7 ms·

Everything is political; being apolitical just means you support the status quo.

• ls612 6y ago
  This is just a fancier way of saying “If you’re not with me you’re against me”
  • theplague42 6y ago
    It's literally not; how do you know I don't support the status quo? I'm just pointing out that being "apolitical" is a political stance, whether or not you agree with that stance.
    • AbrahamParangi 6y ago
      By this reasoning my dog supports the status quo.
      • Cyph0n 6y ago
        If your dog had the mental capacity to understand the basics of the two main sides in US politics and chose to support neither, then sure.
        • kortilla 6y ago
          There aren’t “two main sides” in US politics. There are two parties and choosing either comes with a metric fuck-ton of positions. Generally supporting Democrats just because they support one position you agree with is dumber than not supporting either side.
          • Cyph0n 6y ago
            I think not voting at all is the dumbest possible position.
      • ahelwer 6y ago
        Your ability to draw reason out of text is flawed, then. Your dog has no ability to influence human politics whatsoever; you do.
    • nickff 6y ago
      You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable, or because you just don't know what's going on. Separately, not opposing the status quo is more like accepting it than supporting it, and these are all different. Your lack of nuance rather proves the point of the great grandparent post.
      • notJim 6y ago
        Well ironically, the great grandparent also lacks nuance. I think your comment is the one the brings it forward, and is more valuable than the great grandparent for that reason. > You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable Is this apolitical, or is it having a politics that is not well represented? It seems more like the latter to me.
        • nickff 6y ago
          People who feel unrepresented often lapse into apathy; you can only struggle against an uncaring world for so long before you tire or go insane.
          • JAlexoid 6y ago
            Apathy towards issues of policy is a political position. You know the political positions, but you became apathetic about the political system. Being apolitical is implying that you think that it's good enough as it is to not care.
        • buran77 6y ago
          > having a politics that is not well represented I think being apolitical is more about having an objective view and judging opinions based on merit rather than the political spectrum they originated from. Could also mean you're either are against all political views, or have none, but this last one seems less likely to happen in practice. People tend to have an opinion, more or less informed or objective as it may be.
      • catalogia 6y ago
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • roenxi 6y ago
      As I like to say; why would we have a word 'apolitical' if we can't imagine a thing that is accepted as apolitical? It would be a rather useless adjective. It is completely reasonable for someone to say they don't like the status quo but also are uncertain about whether a policy improves on the status quo due to their limited knowledge. If that isn't being apolitical we may as well strike the word from the dictionary. It is technically a political stance, but it is not forceful enough to be called support of anything.
    • amw-zero 6y ago
      It is most certainly a coded message for “you have to believe in what I believe.” Being apolitical is not a political stance.
    • urbaneroust 6y ago
      I keep to myself because I don't trust people to take my slight differences of opinion with appropriate calm. I've been burned one too many times by "you don't agree with my concept/idea/candidate you're a literal fucking monster." No thanks, I could have been your ally but I'll just stay home. I should add, this goes in both directions and I see it from both sides of the political spectrum. I consider myself an independent. I try to judge all issues individually and fall into different camps depending on what we're talking about, but political dialogue has become so toxic that I've gotten to the point where I just cast my vote and move on.
    • drewcon 6y ago
      Fair enough. I read it as condemning apolitical folks for lack of engagement but I see your larger point.
  • alexland 6y ago
    If you are not against the oppressor, if you are okay with allowing oppression to continue happening for any reason, you are on the side of the oppressor. You cannot be an ally from a neutral position, you need to pick your side and commit. This is why if you want to be an ally to people of color it's not enough to not be racist, but rather you need to be anti-racist. We're seeing more and more how neutrality is dangerous in allowing systemic issues to exist and flourish (see elected Democrats in major American cities, the "not racists", allowing the police state to exist and perpetuate systemic racism). If you want to be an ally, you need to become comfortable admitting that the privileged position of neutrality isn't compatible with allyship.
    • hevelvarik 6y ago
      This is religious dogma and I support your right to believe it!
• shooner 6y ago
  This is a very broad definition of political.
• chrisco255 6y ago
  No, it's really not. This is just cult like Puritanism that shows your lack of balance and proportionality.
  • atoav 6y ago
    It is. Sorry it is. I am not American and the whole two party thing annoys the heck out of me, but politics is the question of how we (or others) organize how we live with each other. This spans from mundane things like whether you can paint your fence in the color you like to fundamental existential questions that regard your safety and wellbeing. If you think you hold no political opinion this is usually a sign that you can afford to do so. Just like my grandfather who fought in the Wehrmacht and said afterwards that he wasn't convinced, he just went the easy way and didn't question his orders. Was that apolitical? I don't think so — it was more an excuse he told himself to avoid responsibility for what he helped create. Sorry, but sometimes inaction is political, because it means you are willing to give the controls to the next person who grabs it as long as you don't think you will end up worse off. "I don't care what happens to anyone but me", may sound apolitical, but it really isn't.
    • pandaman 6y ago
      People just put different meaning into "support". There are some who honestly believe you can support something through apathy and there are some who, just as honestly, believe that support is an action and hence cannot happen through inaction. Interestingly, both meanings are in the dictionary[1] and the argument that there is just one is either coming from ignorance or bad faith. The GP's "being apolitical just means you support the status quo" definitely looks like a troll. It uses "support" as "endure" (an unusual meaning in such a context) but implies "support" as "promote". 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
      • atoav 6y ago
        This is indeed a quite tricky question. Trickier than one would intuitivly think. Back when I studied ethics we were talking about the famous trolly problem. The professor proposed multiple scenarios and after each asked the auditorium who would act and who wouldn't. I can vividly remember three points: 1. Even seemingly clear cut ethical questions weren't clear cut at all. Rarely as much as 80:20 more often 60:40 2. Doing nothing always gets a perk over doing smomething. If you do something you might have done the wrong thing and feel silly for it - if you do nothing it is easier to brush off. 3. When the professor rephrased a scenario in such a way that you had to take basically the same decision, but your role was more direct (instead of pulling a lever to sacrifice one person, you'd have to push them in front of the trolly) nearly nobody would do so. These differences in perception of indirect and direct effect is what we use to excuse ourselves in cases where our inaction would have saved lives ("I could have easily pulled the lever and saved four lives" VS "I couldn't have pushed that person in front of the trolly, even if it would have saved lives"). Similarily my grandfather's generation would have said: "There was nothing I could have done to stop it anyways" - with the unspoken part beeing "without taking a personal burden". Note that we live in one of the few areas where people were hiding in the mountains to resist the Nazis and these were partely people he personally knew. So he knew one could do something, he just either didn't dare, chose to (conveniently for him) not think about it, or only felt sorry in hindsight. As another data point: At least where I grew up not helping someone in need (e.g. of first aid) is a felony, as long as the circumstances allowed you to help. Not sure how this is in the US tho
• disposekinetics 6y ago
  You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone. ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    > These things are not asking to be judged by you. Somebody needs to tell me what voting is supposed to be about, then.
    • catalogia 6y ago
      Nobody is obliged to vote on a matter. At least not in America, I've heard it might be different in Australia. When I feel as though I cannot make an informed decision, I choose not to vote. Why should my uninformed vote be so valued that I'm obliged to give it? What utility is there in an uninformed vote?
    • hevelvarik 6y ago
      You can vote your opinion and not be a troubled soul. Voting doesn’t require your politics to be a consuming passion.
    • disposekinetics 6y ago
      My politics are outside the Overton window to the point I'm just depending on the rest of my fellow citizens not to make their mess my mess with their choices.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• JPKab 6y ago
  Were you saying this in a comedic way, as a parody of the thinking the parent complained about? Because it's exactly that, intentional or not. Politics is about applying collective power from an entity funded by taxpayers. There is nothing political about the decision of whether or not to assist an elderly woman who is lost, or volunteer to coach a youth basketball team, or you know, just do decent things to make the world a better place that doesn't require the application of the collective power of our government institutions.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• runarberg 6y ago
  Not true. “The Earth revolves around the sun” is not a political statement. “Climate change is real, and is caused by humans”, however is equally true but for some (really bad) reasons, it is a political statement. If we move from scientific facts to moral once: “Slavery is bad and should be illegal” is not a political statement. Meanwhile “Women have the rights to their own bodies” is (also for a very bad reason) a political statement. If we would give climate-deniers and anti-abortion biggots the platform they deserve (i.e. none) their viewpoints would only be as fringe as the once of the flat earth conspiracy theory—i.e. not relevant because their obviously wrong, and therefor not political.
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    > “Slavery is bad and should be illegal” is not a political statement. This is a political statement. I'm not sure how the world "political" drifted away from the meaning of law, rulers, and representation to whatever it means now. Any statement about what the law should be is political. Any statement about how best to change or preserve laws, specifically or generally, is political. edit: Whether global warming is anthropogenic or not is not political. What we should do about it (or not do about it if we don't think it's real or we don't think it's important) is political.
    • mcv 6y ago
      Some of these things should not be as controversial as they are, though. Many people are resistant to supporting the right thing because they fear it will threaten their own comfort.
  • Bostonian 6y ago
    '“Women have the rights to their own bodies” is (also for a very bad reason) a political statement.' You think the morality of abortion is so clear-cut that it should not be a political issue? Lots of women are anti-abortion. I see later that you refer to "anti-abortion biggots" (sic). You appear close-minded.
    • graton 6y ago
• jupp0r 6y ago
  Being apolitical means you don't care about policy.
• Konohamaru 6y ago
  Politics is war by other means (Clausewitz), then that would mean everything in life is warfare too.
  • goatlover 6y ago
    It doesn't have to be, if people are willing to compromise.
    • Konohamaru 6y ago
      If people were willing to compromise then it wouldn't have become a political issue to begin with.
  • runarberg 6y ago
    I guess these silly generalizations can go on ad infinitum and we end up with every concept A describes any situation B. It reminds me of what happens to the numbers if we allow for 2 + 2 = 5 to be true. Effectively 1 will end up being equal to 0, and since every number multiplied by 1 is it self, and every number multiplied by 0 is 0, we end up with all numbers being equal to 0. Effectively rendering them useless.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  I think the one of the big things that makes things political is coercion. If you are using the power of the state to advance a controversial goal then it is political. Take for example how we got to religious freedom. In the past, if you were the wrong religion, you would be tortured and executed. In a lot of places, this led to horrendous religious wars where literally millions of people died. In the end, we ended up with freedom of religion as a compromise. The state would no longer compel you to choose a religion. Of course each religion thought they were right and the others were wrong. But they stopped using the power of the state to compel conversions. They would still proselytize and try to persuade other people to join their faith, but they stopped trying to use the power of the state to compel people. After that, religion became a lot more apolitical. Sometimes begin apoliticial means you don't think it is worth using the power of the state to change the status quo. You may be against the status quo, and think debate or persuasion is more effective. In addition, reference to the status quo in the quote is simplistic. A lot of times the status quo is like an armistice line between two warring sides. Many times the status quo includes things you are for and things you are against. Maybe the way the status quo is right now, the benefit of the things you are for, is greater than the burden of the things you are against. If you try to change the status quo, you may end up destabilizing the status quo so much, that when the new equilibrium is reached, you end up losing some of things you were for.
• drewcon 6y ago
  Or being apolitical just means you don’t have time or inclination to obsess about the political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in your day because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden that frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change. Not every one needs to be an activist about every thing. If a person feels strongly about some special political cause, fantastic, they ought to make their case convincingly. But the idea of castigating others for not putting in the time or enthusiasm to share their superior moral clarity is exhausting.
  • pwinnski 6y ago
    I generally agree. It's impossible to have a knowledgable position on every single issue, and a full-time job to have a position on whatever is popular in a given week. The end result is that on most issues, most of us default to the status quo, because, well, that's how the status quo works. It's literally the default until enough people care to change it. In other words, "you don’t have time or inclination to obsess about the political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in your day because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden that frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change" is a lot of words to say that you support the status quo. I think everybody does, on issues that aren't important to them.
    • drewcon 6y ago
      Semantics, but I view “support” as an active measure. There are loads of issues folks are just not engaged with enough to have a qualified opinion (their perspective not mine), which is fine. I view that as living in the status quo but not necessarily evidence of endorsing the status quo. For instance, do we really expect your average citizen (American in this case) to have a thought out POV on qualified immunity? Policing tactics? Effective tactics to address diversity in the workplace? Herd immunity? Actuarial risk assessment of economic activity during the pandemic? If not are they supporting the status quo? I think most people just shrug and I don’t blame them. Processing information in the era of the death of expertise has made even having an opinion right now an absolute hellscape.
  • 6y ago
• jules 6y ago
  You're equivocating on the word "support". Actively supporting whoever is currently in power is not the same as not caring enough to bother or being on the fence as to which side to support.
• mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Disagree. Often there is simply no option for practical policy choices, in the USA at least.