4 ms·

I've always taken it to mean "not acting politically"; possibly I take it this way because I'm a consequentialist. This is the problem when we use words! To me

I've always taken it to mean "not acting politically"; possibly I take it this way because I'm a consequentialist. This is the problem when we use words! To me, "to be political" means "to act politically", and definitely not "to hold political views"; so "to be apolitical" means "to act without regard to politics". Possibly I'm just using a different definition from everyone else. Oxford English: "not interested or involved in politics". Even that is ambiguous; does it mean "at least one of 'uninterested in politics' or 'uninvolved in politics'", or does it mean "neither interested nor involved in politics"?

didibus 6y ago
The problem is that in a democracy, you cannot "not act politically". Even holding political views will influence what you tell others, and who you vote for or if you choose not to vote. All that is acting politically, since you're participating in the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. So I take it being apolitical in a democracy is akin to saying you support the majority who voted. That's because you can't act without regards to politics, you are forced to abide by the political rules and laws, and even your choice to not vote is a choice for the majority who voted. So like, the most apolitical thing you could do would be never talk politics, never let any of your value judgment known to others about any topic, and randomly cast a vote at every elections.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  > So I take it being apolitical in a democracy is akin to saying you support the majority who voted. I'm not sure that's true. After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once, in both the USA and the UK. With or without my action, I really don't know who would win an election that was called right this instant in the UK; I really don't know which side I'm supporting by not undertaking political activity right now. The default state of affairs without my action is not "continue as we currently are indefinitely"; the default is "every few years, change the government"! I do vote; voting is the system we have collectively landed on for aggregating preferences across the population, and I do have preferences. But if I did not vote (and am therefore implicitly "voting for" the majority), I don't see how that could be reasonably viewed as a political act, because I don't know who I'm "voting" for as I do it!
  - didibus 6y ago
    > After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once Ya, but that's because the majority of who votes changes over time, or changes who they vote for over time. That means for any given elections, if you don't vote, you're voting for whoever the majority of voters will vote for. This is still a clear choice in some sense. Just imagine a scenario, I'm going to order pizza and ask you what toppings you want, you say: "I'll have whatever you'll have." This is you casting your support for my choice of toppings, even though you do not know what toppings you're supporting. I can make it more complicated too, imagine there's two other persons and you say: "I'll have whatever you three decide to have." Now you're supporting whatever means me and the other two persons have for deciding, if that's a majority's vote, then that will be what you're siding with. So not voting is the act of siding with the winner of the vote, in the sense it isn't a neutral position. Sure not voting does not actually require any physical action, like you don't have to deregister yourself or anything, you could just stay still until it's done. But it is an act in the sense of having it influence the outcome of the elections. The only way to be neutral would be to vote, but pick at random the choice. That would still impact a given election, but over the aggregate of elections over time it should approximate neutrality.
    - username90 6y ago
      So now everyone who didn't vote in USA sided with Biden and are therefore empathetic individuals caring about BLM, gay rights, the poor etc? Doesn't seem like Arainach's point works then.
      - didibus 6y ago
        In practice they did side with the majority who voted, but in attitude that doesn't mean they are empathetic. In some other thread of convo I explain that being apolitical is an attitude, not an outcome. Your attitude can be apathetic towards political causes, but the outcome of your apathy will still be political in supporting the majority who voted.
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Oh, by the way - talking about politics is definitely something I avoid. I grew up in a culture that was strongly in favour of being friends with people who are different from you, and this is one of the ways I try and achieve that (I have at least one friendship which I think would end if we started talking about politics, unless I were extremely careful and chose the right moment and so on). My friends generally know roughly what political directions I lean in, but I know a couple of things: I probably won't be able to change someone's mind on a political issue, and it's nevertheless important to have friends who have different politics from my own. In fact, my general uncertainty regarding political action has largely stemmed from that sort of thing. For example, I personally know people who are rabidly in favour of Trump and people who are rabidly against him, and I know those people are all reasonable in other regards. This is what makes me so unsure that I'm right: of course I have an opinion, but I personally know reasonable people who differ. I really do not know whether a given political action is right; reasonable people can clearly be wrong about politics, even granting that I am a reasonable person! This is why voting is good in principle (though not necessarily in current implementation): it allows us to aggregate the knowledge and opinions of many uncertain participants. To what extent is it worth risking a friendship by acting? That's something else on which otherwise-reasonable people genuinely differ - some will say "if a person holds evil views then you should expunge them from your life", and some will say "we are more alike than we are unalike". Of course, if a friendship is nice and solid, with good truth-seeking norms around discussing controversial things, then that kind of conversation is much less risky and so I'd be much more likely to hold it; but good epistemological norms aren't something I can impose on others (it takes two to tango). The safest way to do something I am quite confident is right (maintain friendships with people who are unlike me) is to avoid discussing politics. There is clear value in at least dropping hints of my own politics, so that my friends who disagree can realise that they have a friend who disagrees; but I fear that in some cases there is a rather tenuous social contract in place, which will pop like a bubble under excessive scrutiny. This is the only policy I have yet found which is immune to [scissor statements](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/): to recognise such statements as being scissors, on which reasonable people may reasonably differ, and to mutually agree to avoid them unless you're in a particularly hygienic epistemological environment.

didibus 6y ago

The problem is that in a democracy, you cannot "not act politically". Even holding political views will influence what you tell others, and who you vote for or if you choose not to vote. All that is acting politically, since you're participating in the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. So I take it being apolitical in a democracy is akin to saying you support the majority who voted. That's because you can't act without regards to politics, you are forced to abide by the political rules and laws, and even your choice to not vote is a choice for the majority who voted. So like, the most apolitical thing you could do would be never talk politics, never let any of your value judgment known to others about any topic, and randomly cast a vote at every elections.

Smaug123 6y ago
> So I take it being apolitical in a democracy is akin to saying you support the majority who voted. I'm not sure that's true. After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once, in both the USA and the UK. With or without my action, I really don't know who would win an election that was called right this instant in the UK; I really don't know which side I'm supporting by not undertaking political activity right now. The default state of affairs without my action is not "continue as we currently are indefinitely"; the default is "every few years, change the government"! I do vote; voting is the system we have collectively landed on for aggregating preferences across the population, and I do have preferences. But if I did not vote (and am therefore implicitly "voting for" the majority), I don't see how that could be reasonably viewed as a political act, because I don't know who I'm "voting" for as I do it!
- didibus 6y ago
  > After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once Ya, but that's because the majority of who votes changes over time, or changes who they vote for over time. That means for any given elections, if you don't vote, you're voting for whoever the majority of voters will vote for. This is still a clear choice in some sense. Just imagine a scenario, I'm going to order pizza and ask you what toppings you want, you say: "I'll have whatever you'll have." This is you casting your support for my choice of toppings, even though you do not know what toppings you're supporting. I can make it more complicated too, imagine there's two other persons and you say: "I'll have whatever you three decide to have." Now you're supporting whatever means me and the other two persons have for deciding, if that's a majority's vote, then that will be what you're siding with. So not voting is the act of siding with the winner of the vote, in the sense it isn't a neutral position. Sure not voting does not actually require any physical action, like you don't have to deregister yourself or anything, you could just stay still until it's done. But it is an act in the sense of having it influence the outcome of the elections. The only way to be neutral would be to vote, but pick at random the choice. That would still impact a given election, but over the aggregate of elections over time it should approximate neutrality.
  - username90 6y ago
    So now everyone who didn't vote in USA sided with Biden and are therefore empathetic individuals caring about BLM, gay rights, the poor etc? Doesn't seem like Arainach's point works then.
    - didibus 6y ago
      In practice they did side with the majority who voted, but in attitude that doesn't mean they are empathetic. In some other thread of convo I explain that being apolitical is an attitude, not an outcome. Your attitude can be apathetic towards political causes, but the outcome of your apathy will still be political in supporting the majority who voted.
Smaug123 6y ago
Oh, by the way - talking about politics is definitely something I avoid. I grew up in a culture that was strongly in favour of being friends with people who are different from you, and this is one of the ways I try and achieve that (I have at least one friendship which I think would end if we started talking about politics, unless I were extremely careful and chose the right moment and so on). My friends generally know roughly what political directions I lean in, but I know a couple of things: I probably won't be able to change someone's mind on a political issue, and it's nevertheless important to have friends who have different politics from my own. In fact, my general uncertainty regarding political action has largely stemmed from that sort of thing. For example, I personally know people who are rabidly in favour of Trump and people who are rabidly against him, and I know those people are all reasonable in other regards. This is what makes me so unsure that I'm right: of course I have an opinion, but I personally know reasonable people who differ. I really do not know whether a given political action is right; reasonable people can clearly be wrong about politics, even granting that I am a reasonable person! This is why voting is good in principle (though not necessarily in current implementation): it allows us to aggregate the knowledge and opinions of many uncertain participants. To what extent is it worth risking a friendship by acting? That's something else on which otherwise-reasonable people genuinely differ - some will say "if a person holds evil views then you should expunge them from your life", and some will say "we are more alike than we are unalike". Of course, if a friendship is nice and solid, with good truth-seeking norms around discussing controversial things, then that kind of conversation is much less risky and so I'd be much more likely to hold it; but good epistemological norms aren't something I can impose on others (it takes two to tango). The safest way to do something I am quite confident is right (maintain friendships with people who are unlike me) is to avoid discussing politics. There is clear value in at least dropping hints of my own politics, so that my friends who disagree can realise that they have a friend who disagrees; but I fear that in some cases there is a rather tenuous social contract in place, which will pop like a bubble under excessive scrutiny. This is the only policy I have yet found which is immune to [scissor statements](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/): to recognise such statements as being scissors, on which reasonable people may reasonably differ, and to mutually agree to avoid them unless you're in a particularly hygienic epistemological environment.