7 ms·

Everything is political now by design. It's meant to reach into every facet of society and community and restructure it.

Braxton1980 2y ago
Everything was always political. Laws, the economy, conflcit. How is any person not affected by these? The government is responsible for all or a large part of how a country functions. People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict
- OhioMan2943 2y ago
  I mean I think The Republican Incumbent was chosen specifically as a tool because he is so extreme, pervasive and demoralising and creeps into everything. Definitely by Russia, maybe also by our "friend" in the ME. Although it's not that reported on they are on friendly terms. Disaffection lends itself easily to creating a Russia-style society. This all feels pretty Dugin-esque, and his proposition (return to values, reject interest/hope in politics because it is always flawed anyway, bind together under the state) fits perfectly, and is finding prominence at the perfect time. Just my opinion, but to me this seems far more akin to Dugin than whatever Curtis Yavin is pushing
  - ndr42 2y ago
    What is "ME" referring to?
    - NikkiA 2y ago
      "Middle East" is the usual expansion, and fits in context here.
      - HelloNurse 2y ago
        The "friend" could be Israel or some person like Mohammed bin Salman.
        NikkiA 2y ago
        Given the treatment for supporters of gaza, almost certainly Netting-yahoo
- darkwater 2y ago
  > People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict A great truth. Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision: you are rejecting society as it is, and prefer to live in your own solo society. That's politics.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    [dead]
  - dcow 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s totally accurate. If I live as a hermit but perform my civic duties like voting and paying any taxes, I don’t see how choosing to live in solitude is anything more than a lifestyle choice.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      I don't think he was saying it's more than a lifestyle choice just that your still involved, a non action is an action.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    > Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision That is a nonsensical definition of that term. It implies that literally any action you take falls into the set "political" instead of outside of it. That defeats the purpose of the term. The point of qualifiers is to differentiate between different sorts of things. Obviously the intention of the person using such a term is to distinguish between things. Thus such a rebuttal amounts to intellectual dishonesty by intentionally misinterpreting what was said.
- perching_aix 2y ago
  When this is discussed, what's being meant is that everday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics, which are often a completely disconnected meta. Appealing to "well everything is connected" I'm not sure is useful. It's interesting from a semantics perspective the first few times you come across it maybe, then swaps around into being plain frustrating, then lands on just missing the point. Finally, I think people who want to stay out of said party political meta I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and I really can't fault them one bit for it. No coincidence either.
  - noelwelsh 2y ago
    Two things: "Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm going to get a COVID vaccine this afternoon" is that discussing party politics? In the UK, where I live, the vaccine was provided by the government, so I'm implicitly discussing the actions of the government. That is under any reasonable definition a discussion of politics. "everyday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics" is how "no politics" rules are usually justified, but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules (37signals, Coinbase). 37signals in particular tried to spin it this way, but it was the actions of a group within the company approved by the founders that caused the problem. (Coinbase was just completely incoherent from the start. Their mission is something like "End economic inequality" which a reasonable person could take to mean anarchist or communist discussion is on topic.)
    - graemep 2y ago
      The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised. It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories". It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).
- juliendorra 2y ago
  Alternatively people who say “I’m not political” are benefiting from the status quo and political direction of things (long term, not necessarily short term). They frame inaction as apolitical.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    It is apolitical for any reasonable definition of the term "political". That doesn't mean you don't benefit, or that it's a responsible choice, or anything else. It just means you aren't engaging in political activity - attempting to convince those around you, to gain influence, etc.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics. They can trust that government action is relatively consistent over time, that laws will be enforced fairly enough, that their property will be protected to a reasonable degree, that the currency will be reasonably stable, that the roads will be maintained, that some public transport will be available, that sudden wars won't erupt around them, and so on. That's what makes working democracies successful. But it seems that it also makes democracies vulnerable because people don't realize they have these benefits because they live in a working democracy. They start to think these benefits have nothing to do with politics and are just the way things are, like the laws of nature.
  - demosito666 2y ago
    Interestingly, I believe that the reality is exactly the opposite: on the political regimes' spectrum of democratic -> authoritarian -> totalitarian only the middle one doesn't require people's participation. Both democracy and totalitarism need to be actively maintained by significant part of the population, otherwise they converge to the "natural" state of things - authoritarian order. None of the stuff you listed (fair laws, property rights, etc.) occur naturally once it has been set up at some point in past. That's why they talk about "checks and balances" all the time, and they are impossible without active participation.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      What distinction are you making between authoritarian and totalitarian here?
      - demosito666 2y ago
        I think the most significant distinction is exactly that: Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Examples: 90% of regimes throughout human history. Almost all post-soviet countries, almost all of Middle East and Africa, Singapore, etc. Totalitarian - forces people into actively participating in leader's political goals and penetrates the daily life. North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Everything already was, you just didn't recognize it because it was to your benefit / in your interests.
paganel 2y ago
Agree, but it goes both ways, with technology (that many of us here have helped create and maintain) also reaching out into every facet of society and community, many times in close symbiosis with the political powers that be, to the detriment of said society and community. Not 100% sure what I wanted to say, maybe that said politics (and the political as a whole) wouldn't have invaded almost our entire lives without the help of technology.
po1nt 2y ago
That's because we got reliant on the funds from government. Maybe it's time to break the dependency.
- jocaal 2y ago
  > That's because we got reliant on the funds from government Not we, some people got reliant on the funds from government. It is always at the cost of someone else. The tax the rich and bourgeoisie mentality is what led to Mao Zedong and Stalin, but no-one wants to learn about history anymore.
  - Moomoomoo309 2y ago
    Tax the rich mentality also led to the "golden age of capitalism" of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The tax rates on the wealthiest in the US at that time were huge, and that money went into job programs, housing assistance programs, construction projects, etc.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Stalin and Mao were both cults of personality being driven by a young, disaffected population who were so sick and tired of the status quo that they were willing to murder and burn and kill and destroy and didn't really care about what came after. That should sound very familiar right about now.

Braxton1980 2y ago

Everything was always political. Laws, the economy, conflcit. How is any person not affected by these? The government is responsible for all or a large part of how a country functions. People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict

OhioMan2943 2y ago
I mean I think The Republican Incumbent was chosen specifically as a tool because he is so extreme, pervasive and demoralising and creeps into everything. Definitely by Russia, maybe also by our "friend" in the ME. Although it's not that reported on they are on friendly terms. Disaffection lends itself easily to creating a Russia-style society. This all feels pretty Dugin-esque, and his proposition (return to values, reject interest/hope in politics because it is always flawed anyway, bind together under the state) fits perfectly, and is finding prominence at the perfect time. Just my opinion, but to me this seems far more akin to Dugin than whatever Curtis Yavin is pushing
- ndr42 2y ago
  What is "ME" referring to?
  - NikkiA 2y ago
    "Middle East" is the usual expansion, and fits in context here.
    - HelloNurse 2y ago
      The "friend" could be Israel or some person like Mohammed bin Salman.
      - NikkiA 2y ago
        Given the treatment for supporters of gaza, almost certainly Netting-yahoo
darkwater 2y ago
> People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict A great truth. Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision: you are rejecting society as it is, and prefer to live in your own solo society. That's politics.
- computerthings 2y ago
  [dead]
- dcow 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s totally accurate. If I live as a hermit but perform my civic duties like voting and paying any taxes, I don’t see how choosing to live in solitude is anything more than a lifestyle choice.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    I don't think he was saying it's more than a lifestyle choice just that your still involved, a non action is an action.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  > Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision That is a nonsensical definition of that term. It implies that literally any action you take falls into the set "political" instead of outside of it. That defeats the purpose of the term. The point of qualifiers is to differentiate between different sorts of things. Obviously the intention of the person using such a term is to distinguish between things. Thus such a rebuttal amounts to intellectual dishonesty by intentionally misinterpreting what was said.
perching_aix 2y ago
When this is discussed, what's being meant is that everday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics, which are often a completely disconnected meta. Appealing to "well everything is connected" I'm not sure is useful. It's interesting from a semantics perspective the first few times you come across it maybe, then swaps around into being plain frustrating, then lands on just missing the point. Finally, I think people who want to stay out of said party political meta I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and I really can't fault them one bit for it. No coincidence either.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  Two things: "Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm going to get a COVID vaccine this afternoon" is that discussing party politics? In the UK, where I live, the vaccine was provided by the government, so I'm implicitly discussing the actions of the government. That is under any reasonable definition a discussion of politics. "everyday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics" is how "no politics" rules are usually justified, but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules (37signals, Coinbase). 37signals in particular tried to spin it this way, but it was the actions of a group within the company approved by the founders that caused the problem. (Coinbase was just completely incoherent from the start. Their mission is something like "End economic inequality" which a reasonable person could take to mean anarchist or communist discussion is on topic.)
  - graemep 2y ago
    The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised. It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories". It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).
juliendorra 2y ago
Alternatively people who say “I’m not political” are benefiting from the status quo and political direction of things (long term, not necessarily short term). They frame inaction as apolitical.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  It is apolitical for any reasonable definition of the term "political". That doesn't mean you don't benefit, or that it's a responsible choice, or anything else. It just means you aren't engaging in political activity - attempting to convince those around you, to gain influence, etc.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics. They can trust that government action is relatively consistent over time, that laws will be enforced fairly enough, that their property will be protected to a reasonable degree, that the currency will be reasonably stable, that the roads will be maintained, that some public transport will be available, that sudden wars won't erupt around them, and so on. That's what makes working democracies successful. But it seems that it also makes democracies vulnerable because people don't realize they have these benefits because they live in a working democracy. They start to think these benefits have nothing to do with politics and are just the way things are, like the laws of nature.
- demosito666 2y ago
  Interestingly, I believe that the reality is exactly the opposite: on the political regimes' spectrum of democratic -> authoritarian -> totalitarian only the middle one doesn't require people's participation. Both democracy and totalitarism need to be actively maintained by significant part of the population, otherwise they converge to the "natural" state of things - authoritarian order. None of the stuff you listed (fair laws, property rights, etc.) occur naturally once it has been set up at some point in past. That's why they talk about "checks and balances" all the time, and they are impossible without active participation.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    What distinction are you making between authoritarian and totalitarian here?
    - demosito666 2y ago
      I think the most significant distinction is exactly that: Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Examples: 90% of regimes throughout human history. Almost all post-soviet countries, almost all of Middle East and Africa, Singapore, etc. Totalitarian - forces people into actively participating in leader's political goals and penetrates the daily life. North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Everything already was, you just didn't recognize it because it was to your benefit / in your interests.

paganel 2y ago

Agree, but it goes both ways, with technology (that many of us here have helped create and maintain) also reaching out into every facet of society and community, many times in close symbiosis with the political powers that be, to the detriment of said society and community. Not 100% sure what I wanted to say, maybe that said politics (and the political as a whole) wouldn't have invaded almost our entire lives without the help of technology.

po1nt 2y ago

That's because we got reliant on the funds from government. Maybe it's time to break the dependency.

jocaal 2y ago
> That's because we got reliant on the funds from government Not we, some people got reliant on the funds from government. It is always at the cost of someone else. The tax the rich and bourgeoisie mentality is what led to Mao Zedong and Stalin, but no-one wants to learn about history anymore.
- Moomoomoo309 2y ago
  Tax the rich mentality also led to the "golden age of capitalism" of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The tax rates on the wealthiest in the US at that time were huge, and that money went into job programs, housing assistance programs, construction projects, etc.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Stalin and Mao were both cults of personality being driven by a young, disaffected population who were so sick and tired of the status quo that they were willing to murder and burn and kill and destroy and didn't really care about what came after. That should sound very familiar right about now.