3 ms·
My reply should be longer and more helpful, but I'm unable to write clearly right now, so I'll be short but regrettably not nuanced: if it involves other people
by dictum 7y ago
My reply should be longer and more helpful, but I'm unable to write clearly right now, so I'll be short but regrettably not nuanced: if it involves other people and shared resources, I don't think you can make it non-political.
If you see politics — not being a politician or partisanship, which have different implications — as inherently bad, you are not seeing politics for what it is; you are seeing politics as some evil process, run by a cabal or by a mob, and your position as inherently logical and reasoned.
This is a bad idea even if you have a good reason to believe you're right. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" are part of why this is a problem.
Let me add a weird metaphor: you are saying smell is something that only comes from perfume, rotten organic matter and certain chemical products. You may not perceive the toned-down smell of things you are surrounded by, like wood, plastics or the air in your office.
- malvosenior 7y agoThis is a good response and I see your point. I don't fully agree though. If someone is making decisions based on their finances, I think it's unhelpful to frame it as "politics" just because there may be some tax implications (the shared resources in your example). If people are moving to a lower tax state to save money, that's not a political decision in my opinion. It's a totally logical financial decision an individual is making. Now, why I say that this article is political (and unjust imo) is because that very personal and logical decision is being placed by someone else into the realm of politics.