I mean FFS the way I choose to greet someone during the month of December is political. The way I respond to someone when they say thank you is political. The car I drive is political. My choice of a veggie sandwich instead of ham is political.
There has never been nor will there ever be an aspect of life that isn't political. There's just the aspects people don't think about and mistakenly assume means they aren't touched by politics.
Privilege is not having to think about the politics of a decision as you make it.
I'm not religious and find Christmas to basically be the worst. Not because someone says a specific greeting to me or insists on doing specific celebratory things around the holiday.
It's because I hate the music because it feels like an audiobook of the bible. I'm not allowed to ask it to be turned down or off at work without someone laughing, turning it up vindictively, pretending I'm being unreasonable or making it their mission to "get me in the spirit".
Free your speech all you want to, but not at work where I have no choice but be harassed. I'd really like to put on an audiobook version of another religious text but I have the good sense to realize that's fucking offensive to someone else and inappropriate.
Not surprisingly, Zuckerberg refuses to regulate his platform and made references to the freedom of speech Martin Luther King Jr. had to express his views during the civil rights movement.
I heard #MarkZuckerberg's ‘free expression’ speech, in which he referenced my father. I'd like to help Facebook better understand the challenges #MLK faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere for his assassination.
The problem is that Zuckerberg wants to have his cake and eat it too. We have a system where a provider is considered separate from the users - it's called a common carrier. But the thing is that common carriers aren't allowed to put their thumb on the scale either - so no algorithms promoting ads. The moment you put that thumb on the scale, everything changes, because the whole relationship does.
And that youtube link? That's to the same Project Veritas nonsense that Tulsi Gabbard was on Tucker Carlson claiming BLEW THE ROOF OFF THIS SUCKER about the lamestream media's bias.
+6
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
Contextlessly citing SPJ guidelines was also a favorite pastime of Gamergaters.
I mean FFS the way I choose to greet someone during the month of December is political. The way I respond to someone when they say thank you is political. The car I drive is political. My choice of a veggie sandwich instead of ham is political.
There has never been nor will there ever be an aspect of life that isn't political. There's just the aspects people don't think about and mistakenly assume means they aren't touched by politics.
Everything is political in the sense that someone, somewhere could possibly be offended by it, and everything is political in the sense that the conditions under which it exists (having been manufactured, etc) probably relates in some way to a political issue. But the fact that everything is political in these senses is a strong hint that this is probably not the sense which Jebus was talking about.
Consider the advice people often give not to talk about politics on first dates. Or consider someone complaining about their boss being really obnoxiously political at work. When someone complains that their boss is always being political at work, what does that mean? Does that not mean anything at all? A bunch of people in this thread seem to have been insisting that all behavior is political not just in some way, but in every intelligible sense of the term--because the point of insisting on this was to deny that any distinctions whatsoever could be made in quality or kind between the political and nonpolitical. But if that were really true, then "my boss is always being political" would also be literally meaningless: everyone's boss would be political at all times because everything is politics. But it's not meaningless. Because the fact that everything is somehow related to some political issue in some way does not imply that "my boss walked in carrying a Starbucks, which is emblematic of consumerism" might as well be the same as "my boss ranted about washington bureaucrats for half and hour and then demanded to know who I was going to vote for."
It's not rendering it meaningless, it's acknowledging reality and pointing out that the people wanting to avoid "politics" in certain areas want to avoid specific politics and it should be acknowledged as such.
When half the country gets livid about a perceived war on Christmas because people aren't greeting them the way they personally want, there's no avoiding the fact that a greeting is a political statement for many. So how do you keep "politics" out of the workplace during December?
I mean, this is already a thing that people moderate. At my university it was official policy for a while that the only acceptable seasonal greeting was "happy holidays." People made fun of it for a while, and then people stopped caring and everyone seemed fine with it. Seemed to work well enough.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I mean FFS the way I choose to greet someone during the month of December is political. The way I respond to someone when they say thank you is political. The car I drive is political. My choice of a veggie sandwich instead of ham is political.
There has never been nor will there ever be an aspect of life that isn't political. There's just the aspects people don't think about and mistakenly assume means they aren't touched by politics.
Everything is political in the sense that someone, somewhere could possibly be offended by it, and everything is political in the sense that the conditions under which it exists (having been manufactured, etc) probably relates in some way to a political issue. But the fact that everything is political in these senses is a strong hint that this is probably not the sense which Jebus was talking about.
Consider the advice people often give not to talk about politics on first dates. Or consider someone complaining about their boss being really obnoxiously political at work. When someone complains that their boss is always being political at work, what does that mean? Does that not mean anything at all? A bunch of people in this thread seem to have been insisting that all behavior is political not just in some way, but in every intelligible sense of the term--because the point of insisting on this was to deny that any distinctions whatsoever could be made in quality or kind between the political and nonpolitical. But if that were really true, then "my boss is always being political" would also be literally meaningless: everyone's boss would be political at all times because everything is politics. But it's not meaningless. Because the fact that everything is somehow related to some political issue in some way does not imply that "my boss walked in carrying a Starbucks, which is emblematic of consumerism" might as well be the same as "my boss ranted about washington bureaucrats for half and hour and then demanded to know who I was going to vote for."
It's not rendering it meaningless, it's acknowledging reality and pointing out that the people wanting to avoid "politics" in certain areas want to avoid specific politics and it should be acknowledged as such.
When half the country gets livid about a perceived war on Christmas because people aren't greeting them the way they personally want, there's no avoiding the fact that a greeting is a political statement for many. So how do you keep "politics" out of the workplace during December?
I mean, this is already a thing that people moderate. At my university it was official policy for a while that the only acceptable seasonal greeting was "happy holidays." People made fun of it for a while, and then people stopped caring and everyone seemed fine with it. Seemed to work well enough.
The point is that keeping something free of politics isn't possible, just picking and choosing which politics are acceptable to involve. Your university enforced their own preferred politics on to the staff, same as every other entity does.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Folks are usually very happy to applaud the neutrality of a platform and the market place of ideas as long as the passivity of the space allows their particular brand of bullying to win out. Equality and accountability always feel like oppression to people who are in a position of privilege.
I think it's why social media being treated as the ultimate criers corner where good ideas will eventually win out seems so insane. That's not a thing that's ever happened. It's always been up to an entity of conviction giving power to the voices to be heard over the voices of oppression.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make. Any limitation on speech, anywhere, at anytime, has to deal with the difficulty of defining speech types. There will always be edge cases whenever you try and define what is racism, hate speech, political speech, on-topic vs off-topic, harmful speech, etc.
This is a universal problem. But moderation exists all over the place, from laws on threats/slander/fraud, to limits on work place topics based on codes of conduct, to on-topic limitations for forums like this.
Furthermore, I think the benefits of moderation in certain contexts are quite clear. If I was running a workplace, and I had coworkers failing to cooperate on projects because they were always bickering about the last political election, I do not think it would be hard to implement a no politics talk in the workplace, that could eliminate the bickering and restore some professionalism and cooperation.
I mean I keep pointing it out, but that is literally what happened with the chat thread, and it seems to be working just fine. So I disagree that it isn't possible.
Now you can certainly argue that limiting debate/political speech is inherently biased against those for whom the status quo is not good. E.g. if nobody can talk about making changes, then changes are less likely to be made, and those who are currently suffering have no path forward. While I agree this is true in principle, banning speech in one area of your life does not ban it from all areas of your life. So the extrapolation that because I'm not allowed to advocate for societal change at work means I can't ever advocate for societal change (and in turn society will never change) is, I think, a bad extrapolation. So I also reject the idea that not allowing discussion on divisive topics, in some limited areas, is inherently biased.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
How the milk was procured. How it was processed. How it was delivered. How it was purchased. Asking someone else to do it instead of yourself. Using milk at all. Each of those has political aspects attached to them. We just generally don't care about them.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
How the milk was procured. How it was processed. How it was delivered. How it was purchased. Asking someone else to do it instead of yourself. Using milk at all. Each of those has political aspects attached to them. We just generally don't care about them.
Ok so framing every conversation into a way to preach to or really more accurately at people.
Yeah, no thanks. That's an utterly miserable way to exist for everyone involved.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
How the milk was procured. How it was processed. How it was delivered. How it was purchased. Asking someone else to do it instead of yourself. Using milk at all. Each of those has political aspects attached to them. We just generally don't care about them.
Ok so framing every conversation into a way to preach to or really more accurately at people.
Yeah, no thanks. That's an utterly miserable way to exist for everyone involved.
That's not what I'm saying at all. The issue I and others take with trying to make an area "free of political speech" is that it really just enforces the political status quo and avoids any critical thought about it. Depending on the situation that's perfectly fine.
I'm not advocating preaching at people. I'm advocating actually thinking about what you want to avoid when deciding to avoid "politics" in some aspect of your life.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
A better distinction is level of involvement in politics. Being vague about religion is being less involved in theological politics.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11346188
Milk in Australia is so price controlled by the supermarkets, that they've recently put drought levies on top of milk prices as the farmers weren't being paid enough during the good seasons to save money for the bad ones.
The only alternative is people buying more expensive brands of milk at the supermarket instead of supermarket brands.
"Everything is political." is correct, but it's kind of a loaded statement. People like to think of politics as this thing you occasionally talk about or engage in, when you really feel like it. We've attempted to separate politics from our daily lives because thinking about everything all the time is fucking exhausting and sometimes you just want to watch a shitty movie and exist.
"Nothing is apolitical." is also correct, and it's easier to think of for me because it's a more passive statement. It's not that every action you take all day is a high stakes sociopolitical gambit that requires very careful calculus to ensure it accurately represents every view you currently have... it's that every action impacts something and sometimes that impact is more than you realize. Being confronted about your choice in shitty movie because it turns out the director was a child rapist.
Politics isn't an activity. It's just a consequence of interacting with society.
It's a matter of degree like it always is. Everything is political like everything is a fetish to somebody or like every day we live is one day closer to death. Yet we're still able to make meaningful distinctions between casual conversation and political conversation.
That approach is pragmatic and meaningful. That doesn't mean others aren't. I actually don't need to prove that other philosophies aren't, actually.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Everything is political." is correct, but it's kind of a loaded statement. People like to think of politics as this thing you occasionally talk about or engage in, when you really feel like it. We've attempted to separate politics from our daily lives because thinking about everything all the time is fucking exhausting and sometimes you just want to watch a shitty movie and exist.
"Nothing is apolitical." is also correct, and it's easier to think of for me because it's a more passive statement. It's not that every action you take all day is a high stakes sociopolitical gambit that requires very careful calculus to ensure it accurately represents every view you currently have... it's that every action impacts something and sometimes that impact is more than you realize. Being confronted about your choice in shitty movie because it turns out the director was a child rapist.
Politics isn't an activity. It's just a consequence of interacting with society.
Some people, who possess privilege, like to think of politics like that. People who do not have privilege - minorities, women, LGBTQ individuals, the disabled, etc. - do not have that luxury, and live lives where the very act of living is a political act. There is a reason that "the personal is political" was a battlecry for the Second Wave of feminists.
“I just want to buy some milk without it being political”
“Well, the problem with that is that the milk you’re buying involves the suffering of cows and/or farmers”
“But I don’t want to think about that”
It’s impossible for individuals to care about everything, but if everybody ignores problems they don’t get solved.
Sure
But some problems matter rather a lot more than others
As an example, I'll start caring in a more-than-offhand way about black representation as a proportion of characters on screen when cops are no longer implicitly allowed to murder black people in real life with no consequences
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
“I just want to buy some milk without it being political”
“Well, the problem with that is that the milk you’re buying involves the suffering of cows and/or farmers”
“But I don’t want to think about that”
It’s impossible for individuals to care about everything, but if everybody ignores problems they don’t get solved.
Sure
But some problems matter rather a lot more than others
As an example, I'll start caring in a more-than-offhand way about black representation as a proportion of characters on screen when cops are no longer implicitly allowed to murder black people in real life with no consequences
The number of black people killed by police is dwarfed by the number of slaughtered Syrians, which is dwarfed by the number of imprisoned Uigurs, which is dwarfed by the human impact of unfettered climate change, which is dwarfed by the impact of global poverty, so why should I care in a more than off-hand way about black people being shot by police?
People can care about more than one thing at a time, and caring about the one most important thing does not give you license to silence people telling you about other things worth caring about
“Don’t talk to me about why they made an all-white remake of Boyz N the Hood, I just want to enjoy it so I can save my energy for the BLM protest tonight” would be a ridiculous notion even if there weren’t connections between systemic racism in media and systemic racism in the justice system.
I mean FFS the way I choose to greet someone during the month of December is political. The way I respond to someone when they say thank you is political. The car I drive is political. My choice of a veggie sandwich instead of ham is political.
There has never been nor will there ever be an aspect of life that isn't political. There's just the aspects people don't think about and mistakenly assume means they aren't touched by politics.
Everything is political in the sense that someone, somewhere could possibly be offended by it, and everything is political in the sense that the conditions under which it exists (having been manufactured, etc) probably relates in some way to a political issue. But the fact that everything is political in these senses is a strong hint that this is probably not the sense which Jebus was talking about.
Consider the advice people often give not to talk about politics on first dates. Or consider someone complaining about their boss being really obnoxiously political at work. When someone complains that their boss is always being political at work, what does that mean? Does that not mean anything at all? A bunch of people in this thread seem to have been insisting that all behavior is political not just in some way, but in every intelligible sense of the term--because the point of insisting on this was to deny that any distinctions whatsoever could be made in quality or kind between the political and nonpolitical. But if that were really true, then "my boss is always being political" would also be literally meaningless: everyone's boss would be political at all times because everything is politics. But it's not meaningless. Because the fact that everything is somehow related to some political issue in some way does not imply that "my boss walked in carrying a Starbucks, which is emblematic of consumerism" might as well be the same as "my boss ranted about washington bureaucrats for half and hour and then demanded to know who I was going to vote for."
It's not rendering it meaningless, it's acknowledging reality and pointing out that the people wanting to avoid "politics" in certain areas want to avoid specific politics and it should be acknowledged as such.
When half the country gets livid about a perceived war on Christmas because people aren't greeting them the way they personally want, there's no avoiding the fact that a greeting is a political statement for many. So how do you keep "politics" out of the workplace during December?
Yeah I think the problem with @MrMister 's colloquial meaning of "not talking politics" is that in reality (or maybe even inherently) it favours a political status quo. It is not about the difference between the trivial (choice of sandwich) and the substantive (human right violations), but about what is taken for granted vs what is controversial. Not talking about certain topics is also political, it is framing a vague status quo as at least somewhat acceptable. It's problematic because it can't distinguish on quality. Don't talk politics on first dates? Sure, but what if your date is not a feminist? Or believes in austerity? What if you're gay and not out at work and it's 1994 or something and you want to come out? Is that politics at work? And what if you want to respectfully kneel for the anthem to protest the murder of black people? In what way can you appeal to a limit on politics that is not already directly an appeal to how much worth you think views have and thus a political value judgement? How could the meaning of "not talking politics" ever be anything other than super political?
The problem here is that, yes, everything is political, in the sense where we understand politics is those manners by which we structure our lives to interact with others.
In that milk rhetorical, there isn't conflict because, presumably, the two individuals in question are on the same page politically regarding getting milk. They don't have a conflict between the structures of how they interact regarding the production, acquisition or consumption of milk.
More commonly what we think of in the popular consciousness regarding the political is, instead, tribalism where conflict is at hand because of the way the tribes have structured their interactions together.
Essentially, what one is asking for is "I would like to not have to deal with or acknowledge that we are in conflict with one another while engaged on this project, I just want to relax and have fun," which is why others are saying that's not how the world works.
There are political aspects to an endless number of elements in daily life, but most of us can kind of breeze by them. For some people, their choice to buy milk and how they pay for it and which brand might all be political actions that require thought.
I just buy one brand. Or the other if it’s on sale or the first one ran out. I don’t really care. I have the privilege of not caring because I’m not in that industry, don’t know anyone who is, don’t offer it to my lactose intolerant friends, and am fortunate enough to have disposable income I can spend on it without thinking about whether I really need the 2L or if 1L is a better choice, even if it’s not as efficient a purchase.
Just because these elements don’t apply to me doesn’t mean they don’t apply to anyone. When I see the Canadian Dairy Farmers Council in the news, I respect that these matters and the US trying to push into the market and whatnot are political aspects that are important, perhaps vitally so, to someone, even if it’s not me.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Some concessions need to be made somewhere as to appropriate speech in certain situations. If the issue you want to discuss affects the job, the proper response isn't to argue about it with your coworkers on a daily basis. Not because it's political, but because that's not productive, to the job or your goal. For instance, if the restroom rules are not trans friendly, feel free to talk to management, HR, your union rep, a lawyer, the local or national news, your congressperson, etc. If you've managed to suss out some allies among your coworkers, include them. But an ongoing dialogue that your coworkers cannot escape is not appropriate. And yes, I realize the irony that the trans person cannot escape the issue, that's part of the price we pay for being able to earn a living without having to hear the transphobes' thoughts on the matter all day. The standard cannot be "no politics at work unless you happen to be right."
To put it another way, what if your coworker wanted the right to bring his gun to work? Is that something they should be allowed to talk your ear off about daily? At some point, if management can't or won't address their issue, the proper response is to leave or stop making their coworkers uncomfortable.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What was the trigger for this whole "politics free zone" ? A guy showing a sign about HK during some interview or reaction shot at a video game tournament? Because it doesnt sound disruptive at all to me and if I were to make an analogy, like the office one above me, I wouldnt equate someone showing support to HK during their air time, to someone constantly targetting and disturbing another office worker with this 2nd ammendment drivel or whatever. I would compare it more with something a lot tamer, like wearing a pin, or having a sticker in your car. Something that you can safely avoid engaging with if you want.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
0
Options
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
Zuckerberg’s highly promoted speech introduced no new Facebook features or initiatives but was a defiant reply to critics of Facebook’s destructive effects on global society—manipulating voters, fomenting division, and even aiding genocide. He doubled down on Facebook’s handling of the treacherous business of implementing free expression at an unprecedented global scale. Despite considerable evidence that the approach has often fallen short, Zuckerberg still professes optimism: giving people a voice and connecting the world, he believes, are transformationally positive actions. Essentially, he’s saying—as he always has—that Facebook is essentially positive.
What’s more, he was claiming high ground for Facebook’s values. If you disagree with him on speech, he implied, you’re siding with the forces of censorship and elitism. He described a “countertrend … to pull back on free expression.” His foes, he implied, are the same kind of people who wanted Eugene Debs in prison, who wanted Vietnam protesters stopped. But the people whose Facebook presence is more disturbing include the likes of Alex Jones (whom Facebook ultimately banned) or… Donald Trump. The speech didn’t really take on those kinds of choices.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
It's basically the same argument that free speech absolutists have made to argue why they have to do business with bigots and Nazis because freedom (see also: the speeches made by Cloudflare head Matthew Prince to justify why his company did business with the Daily Stormer and 8chan.) But the good news is that people aren't buying the argument anymore, for a number of reasons:
And of course Facebook bans whole categories of speech that enjoys constitutional protection, such as not merely sexual explicit materials but mere nudity. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but Facebook can’t then turn around that it has to accept fake news advertising money because the precise level of censorship is has now is what God, the framers, and Martin Luther King intended. And as Warren observed when she deliberately purchased a fake ad, other media outlets have turned down ads that make deliberately false claims. Contrary to what Nick Clegg (and how perfect is it that he ended up as the stalking horse for Facebook on this) claims, it can be done without violating any remotely coherent concept of “free speech.”
People are recognizing that enabling hate is a choice one makes, not the "cost" of free speech.
I haven't finished watching it, but I think Innuendo Studios' videos are usually smart and well argued, and within the first dozen minutes he makes good points about the issue of "what qualifies as political speech?", so this might be of interest to some of you:
Posts
NBA's take is now we have said everything we will say about Hong Kong and let us never speak of Hong Kong again.
The problem is that Zuckerberg wants to have his cake and eat it too. We have a system where a provider is considered separate from the users - it's called a common carrier. But the thing is that common carriers aren't allowed to put their thumb on the scale either - so no algorithms promoting ads. The moment you put that thumb on the scale, everything changes, because the whole relationship does.
A Trump attorney sent a formal letter to CNN to stop reporting properly on Trump.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not just any attorney - that's from Charles Harder, the legal mercenary that Nosferatu-American Peter Thiel hired to kill Gawker.
Plus ca change...
I mean, this is already a thing that people moderate. At my university it was official policy for a while that the only acceptable seasonal greeting was "happy holidays." People made fun of it for a while, and then people stopped caring and everyone seemed fine with it. Seemed to work well enough.
The point is that keeping something free of politics isn't possible, just picking and choosing which politics are acceptable to involve. Your university enforced their own preferred politics on to the staff, same as every other entity does.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it's why social media being treated as the ultimate criers corner where good ideas will eventually win out seems so insane. That's not a thing that's ever happened. It's always been up to an entity of conviction giving power to the voices to be heard over the voices of oppression.
And the moment a place of work enforces that vaguery they take a political stance against clear discussion of religion at work.
Yeah, but everything being political, the definition has evolved to something more colloquially distinguished. What people call political speech nowadays is actually speech with a high and deep degree of political involvement on a divisive topic.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make. Any limitation on speech, anywhere, at anytime, has to deal with the difficulty of defining speech types. There will always be edge cases whenever you try and define what is racism, hate speech, political speech, on-topic vs off-topic, harmful speech, etc.
This is a universal problem. But moderation exists all over the place, from laws on threats/slander/fraud, to limits on work place topics based on codes of conduct, to on-topic limitations for forums like this.
Furthermore, I think the benefits of moderation in certain contexts are quite clear. If I was running a workplace, and I had coworkers failing to cooperate on projects because they were always bickering about the last political election, I do not think it would be hard to implement a no politics talk in the workplace, that could eliminate the bickering and restore some professionalism and cooperation.
I mean I keep pointing it out, but that is literally what happened with the chat thread, and it seems to be working just fine. So I disagree that it isn't possible.
Now you can certainly argue that limiting debate/political speech is inherently biased against those for whom the status quo is not good. E.g. if nobody can talk about making changes, then changes are less likely to be made, and those who are currently suffering have no path forward. While I agree this is true in principle, banning speech in one area of your life does not ban it from all areas of your life. So the extrapolation that because I'm not allowed to advocate for societal change at work means I can't ever advocate for societal change (and in turn society will never change) is, I think, a bad extrapolation. So I also reject the idea that not allowing discussion on divisive topics, in some limited areas, is inherently biased.
Paladin please pay attention.
The person I was replying to was calling the very same description you use for politics meaningless. Either it's acknowledged and worked around or people are oppressed by others who believe what they say and do isn't political.
Ditto to you.
The point still is that their practical definition of political speech isn't your philosophical definition of political speech.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Mine is practical. The issue with the one you and others are trying to go with is that it defines the status quo as non political and screws over anyone against it. Acknowledging everything is political still allows for moderating people's speech. It just requires actual though be put in to it.
The hell? Taking the position that everything is political is not practical. It's overly broad to the point of meaninglessness.
Uh, no. As an example, being able to go to the bathroom where you prefer can be a political act. Politics suffuses our lives, and the idea it doesn't, and you can sequester politics away from "every day life" is a form a privilege.
Yes that would be a political act because of the context surrounding it and one I might add I 100% support.
Please explain to me how "Oh, shit, we're out of milk. Hey could you pick some up on the way home from work?" is political.
But if "everything is political" actually means "everything controversial to the status quo is political" then... yeah, no shit?
How the milk was procured. How it was processed. How it was delivered. How it was purchased. Asking someone else to do it instead of yourself. Using milk at all. Each of those has political aspects attached to them. We just generally don't care about them.
Ok so framing every conversation into a way to preach to or really more accurately at people.
Yeah, no thanks. That's an utterly miserable way to exist for everyone involved.
That's not what I'm saying at all. The issue I and others take with trying to make an area "free of political speech" is that it really just enforces the political status quo and avoids any critical thought about it. Depending on the situation that's perfectly fine.
I'm not advocating preaching at people. I'm advocating actually thinking about what you want to avoid when deciding to avoid "politics" in some aspect of your life.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11346188
Milk in Australia is so price controlled by the supermarkets, that they've recently put drought levies on top of milk prices as the farmers weren't being paid enough during the good seasons to save money for the bad ones.
The only alternative is people buying more expensive brands of milk at the supermarket instead of supermarket brands.
So yeah, that act is political for me.
“I just want to buy some milk without it being political”
“Well, the problem with that is that the milk you’re buying involves the suffering of cows and/or farmers”
“But I don’t want to think about that”
It’s impossible for individuals to care about everything, but if everybody ignores problems they don’t get solved.
"Nothing is apolitical." is also correct, and it's easier to think of for me because it's a more passive statement. It's not that every action you take all day is a high stakes sociopolitical gambit that requires very careful calculus to ensure it accurately represents every view you currently have... it's that every action impacts something and sometimes that impact is more than you realize. Being confronted about your choice in shitty movie because it turns out the director was a child rapist.
Politics isn't an activity. It's just a consequence of interacting with society.
That approach is pragmatic and meaningful. That doesn't mean others aren't. I actually don't need to prove that other philosophies aren't, actually.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Some people, who possess privilege, like to think of politics like that. People who do not have privilege - minorities, women, LGBTQ individuals, the disabled, etc. - do not have that luxury, and live lives where the very act of living is a political act. There is a reason that "the personal is political" was a battlecry for the Second Wave of feminists.
Sure
But some problems matter rather a lot more than others
As an example, I'll start caring in a more-than-offhand way about black representation as a proportion of characters on screen when cops are no longer implicitly allowed to murder black people in real life with no consequences
The number of black people killed by police is dwarfed by the number of slaughtered Syrians, which is dwarfed by the number of imprisoned Uigurs, which is dwarfed by the human impact of unfettered climate change, which is dwarfed by the impact of global poverty, so why should I care in a more than off-hand way about black people being shot by police?
People can care about more than one thing at a time, and caring about the one most important thing does not give you license to silence people telling you about other things worth caring about
“Don’t talk to me about why they made an all-white remake of Boyz N the Hood, I just want to enjoy it so I can save my energy for the BLM protest tonight” would be a ridiculous notion even if there weren’t connections between systemic racism in media and systemic racism in the justice system.
Literally no one has said otherwise.
Yeah I think the problem with @MrMister 's colloquial meaning of "not talking politics" is that in reality (or maybe even inherently) it favours a political status quo. It is not about the difference between the trivial (choice of sandwich) and the substantive (human right violations), but about what is taken for granted vs what is controversial. Not talking about certain topics is also political, it is framing a vague status quo as at least somewhat acceptable. It's problematic because it can't distinguish on quality. Don't talk politics on first dates? Sure, but what if your date is not a feminist? Or believes in austerity? What if you're gay and not out at work and it's 1994 or something and you want to come out? Is that politics at work? And what if you want to respectfully kneel for the anthem to protest the murder of black people? In what way can you appeal to a limit on politics that is not already directly an appeal to how much worth you think views have and thus a political value judgement? How could the meaning of "not talking politics" ever be anything other than super political?
In that milk rhetorical, there isn't conflict because, presumably, the two individuals in question are on the same page politically regarding getting milk. They don't have a conflict between the structures of how they interact regarding the production, acquisition or consumption of milk.
More commonly what we think of in the popular consciousness regarding the political is, instead, tribalism where conflict is at hand because of the way the tribes have structured their interactions together.
Essentially, what one is asking for is "I would like to not have to deal with or acknowledge that we are in conflict with one another while engaged on this project, I just want to relax and have fun," which is why others are saying that's not how the world works.
I just buy one brand. Or the other if it’s on sale or the first one ran out. I don’t really care. I have the privilege of not caring because I’m not in that industry, don’t know anyone who is, don’t offer it to my lactose intolerant friends, and am fortunate enough to have disposable income I can spend on it without thinking about whether I really need the 2L or if 1L is a better choice, even if it’s not as efficient a purchase.
Just because these elements don’t apply to me doesn’t mean they don’t apply to anyone. When I see the Canadian Dairy Farmers Council in the news, I respect that these matters and the US trying to push into the market and whatnot are political aspects that are important, perhaps vitally so, to someone, even if it’s not me.
To put it another way, what if your coworker wanted the right to bring his gun to work? Is that something they should be allowed to talk your ear off about daily? At some point, if management can't or won't address their issue, the proper response is to leave or stop making their coworkers uncomfortable.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's basically the same argument that free speech absolutists have made to argue why they have to do business with bigots and Nazis because freedom (see also: the speeches made by Cloudflare head Matthew Prince to justify why his company did business with the Daily Stormer and 8chan.) But the good news is that people aren't buying the argument anymore, for a number of reasons:
People are recognizing that enabling hate is a choice one makes, not the "cost" of free speech.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods