Comments on: The Limits Of Political Junkiedom

By: Stealth1

Stealth1 — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:15:26 +0000

Iconic Midwest: I understand your point and know that you do still consider yourself a political junkie, but its like you just said you’ve modified it over the years. So when a young person is first exposed to the “joys” of political junkiedom, it is hard not become enthralled by every little political debate out there. However, in time as this is modified and evolves, a budding political junkie can make better decisions as to what is truly important. So while I do understand the point you are making I find it is not completely accurate unless you decide on a new term for political junkies who are able to make the distinction you call for.

By: Iconic Midwest

Iconic Midwest — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:38:34 +0000

Stealth1: I never made a claim that being a political junkie is in and of itself a “bad” thing. I still consider myself one, even if I’ve modified it over the years.

The point isn’t to be apathetic, which isn’t the enevitable consequence of skepticism it is sometimes portrayed as being. The point is that political junkiedom keeps us from being able to sort the truly important from the truly ephemeral.

By: Stealth1

Stealth1 — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:31:31 +0000

Written like a true anarchist. Now I know I may simply be a little perturbed because I too fancy myself a political junkie of sorts, but the reason I fall into a “tizzy” over the guilt or innocence of a man named Scooter is because this man or type of man is part of an elite privileged class that continues to exploit a poor working class. The theme of this post seems to be one of cynicism and apathy, as in we’ve all seen these issues before they always come and go and take care of themselves. But does no one see a problem with this? Why should we stand aside and be apathetic, allowing the same issues to continuously plague our society? If we have the power to do something about it we should.
I will concede one point, however, that cosmoetica raised which I agree with and I believe fits with the theme of this post; that every election is the most important election of our time is simply not the case despite what those running would like you to think. However I still believe that we need this type of thinking to inspire more voter participation.
All in all it was an interesting article that made aware of something I had already known.

By: Iconic Midwest

Iconic Midwest — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:15:08 +0000

Sam, I just wanted to make sure you were still breathing! (Thanks!)

And Cosmoetica, is this the first time you haven’t violently disagreed with me????

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:15:01 +0000

Man, I hate it when someone holds up a mirror right to my face like that. Great article.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:48:06 +0000

Politics is ultimately one of the basest of human pursuits: the divvying of power, by the elite over the masses.

Note how so many people who are poli-junks, incl. many TMV readers, actively encourage the stagnation and repetition of minor issues. They actively mock real change- i.e.- the formation of newer political parties, because they WANT there to be the constant turmoil of minutia.

Look how many want to equate a minor war over oil with the World Wars, as if a few recherche Islamists are a threat on par with Hitler or Stalin.

One knows one live sin small times when people have to convince themselves that they live in big times. Watch how many times between now and Election Day, 2008, the candidates invoke, ‘this is the most important election of our lifetime.’ Yeah, just like 2004, 2000, 1984, 1968, etc.

Like most things online, future historians will scratch their heads over the self-important anomy of most people’s Internet obsessions: from poliblogs to Facebook to Wikipedia to chatrooms.