own followers is worse. The politician's worst victim is their admirer, the one who trusts them, every time.

These were liberal people, you know, “the good team." They would ask me why I was concerned about these torture victims and why the issue of this abuse bothered me. They were creepy. What a creepy question. 100% oblivious to the idea that Americans are aware of what is happening and the depth of the crimes. I think the fact that I'm a white man doesn't work for them. They need guys who look like me to blame this on. If I'm out there challenging their behavior, that exposes their complicity, they can't use me an an excuse. It didn't stop them from slandering me. Of course!

Again. None of what I observed about politics—about the machinations of the systems they use—surprised me; that only confirmed what I was inclined to believe. What changed about me is that I’m more resolved, more honed, and I have better analysis. Hopefully, I also communicate these things better as I go along.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 20 Feb

Thanks for posting your story. Very enjoyable.

127 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 20 Feb

By and large, I was born this way. However, I can attempt to draw some connections.

I'm from a small, remote town with no police presence to speak of. Our community was tightly knit and there was no visible role for the government (other than the roads, obviously ;) ).

I also grew up hunting and just see guns as another useful thing that you have to be careful how you handle.

I've seen that communities can regulate themselves and resolve their own disputes. People can safely handle the tools of self defense. In the absence of a state presence, social structures reassert themselves.

280 sats \ 2 replies \ @jillofallcoins 20 Feb

Journey Through the Spectrum: A Personal Odyssey from Conservatism to Libertarianism

As a child raised by conservative Canadian parents in the exotic landscapes of Yemen, my worldview was initially framed by the protective boundaries of expatriate life. This unique upbringing instilled in me a sense of curiosity about the world beyond my immediate environment, a curiosity that would later fuel my political evolution. My parents' traditional values shaped my early beliefs, but as is often the case, youth is a period of questioning and exploration. The conservative principles I was brought up with were the foundation upon which I began to build my understanding of the world, not knowing then how drastically it would change.

My twenties were marked by an insatiable wanderlust that led me solo across the globe. This decade of exploration was not just about the places I visited but the myriad of people I encountered, each with their own stories, struggles, and perspectives. It was during this time that my political beliefs began to undergo a profound transformation. Exposed to diverse cultures and ways of life, I found myself increasingly questioning the conservative views of my upbringing. The world, I realized, was far more complex and interconnected than I had been led to believe.

University life further accelerated my shift towards the left of the political spectrum. What I encountered there was an environment ripe with new ideas, debate, and what many would call indoctrination. I embraced these liberal ideologies wholeheartedly, seeing them as a necessary counter to the conservative values I had grown up with. My beliefs became more extreme, fueled by a youthful zeal to correct the injustices of the world. This period was marked by a fervent belief in the power of government intervention to solve societal problems, a belief that would later be challenged by my own experiences.

Entering my thirties, I founded a social impact company, driven by a desire to make a tangible difference in the world. This venture brought me into close contact with various public sectors, including the police, and exposed me to the inner workings of government agencies. It was an eye-opening experience that revealed the limitations and often the ineffectiveness of government intervention. I saw firsthand how bureaucratic inefficiencies and one-size-fits-all policies could hinder rather than help. My work with vulnerable communities and individuals further highlighted the importance of empowering people rather than relying solely on state solutions.

My journey into the world of Bitcoin four years ago marked the latest evolution in my political beliefs. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency and its potential to provide financial autonomy and security to individuals around the world resonated deeply with me. It symbolized a shift towards personal responsibility and away from reliance on governmental structures. Bitcoin, with its libertarian ethos, became a powerful symbol of my growing belief in the importance of individual liberty, limited government, and the potential of innovative technologies to address societal issues.

Today, as I reflect on this journey through the political spectrum, I recognize the value of remaining open to the democratic process rather than adhering rigidly to one group or ideology. My experiences have taught me that the world is too complex for simplistic solutions and that effective change often requires a willingness to listen, learn, and adapt. As I continue to evolve, I advocate for a political philosophy that values personal freedom, economic liberty, and the minimization of government intervention.

This odyssey from conservatism to libertarianism is not just a personal narrative but a call to action. It urges others to remain open-minded, to question their beliefs, and to engage with the world in a way that fosters understanding and respect for diverse perspectives. In an age of polarization, it is more important than ever to embrace the democratic process, to find common ground, and to work together towards a more just and equitable society. My journey shows that change is possible, that beliefs can evolve, and that through openness and dialogue, we can all contribute to the betterment of our world.

https://m.stacker.news/16876

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 20 Feb

Thanks for posting. I enjoyed your journey!

156 sats \ 0 replies \ @jillofallcoins 28 Feb

Thanks @siggy47 appreciate you asking the great questions to write about.

81 sats \ 4 replies \ @Malachi17 18 Feb

I have seen politics and noticed only a field of dead bodies and a field flowing with the blood of those who possessed love. My politics then became simple--I learned to recognize who has genuine love, and who does not. Then I learned to follow the actions of those who said they had love, and those who did not. Therefore, my ideology became love, who has it, and what they are doing with it. I support those people.

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @nichro 19 Feb

Are you Lex Fridman?

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 19 Feb

lol

He is too busy interviewing someone or wrestling

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Malachi17 19 Feb

Nope. If he came up with the above though, he's probably awesome.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 20 Feb

206 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 22 Feb

My support for the 2nd Amendment has stemmed directly from my experiences in El Salvador, where I hold dual-citizenship. That country holds a big name today in the Bitcoin industry—for reasons we all know—but, and not so very long ago, the world knew her only as an impoverished, horrendous violent backwater with the same tragic history plaguing most Latin American countries.

As a younger man and product of the (fiat) American public education system, I was more in favor of “common sense gun control.” Yet over time I noticed that El Salvador’s crippling gun laws sometimes benefited the local aristocrats, other times the vicious gangs, but never the plebs on the street whose bodies filled out the nightly news headlines.

Through talks with the normie American, I’ve noticed a few common sentiments:

We don’t have to worry about “murder governments” in the West.
The police can defend us.
Modern weapons are too powerful for private ownership.

🫠

Not to belabor the point, but a free people is by nature ARMED. A free people is a sovereign people; self-defense is an inescapable mark of sovereignty. Handing your arms over to “the government” means sentencing yourself to perpetual dependency on fallible human beings for protecting your life.

“Government” is a non-entity. It’s an idea too often, and dangerously, turned into something concrete by our erroneous thinking. There is no “government,” only people who govern, and handing them power over your very self-defense is both irrational and, worse, irresponsible. No matter the character of the governor today, we must be always mindful of the replacement governor who will replace him—every generation is one bad actor away from subversion.

“Can an armed populace defend itself from a renegade government?” The question is secondary to the principle of sovereignty, for what man has authority to disarm another man? Just as nations have a right to an army and no right to disarm each other, men have a right to arms and no right to disarm each other.

Once seen clearly that government is just an entity staffed by men who govern, we see why the 2nd Amendment must not only stand, but logically apply elsewhere, to countries like El Salvador and others.