36 ms·

Hm, that seems to be a rather peculiar and particular interpretation of the term. Grassroots organisations, political activist movements of all kinds would then

by wfn 7y ago

Hm, that seems to be a rather peculiar and particular interpretation of the term. Grassroots organisations, political activist movements of all kinds would then fall outside your criterion. I mean... Women's suffrage movement (which changed the definition of who can vote in the first place), civil rights movement, etc. would also fall outwith your definition of the notion. (edit) The political processes which culminated in the French, the 1917 communist revolutions, etc... I don't see a point in defining the term in that way at all.

bmelton 7y ago
I'm sort of down for it. "I don't like cats" is a fairly apolitical statement, that is until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats and arguing in favor of who subsidizes what kinds of feline activities. I have many beliefs that I regard as accidentally political - which is to say that I believe these things regardless of whether or which politicians happen to agree, or what their political affiliations are, or how closely tied their affiliations are to mine. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether others regard those beliefs as political or not, but it seems that we're approaching an era in which anything and everything can be deemed 'political' in some way merely because parties choose to take positions on them, and that may be completely at odds with how an individual may have come to conclusions on their own.
- wfn 7y ago
  I think I see what you mean, maybe there is a need to differentiate (individual conclusions "on their own", though there'd be arguments in favour of viewing those as political as well, etc.) But perhaps not at the expense of the term "political" (but rather introduction of some other term). Because it's simply not the case that something is necessarily apolitical "until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats". Some revolutions, changes in political regime, etc. happened not via the process of already existing political establishment systems (of which parliamentary parties is a mere (and not necessary (being descriptive here, not prescriptive)) subset of) accepting / incorporating / etc. some views at all (rather the exact opposite, say). Also, "I don't like cats" is a sort of easy example to use here, but if you take e.g. "domestic violence should not happen", where do you draw the line in terms of when it becomes political (let's say you start a grassroots network where victims of domestic violence can support each other, and gradually build political capital, and so on)... That said, differentiation along your lines is maybe useful, but severely redefining the scope of the term "political" seems a weird way to go about it.
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  I think the best way to understand this reality is that when it comes down to it, a lot more things are political than one would think. For example, "I don't like cats" is apolitical because it doesn't take into consideration anyone but you. But as soon as you say, "we like cats too much", that's political. An example I would give is someone that's debating which feature an open-source project should work on. That's inherently political. The only difference between that and whether or not we should fund smartphones for homeless people, for example, is a matter of scale. An issue I see right off the bat, how do you deal with the reality that politics can and does exist without and within, not just between political parties? I think the best definition of politics is anything that relates to the making of decisions that concern a group of people. If whatever you are doing or talking about concerns how we should make decisions, then it is political. And I don't think that's an issue. To try to limit politics to what happens in an electoral party state is pretty sad and reductive, and contributes to political apathy.
einpoklum 7y ago
Women's suffrage was a patently pro-Statist pursuit. Famed Anarcho-Feminist Emma Goldman had this to say about it: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/woman-suffrage.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/191... to quote three words: "A terrible fetish".
mikorym 7y ago
I think the discussion is becoming complicated, but I think my key points are this: 1. One can be apolitical by being socially apathetic towards the influences of other people. This describes myself: I am alabellist and as a general courtesy to other mathematicians (as a group in particular) allow them the benefit of the doubt that they would prefer me to not label them either. This is my approach to Grothendieck: I think it's perfectly consistent to have complicated views on politics, but to still remain apolitical in the sense that you don't try to propagate your views other than their inherent merits. Going to live as a hermit in the mountains is the evidence that I use for this; I haven't heard that he tried to lure other people into the mountains or forced an agenda on other people from his stay there. 2. Mathematicians are often an oppressed group of people, as are all scientists, sometimes become oppressive themselves and often have serious mental health issues or other social risks. For this reason one should approach other mathematicians with empathy. It also suggests to not judge people by their worst, but by their best. For me, the best of Grothendieck is not a political environmental crusader, it is a great mathematician with certain idiosyncratic tendencies for isolation and statements on politics. That does not mean that his actions have a political undertone in the sense that they try to exert influence without permission. Such actions to me are apolitical by nature; Youtubers are not all political, but I would have called them so if we were all forced to watch their channels.

by wfn 7y ago

bmelton 7y ago

I'm sort of down for it. "I don't like cats" is a fairly apolitical statement, that is until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats and arguing in favor of who subsidizes what kinds of feline activities. I have many beliefs that I regard as accidentally political - which is to say that I believe these things regardless of whether or which politicians happen to agree, or what their political affiliations are, or how closely tied their affiliations are to mine. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether others regard those beliefs as political or not, but it seems that we're approaching an era in which anything and everything can be deemed 'political' in some way merely because parties choose to take positions on them, and that may be completely at odds with how an individual may have come to conclusions on their own.

wfn 7y ago
I think I see what you mean, maybe there is a need to differentiate (individual conclusions "on their own", though there'd be arguments in favour of viewing those as political as well, etc.) But perhaps not at the expense of the term "political" (but rather introduction of some other term). Because it's simply not the case that something is necessarily apolitical "until such point as political parties start taking stances on cats". Some revolutions, changes in political regime, etc. happened not via the process of already existing political establishment systems (of which parliamentary parties is a mere (and not necessary (being descriptive here, not prescriptive)) subset of) accepting / incorporating / etc. some views at all (rather the exact opposite, say). Also, "I don't like cats" is a sort of easy example to use here, but if you take e.g. "domestic violence should not happen", where do you draw the line in terms of when it becomes political (let's say you start a grassroots network where victims of domestic violence can support each other, and gradually build political capital, and so on)... That said, differentiation along your lines is maybe useful, but severely redefining the scope of the term "political" seems a weird way to go about it.
sudosysgen 7y ago
I think the best way to understand this reality is that when it comes down to it, a lot more things are political than one would think. For example, "I don't like cats" is apolitical because it doesn't take into consideration anyone but you. But as soon as you say, "we like cats too much", that's political. An example I would give is someone that's debating which feature an open-source project should work on. That's inherently political. The only difference between that and whether or not we should fund smartphones for homeless people, for example, is a matter of scale. An issue I see right off the bat, how do you deal with the reality that politics can and does exist without and within, not just between political parties? I think the best definition of politics is anything that relates to the making of decisions that concern a group of people. If whatever you are doing or talking about concerns how we should make decisions, then it is political. And I don't think that's an issue. To try to limit politics to what happens in an electoral party state is pretty sad and reductive, and contributes to political apathy.

einpoklum 7y ago

Women's suffrage was a patently pro-Statist pursuit. Famed Anarcho-Feminist Emma Goldman had this to say about it: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/woman-suffrage.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/191... to quote three words: "A terrible fetish".

mikorym 7y ago

I think the discussion is becoming complicated, but I think my key points are this: 1. One can be apolitical by being socially apathetic towards the influences of other people. This describes myself: I am alabellist and as a general courtesy to other mathematicians (as a group in particular) allow them the benefit of the doubt that they would prefer me to not label them either. This is my approach to Grothendieck: I think it's perfectly consistent to have complicated views on politics, but to still remain apolitical in the sense that you don't try to propagate your views other than their inherent merits. Going to live as a hermit in the mountains is the evidence that I use for this; I haven't heard that he tried to lure other people into the mountains or forced an agenda on other people from his stay there. 2. Mathematicians are often an oppressed group of people, as are all scientists, sometimes become oppressive themselves and often have serious mental health issues or other social risks. For this reason one should approach other mathematicians with empathy. It also suggests to not judge people by their worst, but by their best. For me, the best of Grothendieck is not a political environmental crusader, it is a great mathematician with certain idiosyncratic tendencies for isolation and statements on politics. That does not mean that his actions have a political undertone in the sense that they try to exert influence without permission. Such actions to me are apolitical by nature; Youtubers are not all political, but I would have called them so if we were all forced to watch their channels.