Do you know what makes something not political? It not being in dispute - it says nothing about its value just like "X benefits from" and "status quo" means not

Do you know what makes something not political? It not being in dispute - it says nothing about its value just like "X benefits from" and "status quo" means nothing without a context point of reference about what the changes are to say if it is good or bad, let alone slightly more nuanced situations like "too much of a good thing" or "a neccessary evil" or even different relative values. I find speaking only in vagueness like "status quo" and "good for <the elite>" major red flags - the first especially as implying the changes you want with no knowledge and impossible to reconcile across even two people. Essentially the same sort of lie of populists. The second is a warning sign for fallacious zero sum thinking - best succicently and snarkily refuted as "It is also good for rich people for the atmosphere to be breathable at all." The assertion that AI and networking are by default pro status quo and that is a bad thing looks like gibberish without any reasoning backing it. Not even "was funded by X" has been a guarantee that it would sustain a stasis. The arguments leave me with an uneasy feeling of superfically trying to sound good while lacking any substance.