4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

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.