You raise an interesting point about the nature of politics. I’ve been thinking about this a bit, but it seems to me that radical/revolutionary politics are tal

You raise an interesting point about the nature of politics. I’ve been thinking about this a bit, but it seems to me that radical/revolutionary politics are talking about how people want things to be while quotidian political ideas are more about how people ought to do a few things. The distinction here being people’s timelines and depth of thought. If a policy has some seriously bad consequences, people may not notice because they weren’t really thinking of things should be, just the narrower thought of how a thing out to be done (think minimum wage driving automation rather than getting people a better standard of living, or immigration control driving police militarization). Of course, for most politicians, I am not sure either of these are correct. I think for politicians, politics is just the study of their own path to power; they likely don’t care much about whether it’s how things are done or how things ought to be so long as they are the ones with the power. I don’t know that this comment really ads anything to the conversation, but I do find it all interesting. Edit: also, on topic, languages are fun. The world is boring when everything is in one language. Languages also hold information in how they structure things, how speakers of that language view the world, and so on, and in those ways they are important contributors to diversity of thought.