4 ms·

This is such a weird idea. Everything is political because there are no universally agreed upon values. Humans literally do not always agree on what the purpose

This is such a weird idea. Everything is political because there are no universally agreed upon values. Humans literally do not always agree on what the purpose of society is, what is good and what is bad, how much power we should have over one another and nature. And, as far as I can tell, neither god nor philosophy seems willing to descend from heaven in order to resolve our differences. Thus, we are stuck discussing things amongst ourselves and deciding how to move forward, a process called politics.

bigstrat2003 9mo ago
No, just because there are no universally agreed upon values does not make everything political. People can, and frequently do, agree to live and let live when they have differences of opinion rather than wage bitter wars over those differences. We can, and must, have spaces where we can enjoy things in life rather than having division fostered between us 24/7. There is no idea more toxic to the well being of society than the idea of "everything is political".
- nathan_compton 9mo ago
  "Live and let live" is a political philosophy. I don't see what is so hard about this concept: human beings typically don't agree on everything. They have to decide what to do. That process is called politics, whether it happens to result in a live and let live attitude towards many things or the oppressive politics of the Soviet Union. When you tell me that in many contexts people should not feel pressure to adhere to a specific political line you are, in fact, expressing a (non-universal) political ideal, one which you don't need to search much to find counter-ideologies to. I happen to agree with you: my preference is one in which dogmatic and performative adherence to a specific ideology is discouraged but that doesn't make me non-political, especially if I happen to live in a society where (for example) religious fundamentalism is the main cultural artifact. At a deeper level, assertions that we should "remain apolitical" are, in the end, simply assertions that the status quo is "sufficient" or even good and that people who have some difference of opinion about how human affairs are managed are "bothersome" for bringing it up. Sometimes this is motivated by a misapprehension or genuine (if incorrect, in my opinion) belief that the status quo reflects some obviously "correct" view of things and thus questioning it is pointless, bothersome, or even dangerous. I think political differences should (for the most part) be tolerated, resolved through discussion and democratic processes, and that a healthy society is one in which people are (to the extent possible given other goals) allowed to live as they please, but I do not think of this as a non-political goal. I mean, just look around, plenty of people want to take that sort of society away from you.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

bigstrat2003 9mo ago

No, just because there are no universally agreed upon values does not make everything political. People can, and frequently do, agree to live and let live when they have differences of opinion rather than wage bitter wars over those differences. We can, and must, have spaces where we can enjoy things in life rather than having division fostered between us 24/7. There is no idea more toxic to the well being of society than the idea of "everything is political".

nathan_compton 9mo ago
"Live and let live" is a political philosophy. I don't see what is so hard about this concept: human beings typically don't agree on everything. They have to decide what to do. That process is called politics, whether it happens to result in a live and let live attitude towards many things or the oppressive politics of the Soviet Union. When you tell me that in many contexts people should not feel pressure to adhere to a specific political line you are, in fact, expressing a (non-universal) political ideal, one which you don't need to search much to find counter-ideologies to. I happen to agree with you: my preference is one in which dogmatic and performative adherence to a specific ideology is discouraged but that doesn't make me non-political, especially if I happen to live in a society where (for example) religious fundamentalism is the main cultural artifact. At a deeper level, assertions that we should "remain apolitical" are, in the end, simply assertions that the status quo is "sufficient" or even good and that people who have some difference of opinion about how human affairs are managed are "bothersome" for bringing it up. Sometimes this is motivated by a misapprehension or genuine (if incorrect, in my opinion) belief that the status quo reflects some obviously "correct" view of things and thus questioning it is pointless, bothersome, or even dangerous. I think political differences should (for the most part) be tolerated, resolved through discussion and democratic processes, and that a healthy society is one in which people are (to the extent possible given other goals) allowed to live as they please, but I do not think of this as a non-political goal. I mean, just look around, plenty of people want to take that sort of society away from you.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]