4 ms·

Anarchist movements I can see, but I don't think trans/LGBT flags count as "political." It's an identity, not a political statement. It'd be like calling chri

by Navarr 10y ago

Anarchist movements I can see, but I don't think trans/LGBT flags count as "political." It's an identity, not a political statement. It'd be like calling christian crosses "political"

grive 10y ago
Identity is very tightly related to political views. Moreover, LGBTQ pride is definitely political, even in Western democracies (see contentions about gay marriage). LGBT activism is definitely marked on the left political spectrum in the USA. Christians values will inherently push toward traditionalism, so social conservatism. It is the same in many European countries.
eropple 10y ago
Christianity is a completely political phenomenon (as a cursory historical examination will demonstrate) and public advocacy of it is a political act. Similarly, most things, including fandoms, are political in nature whether they want to be or not. By liking Star Trek, you're buying into a box of propositions, some related to the art and some related to the real-world universe around that art. By (as in the Reddit experiment) working to expand it, you're making a political claim. People are political, people are never not political, and drawing an imaginary line to try to separate some political acts from others is pretty fruitless.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  This defines the word "political" to be so broad as to render it essentially meaningless. I can't like Star Trek without "buying into a box of propositions"? Really? First, you're going to have to tell me why I like Star Trek.
  - eropple 10y ago
    What I am saying is that politics is an externalization rather than an internalization--which is very far from meaningless. Your why doesn't matter (and it's one reason why the right wing's "but I didn't support the Republicans because of racism" is so hollow). Your what matters. And it matters to other people. It's inescapably political because you live in a polity and your decisions impact other people. See, for example, the useful idiots of GamerGate who provided air cover to people who sent death and rape threats to women who had the temerity to make video games. If they're the one in a figurative million, literally-few-thousand who actually cares about "ethics in games journalism", that doesn't matter in the slightest because of what they enable through their action and their inaction. Drawing those imaginary lines to segment off Some Topics (because otherwise one might have to defend them) is nonsense. People draw these lines anywhere from religion to fandoms to allegiance to political parties--but none of them are meaningful. You are your impact on other people and every impact on everyone else is inescapably, inextricably, definitionally "political".
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      >Your what matters. And it matters to other people. It's inescapably political because you live in a polity and your decisions impact other people. By the same standard, then, I can safely write off BlackLivesMatter as a group whose members are inherently racist, and in some cases engage in literal terrorism (definition: violence applied for political goals) with the sanction of the larger group? Why or why not? You are your impact on other people and every impact on everyone else is inescapably, inextricably, definitionally "political". Except most of these definitions of yours, that are entirely yours as far as I can see, don't have anything to do with the actual definition of the word political. To wit: relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. Where's the connection to government and public affairs and Star Trek? You did make that connection, and I'm curious to see how you go about defending it, especially since you called out this division of political vs not as a rhetorical device used to avoid defending things. On that same note, humans "draw lines to segment off topics" because that is literally the only way human reason about things. Your definition of politics implies that I can't watch a Goddamned fictional series about spaceships without a bunch of other ill-defined ideological baggage attached to it. I don't see the practical or metaphorical usefulness of this definition, and up to this point, you have not demonstrated it.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        > By the same standard They were describing a situation of 99% bad people where you write off the 1%. You seem to be describing the inverse. That's not the same standard.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        Not at all. But I'm afraid that's not a great conversation to have here.
        qu4z-2 10y ago
        Is there some source for these percentages or are the numbers generated purely from a sense of "I like this group" vs "I don't like that group"?
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I agree that being queer shouldn't be political, but as long as millions of people's politics are centered on being anti-LGBT, simply being out of the closet is a political act whether we like it or not.

by Navarr 10y ago

Anarchist movements I can see, but I don't think trans/LGBT flags count as "political." It's an identity, not a political statement. It'd be like calling christian crosses "political"

grive 10y ago

Identity is very tightly related to political views. Moreover, LGBTQ pride is definitely political, even in Western democracies (see contentions about gay marriage). LGBT activism is definitely marked on the left political spectrum in the USA. Christians values will inherently push toward traditionalism, so social conservatism. It is the same in many European countries.

eropple 10y ago

Christianity is a completely political phenomenon (as a cursory historical examination will demonstrate) and public advocacy of it is a political act. Similarly, most things, including fandoms, are political in nature whether they want to be or not. By liking Star Trek, you're buying into a box of propositions, some related to the art and some related to the real-world universe around that art. By (as in the Reddit experiment) working to expand it, you're making a political claim. People are political, people are never not political, and drawing an imaginary line to try to separate some political acts from others is pretty fruitless.

Karunamon 10y ago
This defines the word "political" to be so broad as to render it essentially meaningless. I can't like Star Trek without "buying into a box of propositions"? Really? First, you're going to have to tell me why I like Star Trek.
- eropple 10y ago
  What I am saying is that politics is an externalization rather than an internalization--which is very far from meaningless. Your why doesn't matter (and it's one reason why the right wing's "but I didn't support the Republicans because of racism" is so hollow). Your what matters. And it matters to other people. It's inescapably political because you live in a polity and your decisions impact other people. See, for example, the useful idiots of GamerGate who provided air cover to people who sent death and rape threats to women who had the temerity to make video games. If they're the one in a figurative million, literally-few-thousand who actually cares about "ethics in games journalism", that doesn't matter in the slightest because of what they enable through their action and their inaction. Drawing those imaginary lines to segment off Some Topics (because otherwise one might have to defend them) is nonsense. People draw these lines anywhere from religion to fandoms to allegiance to political parties--but none of them are meaningful. You are your impact on other people and every impact on everyone else is inescapably, inextricably, definitionally "political".
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    >Your what matters. And it matters to other people. It's inescapably political because you live in a polity and your decisions impact other people. By the same standard, then, I can safely write off BlackLivesMatter as a group whose members are inherently racist, and in some cases engage in literal terrorism (definition: violence applied for political goals) with the sanction of the larger group? Why or why not? You are your impact on other people and every impact on everyone else is inescapably, inextricably, definitionally "political". Except most of these definitions of yours, that are entirely yours as far as I can see, don't have anything to do with the actual definition of the word political. To wit: relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. Where's the connection to government and public affairs and Star Trek? You did make that connection, and I'm curious to see how you go about defending it, especially since you called out this division of political vs not as a rhetorical device used to avoid defending things. On that same note, humans "draw lines to segment off topics" because that is literally the only way human reason about things. Your definition of politics implies that I can't watch a Goddamned fictional series about spaceships without a bunch of other ill-defined ideological baggage attached to it. I don't see the practical or metaphorical usefulness of this definition, and up to this point, you have not demonstrated it.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > By the same standard They were describing a situation of 99% bad people where you write off the 1%. You seem to be describing the inverse. That's not the same standard.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        Not at all. But I'm afraid that's not a great conversation to have here.
      - qu4z-2 10y ago
        Is there some source for these percentages or are the numbers generated purely from a sense of "I like this group" vs "I don't like that group"?

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I agree that being queer shouldn't be political, but as long as millions of people's politics are centered on being anti-LGBT, simply being out of the closet is a political act whether we like it or not.