3 ms·
> In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions. This isn't a real thing though. Anythin
by giraffe_lady 4y ago
> In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions.
This isn't a real thing though. Anything with impacts outside of your own living room is or can become a political question in certain contexts so this affects potentially everything. Ten years ago wearing a mask wasn't "political" now it is.
What is neutrality? What's the neutral position between genocide and don't? Between pacifism and conscription? The average view? Of who, taken when? There's no neutral ground from which to make these judgements. Even deciding what is "political" or what "neutral" means is itself a political act.
The value of neutrality is useful in some contexts but for this it is insufficient to solve any actual problem it presents.
- meowface 4y agoOf course it shouldn't be neutral on genocide, but it could simply refuse to have/give an opinion on certain contentious issues (like what tax rates should be or if there should be more or less immigration). I don't think it should take a "middle position" but should simply say it has no position at all on matters like these.