I can maybe cut a little slack for someone who's like "I don't really understand politics or know history, so I don't feel confident having a strong opinion" if they were curious and honest. We all start ignorant and not everyone had the good fortune to get a quality education.
But the aggressively ignorant and apathetic can fuck right off.
Unless you had an absolutely shit background or a learning disability, not understanding history or politics is a choice they made.
I'm not holding it against them that their brains might not have been developed or focused enough at that age to take in the information, but if you realize you are missing something critical later in life and don't make moves to rectify it, that's also a choice
I agree and the only folks I give a pass to are immigrants, otherwise if US born there's absolutely no excuse to choose being uneducated or choosing to sit out politics.
You could also be a genuinely non-intelligent adult who's naturally vulnerable to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Or you could be from a local / regional culture in which you're essentially mistreated for entertaining progressive thoughts, or from shifting away from herd-thinking. Rural areas come to mind with all that.
Which is fine for existing in general but might not be OK for a potential partner. In the context of a dating app, I will 100% discriminate against people who are significantly less intelligent than myself. They may be perfectly lovely people but there is no chance that it would be a good romantic match. (If it were a hook up situation, maybe that’s different?)
Its not hard to fall for propaganda, its not easy to find information about politics that you can ensure is not misleading, doesnt miss context, doesnt contain false information
"I don't really understand politics or know history, so I don't feel confident having a strong opinion"
That was my stance when I was ~16 when Trump was first coming into the political scene... When I got more curious, I got shut down for even asking "what has he said that was racist?" like it was a crime to even ask.
I was sooooo close to becoming a right winger, because the right wingers would JUMP at the chance to explain why they hated the people they hated. I disagreed with a lot but I bought enough lies to feel like the conservatives were overall the ones to vote for.
That era of my life was so embarrassing in retrospect. I was a teenager, but still. I still have a Trump hat my friend bought me in my closet.
im guessing if you are not aware of trump and his history going back decades you would think he is "great", alot of people seem to ignorant his past racist, business dealings.
Trump sure proved one thing, that USians don't vote based on looks. Because a couple looks at how that saggy sack of rusty shit handles himself, should've been enough for anybody.
This here is the most to-the-point impression of Trump I've seen so far.
That's fine. You were in your blunder years and not even old enough to vote. At least you were paying attention and willing to learn.
There are people three times your age who've voted for that pedo rapist three consecutive times and still support him, even as he burns their world to the ground.
Unlike them, you were smart enough to avoid the cult. Be proud of that, if nothing else.
I'm 26 now and I'm constantly dumbfounded at the sheer unwillingness of my peers and the older generations to truly listen to their political opponents.
When I was a teen I was listening to Steven Crowder, Sargon of Akkad, etc. but I at least eventually got around to giving people like Anita Sarkesian and Lacy Green a chance. It only took about a year to realize that they weren't saying anything to warrant the right pissing their panties as hard as they were. It also took significantly less time than that to realize that people like Steven and Sargon were assholes. AND I WAS A TEEN.
That kinda shit makes it hard not to be pessimistic. I can at least hope that the generations after mine won't contract their willful ignorance, and this BS will die with my generation.
This is what the left refuses to understand: when you spit upon everyone who is even slightly less left than you, the recipients end up being driven rightward.
Example: Hexbear.net. Edit: actually, that's a bad example since they aren't truly "left", just cosplaying as such while acting similar to MAGA, differing mainly in the words chosen yet similar in thinking processes, i.e. an echo chamber by a different name is still an echo chamber.
Can you explain why communism isn't truly left, and how dialectical materialism is similar to MAGA thought? Both of those concepts are highly confusing.
Also, the idea that political struggle from the left drives people rightward doesn't seem to bear out in reality. I always see this concept coming from conservatives, but I have always seen it as an excuse for people to blame their own right-wing views on others.
Sure, but "you were mean to me so now I'm joining maga" is pretty silly.
Some people are like that, I guess, but if someone rudely explains how racism is deeply entrenched in the US that doesn't mean they're wrong. Rejecting their message because they were mean is childish.
You were the one who brought up that comic, not me. Yes, it is rather silly, or I would say reductionistic.
But the aggressively ignorant and apathetic can fuck right off.
I'm not (fully) disagreeing with your statement here btw.
Though this one here again is too reductionistic:
Rejecting their message because they were mean is childish.
I am saying read up about how human psychology works. Let's use a hypothetical: a single mother, widowed even, is trying to take care of multiple children, and on her way to work every single leftist that she knew irl punched her in the face every single day. On outcome is that she would probably be unlikely to desire to spend the time to even so much as read what leftist philosophy is all about, and therefore she would come away with a false impression of what it even meant.
Consider the case of Christianity: do those who e.g. interrupt funeral proceedings holding signs and yelling at the top of their lungs how "god hates f4*s!" provide an accurate portrayal of their supposedly central message of showing love to one another (gentleness, faithfulness, self control, and the like)?
Likewise communists punching out not actual Nazis but merely the stressed out and uninformed - particularly those less intellectually endowed - is not likely to win many converts to the cause. But that's just my two cents.
Echo chambers that deny facts in favor of their preferred view of reality? (e.g. that Ukraine is the aggressor rather than Russia) Check.
Tribal politicking, where facts chiefly matter depending on who is speaking them? Check.
Refusal to update one's viewpoint after seeing incontrovertible evidence that would otherwise demand it, if someone's goal was truth? Check.
Making use of every logical fallacy to sow FUD in their opponents? Check.
A better strategy might be to stop thinking of humans as "opponents" and rather than "beat them", aid their thinking to enlighten and uplift them by knowledge, essentially turning an opponent into a true ally, as opposed to merely a worn down victim of bullying practices.
Moral purity beatings will continue until morale improves.
All of what you said applies to you, though, which is why the only example you gave was the strawman idea that Ukraine is the aggressor, rather than NATO. No matter how many facts I have given you, irrefutable evidence, you generally dismissed it as "propaganda" while sowing FUD everywhere. Seriously, there are only a handful of people as obsessed with communists on this collection of websites that I've seen, and I only really recognize you because you kept mentioning me long after we had had a conversation.
You're allowed to grow and change your mind with new information. Keep growing and learning and thinking and you may find yourself agreeing on an issue or two with your opponents. Never let your mind be so open that it's closed. Being a brainless zealot is never good.
It took me a whole year to educate myself on all the current issues of today which led me to a decision to finally vote. Nevertheless, I don't look back.
most people arnt that honest, alot of them that are ignorant about it and they dont think it affects them if they ignore it(so they think it will get them into arguments, so they ignore it as much as possible). the "apoliticals" are conservatives though, i suspect the even ignorant ones lean conservatives it comes time to vote, because they are less informed.
I understand them, I'm informed, I have opinions that likely largely match yours, and Im a registered voter who routinely casts a ballot. I prefer to not discuss politics with anybody other than my spouse.
I'm not apolitical, but I also don't believe there's a career politician out there that actually cares about any of the issues that seem like a big deal to me. The ball players on your favorite baseball team do not care about your team getting to the playoffs -- they care about their personal stats for leverage during contract negotiations when trade deadlines come around. Do not expect them to always dive for the ball.
I'm also fat as fuck.
I'm guessing you'd deem me apolitical and swipe left on me (if I were single and in your age group).
there was this clip of some kind of like dating show/bar event thing? Basically two people speed/blind date on stage and the audience waves green/red flags based on the conversation. Neat concept...
Anyways, man and woman go up and one of the first questions she asks is "who did you vote for?" and dude just shrinks. Does this whole "politics aren't that important to me" and then "I didn't vote". And in the crowd all of the women are raising red flags. Because yea... they know what that signals.
In a later round another womans asks the same thing, and guy is like "that's a personal thing" and "I don't feel comfortable talking about it"... red flags going up.
This dipshits KNOW their poltical views are toxic to women. And instead of owning it, they're trying to pretend to be "apolitical" because no woman will fuck them.
Also, just realized, it's the same guy. So first lady he's like "I didn't vote" and then later is like "okay I voted, but I don't wanna say"..... everyone knows bro... and that you're still tryna hide/lie about it to get laid is pathetic.
I dunno, everyone says this of the issues about which they care but other ones are too large etc.
For example, do you feel the same way about say, sweatshop clothes? In that we should take a stand,pick a stand or fuck off?
Personally, I feel the 12 year olds making the most of the clothes I see when I walk down the street is much more important than most national issues in my country AND is something where individual action really matters but, it's also an issue that requires actual sacrifice and work. Much easier to be angry at people online over politics...
I think there's a difference between "I affirmatively do not care" and "there's no purely way to be ethical, and that horror has fallen under my personal bar for attention right now"
It's also significant if you go out of your way to say you're not making a decision on the issue. That, in and of itself, is often a very significant decision to make.
I used to think I could be neutral. Then someone told me that neutral can easily be manipulated. I settled after a year of educating myself. It's impossible to be completely unbiased. People who say they don't care, actually care too much, they whine and grumble about everything and wonder why it gets bad--they don't do anything about the issues that affect them. It takes a really big leap to get out of the undecided 'pit'.
Against them but also wearing their products, which is even worse. What's the point of being "against" something then? It's like saying you're "against" trump but sitting out the elections.
conservatives should just stick to conservative apps, then again theres probably less conservative woman on those niche apps, as even these woman might find the conservative men too intolerable.
You do realize most people can’t really afford to care about politics right? When you’ve got people to care for, a job to work, a house to maintain, hobbies to participate in to keep a sane mind, how much time do you really have to spend on politics? Because whatever amount that is, it’s not enough. All sides spend a huge amount on propaganda and to see through all that takes more effort than normal people can spare.
Besides, there are far more important things you could focus on other than politics. That might depend on where you live and how old you are, but most people out there just don’t see the effect of politics beyond the occasional headline and higher taxes/inflation. Why not then spend the time you would spend on politics doing something that has an actual impact?
Hard disagree. Keeping up with politics takes very little of my time, and I'm a "normal person." It doesn't take deep research to figure out how a platform could help or harm the things you care about. I don't know a single person of a vulnerable community affected by political decisions that has no political opinions. The only people that don't care about politics are those unaffected by its consequences, and thus consent to the status quo.
I work full time and I'm paying my way through a degree after returning to school as a full time student (18 credit hours). I maintain several friendships, a relationship, a home, pets, and hobbies, and yet I find the time to understand the political climate, because sticking my head in the sand isn't gonna help me when ICE comes for my friend, or the government takes away my right to medical care. If you don't feel the effects of politics beyond the occasional headline, you live a privileged or ignorant life. If you choose to be apolitical, you are choosing the status quo.
The problem with that like I said is your opinions and beliefs become really shallow and you pretty much just swallow whatever you feel like believing. To actually make sense of politics takes a whole lot of time, though most people, even on lemmy, actually know really little of it. However everyone on this platform is super confident in their opinion, though they don’t seem to able to debate it at all.
This was the big issue with direct democracies. You can help the problem a bit with representative democracies or republics, but you still have people taking a few minutes or sometimes hours every couple years to vote for the one that sounds better to your ears. This is how you get someone like Trump as president. People can’t really be trusted with any decisions about something they know nothing about.
One person changes nothing anyway. What would my vote change in a 80% conservative region? I’d rather spend that time on things I enjoy.
*Bit of a different situation in the US, but the US isn’t the entire world.
Your landlord cares about politics… that’s why he votes people in who make sure renters have less rights.
Your boss cares about politics… that’s why he votes people in who make sure you can’t form a union, and keep the minimum wage low
You may not care about politics, but the people who have a direct impact on your life definitely do. And the longer you leave it to them, the less rights you’ll have.
True, but their votes also make no difference in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that does make a difference is if your boss is the CEO of a big company that donates to politicians. But you can’t counter that.
That you’d bring up the minimum wage argument kind of shows exactly what I was talking about. Most people think this is remotely relevant and keep bringing it up as an argument when all it does is show how little they know of how economy works. This is the kind of people that got Trump in office, no thinking, just parrotting what feels good to say because they’d like it to be true.
2 women, even though the first one was not a first choice for most people. they know women is a losing strategy, almost 100% of the time a s president.
In some sense, kinda big of him to admit that he's been privileged and unaffected so far? I feel like many like Dave think they are victims of anti-white anti-straight anti-male agenda or some bs.
Admitting there's a problem is the first step in finding a solution and getting your shit together. Maybe there's hope for him, unlike many with similar views.
I mean, not everyone wants to discuss politics all the time, and that should be an acceptable position to have.
Just because you don't espouse your beliefs at every conceivable moment doesn't mean you don't have beliefs or don't participate in the political process.
I live in a red state, and I'd definitely say something similar if a magat tried to strike up a conversation about politics. Most of the time I just don't have the mental energy to get into a discussion about it.
It should be noted that the comic is very purposefully using a woman of color for a reason. To say you are not political to someone whose entire existence is ruled by politics is to lay bare that you are privileged enough to be apolitical.
Oh my god, I just realized that you weren’t replying to me, my apologies. While I want to blame the cramped style of the instance I use, I clearly didn’t look close enough myself to see you had replied to the other user.
Totally agree. And especially when I know it's just going to upset me and won't change anyone's mind. It's a waste of my energy and happiness to constantly and pointlessly engage. Responding with silence often works pretty well, at least in person.
I think there's distinction between: “I am completely ignoring politics, because I'm privileged so it doesn't affect me or it does, but I'm dumb to realize it" vs “I am paying attention to politics, but I believe taking to you is a waste of my time".
This particular subthread started by village604 is about having political opinions and then choosing whether or not to engage in political discussion. Perhaps your sentiment here would be more applicable to a different thread?
I mean, not everyone wants to discuss politics all the time, and that should be an acceptable position to have.
This is probably true. I mean, if I started going off about how the workers are entitled to what they produce and fucking Joanne doesn't do shit, so why does she get a fat salary while we don't even get paid for thanksgiving, I'd be fired. Wouldn't even move the needle.
I live in a red state, and I’d definitely say something similar if a magat tried to strike up a conversation about politics. Most of the time I just don’t have the mental energy to get into a discussion about it.
But sometimes the smaller conversations can change people. It takes a lot, and it can be infuriating when they just don't get it, or relapse after another bender on fox news, but interactions with people they see as in-group change minds.
I had a coworker way back that was a big homophobe, and over the months we worked together I got him from "we should just kill the gays" to "i guess they're not hurting anyone i just think it's gross". I understand that there's not always energy in the budget for that, though.
It's common sense that it's terrible for your mental well-being to obsess over things your have little-to-no-control over.
Politics makes that a bit messier because there's the idea that we all need to pull together if we want change to happen. But ultimately you're only 0.0000006% of the vote, and online political discussion is usually just in a echo chambers where no one's mind is being changed. On the other hand you have a huge amount of control over what you expose yourself to online. If you're choosing to doom scroll though content that makes you depressed and miserable, I feel like that's a terrible trade off for how little (if any) difference it's going to make.
Yes, but this sentiment is also used by people who love talking about politics right up until they are called out for an immoral stance. They suddenly don't want to talk about politics then.
not everyone wants to discuss politics all the time
Like, if you have a serious mental disorder maybe?? I've never met a single person who didn't like politics. I've met octopuses who don't like politics, though. Octopuses don't work together to make decisions, they don't have a society. They're about as smart as humans, but their apoliticism makes them weak. Being the most political animal is literally the main thing that separates humans from other animals. Not even ants are as political as humans.
Oh, that's what this was getting at. For me, "I don't do politics" is cause I live in the south and really don't want to hear the other person's opinion.
I don't think it was actually getting at that specific interaction, that was just one of them that recently went very badly for the billionaire ball coddler.
I think it's looking more broadly at how many of those in privileged positions, including everyday citizens in a country like America, will simply say they aren't political because they are individualistic, unaffected, and lack empathy. Many "enlightened centrists" pull this schtick because then they don't have to stand on any principles and "broaden their appeal." When in reality, just like a corporation, they couldn't care less and only seek their own personal enrichment.
A lot of times, they actually are very political when it benefits them.
I don't think those who "don't do politics" are privileged. Many simply easily feel depressed hearing of bad news and literally tune out of the constant news cycle. But as others have pointed out, regardless of the reason for not doing politics, politics eventually do them. Plato once said that not being engaged in politics is letting inferiors rule over them. And oh boy, the world is experiencing first hand being ruled over by manbabies.
Edit: it was Plato not Socrates who made the statement
I didn't do politics when I was a younger man. It wasn't depressing or anything. It just didn't exist in my world. I didn't watch TV, listen to the radio. I did the things which I enjoyed and politics was a million miles from that. That did change within a few years though once I caught on.
And that is why I didn't vote at the time. I didn't feel "qualified" to vote because I had no idea about any of it. And that is what worries me the most in present time. People who vote without any idea what they're voting for, or worse, people who are voting on a very narrow topic and nothing else. "Stop the boats" comes to mind.
bush era is many of still in k-12 became aware of politics, if bush hadnt gone to war all over, i think people would still be voting for the same milquetoast candidates without much outrage.
I think everyone does politics. However, many people just don't have an opinion on something because they don't know enough and don't have the mental capacity to
Keep up with everything and
Research enough about a topic to have an educated opinion.
Everyone does do politics, and everyone is affected by them, even if they don't realize they're being negatively or positively affected. My mind goes to bicycle infrastructure when I think about this. Everyone can cycle, and it has physical benifits for your health, which people of any class can appreciate. Additionally, even if you don't want to ride a bike or use public transit, you'll appreciate the roads being clearer, and populated with only those that want to drive. The funding for these things is political, and everyone benifits from them, even those too dumb to realize it.
My mind goes to bicycle infrastructure when I think about this. Everyone can cycle, and it has physical benifits for your health, which people of any class can appreciate
Yes, but that is in my immediate community. I don't give a shit about a bike lane in seattle. I don't give a shit about a highway in australia. And the topics are so irrelevant to my daily life that it's just not worth thinking about it.
At the same time it can be effective to say "hey this is working out over there". That's why I as an American care about Dutch traffic design. And from there bike lanes in Seattle are a way to say "hey, it's not something that only works in the Netherlands and Denmark, it also works in a hilly American city".
I totally get why most wouldn't care about bike lanes across the world, but I figured I'd point out why I care about such things.
I mean, a lot of the topics right now in the US are really easy to understand.
We're not discussing socioecomic strategy, we're talking about concentration camps, war mongering, human trafficking children, murdering civilians, etc.
And it's truly unbelievable how much work that "etc." is doing...
I mean, a lot of the topics right now in the US are really easy to understand.
Not everyone lives in the US.
we’re talking about concentration camps, war mongering, human trafficking children, murdering civilians, etc.
The problem here is that that is your view. I'm german, I don't know anything what's going on over there. The only thing I can do is rely on the reports of people and news, and those are conflicting as fuck. As an example, there was this case where the woman was shot by an ICE officer in her car, it was earlier this year if I remember right. Checking the fediverse, I saw a lot of people that she was just gunned down for walking away or making a rude gesture toward the officer, but checking other news sources I read that she attempted to run over the officers and was shot to prevent her from killing someone. And that puts me in a tough spot. I can't say that either side is right because the information is conflicting and in current america, both options seem genuinely reasonable as sad as that is. But is that situation important enough for me in germany to actually spend hours researching dozens of different news sources that talk about it so I can have an educated opinion? In my opinion, no.
So when I talk about these kind of things with people who I know have a strong opinion on it, I also usually just say "I don't do politics" even tho I absolutely do - but the topic we're trying to talk about is a topic I cannot have an informed opinion about and the person I'm talking to is most likely just going to be crazy mad for not having his opinion.
And you can bet your ass this comment is getting downvoted exactly because of that - people are mad I don't have their opinion. Not even the opposing opinion, but simply not theirs.
In my experience, privilege is rarely a factor. In fact, the most privileged people seem to be the most involved in politics because that maintains the status quo in their favor.
People who aren't interested in politics usually say they're too occupied with struggling to exist to read about different tax structures, the pros and cons of different immigration policies, or deciphering a local politician's rhetoric. When faced with an immediate problem, such as a hungry child, and a more distant problem, like an unfavorable tax plan, most people will choose to prioritize the more immediate problem.
Yes, politics is the reason why they struggle. But can you really blame someone for placing a priority on day-to-day existence?
Yeah people here seem to mistaking apolitical with not wanting to discuss politics. Someone who is apolitical doesn't hold a stance on whether raping a baby should be legal or illegal. Someone who doesn't want to discuss what age ranges should or shouldn't be legally allowed is different.
Should slavery be illegal?
Apolitical - doesn't have a stance
Doesn't want to discuss - has stance, doesn't want to talk about it
Sometimes it’s just not worth arguing with people. Certainly not if it’s the fifth time that week or something. That shit gets exhausting.
Also, you’re allowed to simply not give a ahit on some things. We’ve all got our own shit do deal with without needing to form an informed opinion on every other thing that might be happening somewhwre in the world.
Yeah, when I say I don't do politics, it's not because I don't care about the problems or they don't affect me, it's because I'm tired of talking about it, I have enough other shit in my life that's stressing me out and it's not going to do anything anyway.
Right wing chuds, when the "ban pornography to protect the children" act bans their hentai, and not just trans people from public life (trans people are bad, because they got tricked by them (read: got "gay bamboozled" on 4chan with femboy hentai)):
I'm a white male with depression and a long standing medical issue that has consumed my life (Water on the brain.. I have had so many surgeries and stays in hospital)
I still say fuck Israel, Fuck everyone that loves Israel!
Ironically at this point the circle of people that are affected is so big, that to be apolitical you are either a moron or at least a multimillionaire.
A good deal of people have responsibilities that are much more important than politics; while you're reading HuffPo they may be, for example, cleaning an elderly parent who just vomited... everywhere.
People's days can be very full, barely able to drag themselves into bed, even nodding out at the dinner table.
Morons? If you're very fortunate, you'll never learn how oblivious you are. Good luck.
If more people that were privileged and weren't affected by things just shut the fuck up about them we'd be a lot better off. Like there's no reason most of us should give a shit about gay marriage or what transgender people are doing. We're not getting gay married or transitioning, we should mind our own business and leave commenting to the experts for whatever legislation is necessary. Instead we have all these conservative mfers throwing tantrums about all these issues and we all have to get involved to counter them just so people can go about their lives the way they want.
This is my experience. Also their talking points are easily dismantled with simple questions. So they wont even talk about outside of their echo chambers.
That's the utility of revolutionary optimism. You have to truly believe a better world is possible in order to actively work towards that, and this can become an anchor to ground yourself when news looks bleak.
It's depressing because too many people have distanced themselves. You were given the gift of self governance and you have a sacred duty to your fellow citizens to engage with democracy to ensure everyone's rights are protected. Nobody cares if you post political memes, but if you don't show up to vote once every two years to keep fascists out of power? That's unacceptable.
That. And we also live in a time when literally anything can be made political. Don’t like a movie…political. Don’t like American cheese…political. Believe trump is a rapist, convicted felon and pedophile….political. It’s just nonstop.
Correct. I know. But this day and age any opinion on anything can be made political. It just doesn’t matter anymore. Anyone will find any reason to make something political. Maybe it’s the actor or actress nationality or race or sex. Maybe you don’t like American cheese cause you don’t love America. Anything can be spun hard enough.
Man it was really funny last US election cycle with every redditor declaring that Kamala Harris won the election only for the result to be the complete opposite.
I'm starting to understand "I don't do politics." to often mean "I don't have the mental aptitude for political discourse and have spent a significant amount of my life becoming educated on other subjects or otherwise being unintellectual about most subjects." I feel it's a little more acceptable that way. Some people are just not that smart or have not invested much time in politics or current world affairs. It usually means, they feel inadequate discussing the subject with you.
They're terrified that if they think about it too much or learn too much about it that they will have their mind changed and be alienated by their family/friends/communities.
Some are just incredibly stupid, but I'd say most are just fucking cowards.
I'm not afraid to learn about politics and challenging the ideals of the people around me, which is more than I can say for the magats who live in fear of daddy not loving them anymore when they tell him Trump is a moron.
You don't think these people are scared? I do. I think they're terrified. I'm not so sure why you're defending magats, though.
Part of politics are like this. Like when you hear about people in white house doing terrible things. And you're like who is this guy? "Oh he's the secretary of defense." What's that mean? And soon it feels like if someone was trying to teach me about the people in Keeping up with the Kardashians. Or some other reality show.
But then other ones are like....We are cutting funding for poor people and welfare. And that should be cut and dry.
Teeny weenie bit hyperbolic, dont you think? By that logic, politicians are the greatest geniuses that ever walked the earth. People don't bother with politics to avoid assholes that can't shut up about it.
I never said that at all... I said literally nothing about politicians and I said nothing to suggest it's the most intelligent subject. You made that context up all on your own. I said that many people who don't talk politics don't for the exact same reason you might not talk about computers with someone who knows a lot about computers. You might also avoid conversation about gardening with someone who has kept gardens for years. It's not necessarily because of a lack of intelligence (though in some cases it is) but most likely just not the subject matter they have the most knowledge of. Not everyone can spend the time immersing themselves in all the subject matter you have and politics is just another subject.
I feel like that's a flawed understanding of what intelligence is. You can be smart regarding some things and braindead with others. Intelligence is not linear where all particular subject matter just comes with having high intellect.
So glad all the time and effort everybody has been putting in to end the genocide in Gaza has finally paid off… and Trump was convicted, so glad he didn’t get a second term… and those Epstein files. Glad all those pedo’s are in jail or dead now.
Sometimes you just gotta take a break from it all. The average citizen doesn’t have much power in small numbers. If some movement is gonna get big enough to actually effect change, you won’t miss it.
I'll engage to the point it just becomes a binary football team mentality. Me not engaging with you isn't me not engaging with politics because you're a performative moron and I have a life to get on with.
A few years ago I would have argued that something like pedophilia would have been something we could (mostly) all agree was bad, but republicans had to show me I was wrong.
I see what you're saying but you're not saying it well. You're distinguishing the difference between pedophilia the condition and pedophilia the act. That having the condition of being a pediphile is beyond a person's control, but that actions a person does from that condition is. A good example would be someone with rage issues. Being rageful just is while acting on that rage is wrong.
I get it, but you need to be more clear when discussing something so sensitive.
Pedophilia really isn't bad, just as being gay or being hetero isn't bad.
Wow, it's been YEARS since I've seen someone casually compare pedophilia to homosexuality.
I sorta get where you're coming from, but gay/straight people aren't by definition raping the people they're attracted to. But outside of the concept of pedophilia on paper (someone's brain wired wrong), pedophilia is bad, full stop.
I feel bad for those afflicted with it, and have sympathy for those who are able to not give in, but the disorder itself is bad. Just as sociopathy and psychopathy are bad, so is pedophilia.
At least we agree that raping kids is bad. Too bad we can't get republicans to agree as well.
Wow, it's been YEARS since I've seen someone casually compare pedophilia to homosexuality.
Calm down, you're being a manipulative dick by bringing that up, because the person you're citing never used that comparison to hurt homosexuals.
It's clear that what they're getting at is not that gay people ale pedos, but rather - people are born with random traits and no one ever chose to be attracted to males, females, or kids in this case.
Calm down, you're being a manipulative dick by bringing that up, because the person you're citing never used that comparison to hurt homosexuals.
L. O. L.
So your argument basically boils down to their intentions mattering more than the actual words they say. I guess people who make offhand homophobic, transphobic or racist comments aren't bad people if they don't mean for their words to hurt people, right? After all, that wasn't their ✨intention✨.
And you have the gall to say I'm being manipulative....
It's clear that what they're getting at is not that gay people ale pedos, but rather - people are born with random traits and no one ever chose to be attracted to males, females, or kids in this case.
Right, which is why I said I have sympathy for those afflicted. But the disorder itself is bad, as I said.
But I guess you needed to but in and reword what I said so you could call me a dick. Oh well, I won't be interacting with your idiocy again.
But I guess you needed to but in and reword what I said so you could call me a dick. Oh well, I won't be interacting with your idiocy again.
Why give so much effort replying only to cut it off with this finishing line? I could explain to you why I still think it's just a dick move to bring up that 10's homosexuals and pedophiles correlation antithesis in this completely unrelated context, but you're clearly only interested in your perspective.
Me? Nothing. What's YOUR point though, that's my question. YOU are getting mad that someone has put two words - homosexual and pedophile - in one sentence. Ignoring completely how they play together in that sentence.
But hold on...
Pedophilia really isn't bad, just as being gay or being hetero isn't bad
Holy fuck you're right, that's putting homosexual people in such a bad light, claiming it's alright to be gay.
... and Democrats! It's not as if Biden opened the Epstein files.
Epstein list is FULL of Democrats. He worked at Harvard... 99% Democrats... and so on. The list is full of Rs, too... but why are you only remembering them?
Is there a reason you give all of those Ds a "pass" and pretend that they don't exist? Curious.
Personally, I think it's disgusting. Shame on you.
Politics is complicated (well it used to be) and in the before trump times it was also very boring. Mostly politicians would oversee programs for civil benefits. Instead we are seeing enough money flowing into elections that could purchase small nations and the focus is on whatever the corporations find important.
Now don't get me wrong, I do think that neither party is doing right by the citizens, but one is for educating and protecting it's citizens and the other literally closed the department of education.
I'm in Australia and it's just as messy here but our Trump looks like Ronald McDonald in drag. We also had a couple of leaders recently that were temu and aliexpress Trump respectively.
We don't need a world "reset" we just need to all start agreeing that rules exist for reasons, and while we will never get it right it doesn't mean we stop trying.
Mostly politicians would oversee programs for civil benefits
Western politicians would also bomb the shit out of brown people in other countries. Politics was never "boring", it just managed to present itself that way for the privileged citizens of the empire.
Be careful. Here in Brazil, most middle-class people in the past didn't care about politics. When they started caring, we got a coup, bolsonaro, millions of deaths, dismantling of institutions and social programs, loss in sovereignty, cuts in financing to universities, support for a military regime and an attempted coup, and now in a couple weeks, the risk of bolsonaro jr becoming the president.
Some people are really better not doing politics...
Now tankies would like to see the same happen in the USA... bc somehow in their fantasies the only other political system besides fascism is pure and perfect communism.
Edit: either that or else I should take them at their word that "death to the USA" is not merely symbolic but rather literal. I dunno, when someone tells you who they are, should you believe them the first time or not?
Not really accurate seeing as voting rates among the poor and uneducated are substantially lower, even though they are the ones most often impacted negatively.
Now you have me wondering how many unhappy marriages might talk themself into a decent divorce. My brain always looking for the contrary. I sure as hell could never marry me, lol
That would still seem like a method of "doing politics." Satisfaction with the status quo -> do nothing to change the status quo and accept the repercussions for doing nothing. When you're a public figure, people look to you for leadership, whether you want them to or not. That's one of the costs of fame.
Be honest and kind, use logic and facts instead of propaganda and slogans, and realize that a lot of people don't agree with you. Treat them with basic respect and civility regardless.
For example, if you're a Democrat, proceed with the knowledge that only 30% of your fellow voters are Democrats. Another 30% are Republicans, and remaining 40% are Independents.
We all agree on some points and disagree on others; insulting 70% of the people around you isn't going to do anything for you or your political objectives.
To treat a "person of color" differently is racist, in my opinion. They're not special.
I hate politics. I hate talking about politics. I would love to live a life where I just ignore politics and be apolitical, but then politics comes along and gets in the way of literally everything.
What's even worse is when the politics of a whole other country on the other side of the bloody planet comes and fucks up the local politics right over here where I live.
I do politics around the right people. It feels less like politics and just checking in on each other. I thought that was supposed to be what it feels like.. when it starts feeling like pleading for my life for someone else's minor discomfort... that. That is the politics I won't engage on as if it were ever debatable. It's predatory and that's not politics. It's abuse.
Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid? The answer will reveal the solution to this issue.
Unironically though, saying you don't do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege OP is talking about. Choosing to avoid politics to save yourself mild discomfort can have life-threatening effects on others. Saying you don't want to discuss it is fine, but if that causes you to become uninformed it's probably not wise for your effect on societal health.
Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid?
Views differ. All I know for certain is that if two people have divergent views, the best thing for them to do is to grow increasingly angry and disparaging towards one another until one finally concedes the other is correct and admits everything they'd believed up to that moment is wrong.
Unironically though, saying you don’t do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege
Which is why the people with the most social privilege are always the most soft-spoken, while the people with the least privilege are the loudest and most agitating, right?
I remember driving through Vidor, TX with a friend and him turning to me saying "Just don't get us pulled over, because I'm not going to make it back if we do". That coward was attempting to avoid conflict with a notoriously racist local police force. I, of course, did donuts in the Vidor PD parking lot. Because I believed it was my duty to provoke a conflict in order to prove that I was sincere in my liberal beliefs.
"I don't do politics" could mean a lot of things. It usually means they don't discuss it, but it also often means they don't participate or know much about it.
I'm not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics in situations that vould get you hurt. Almost the opposite, actually-- I'm saying that when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can't easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically.
I’m not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics
It doesn't have to rise to the level of existential threat. Plenty of people don't feel comfortable voicing outside views in front of what could easily be a hostile audience.
What's cowardly is presenting the "I don't have a politics" person as nebulously white and atheist and male, while the counterpart is explicitly brown and muslim and a woman. The bitter truth is that it's far more often the opposite. Women and religious/ethnic minorities are the ones who are perpetually under pressure to "hide their power level" so to speak. Either because they really do fear some kind of physical or social reprisal. Or because they just don't want to have a screaming match with a MAGA shithead at a BBQ they didn't want to be at to begin with.
It's the Entitled Asshole who feels the need to vomit political views into every discussion and "have a debate" on every issue.
when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically
Who the fuck says they're not? Do you think it's your job to audit someone else's life, to see if they're doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you've set for sufficient political engagement? It's none of your fucking business.
I don't really think that makes the critique fall apart, it's just referring to a different situation than you are thinking of.
Someone who is in a vulnerable position* has the right not to discuss politics with strangers. I don't think discomfort (as opposed to real danger) is a great reason, but fine, whatever. They should still understand it and vote accordingly, but refusing to discuss it is sometimes necessary.
Someone who is in a position of social power* and refuses to use it to help others by addressing other people's real issues is complicit in whatever system they continue to accept and often vote for. Again, the primary duty here is understanding and voting: refusal to learn about how politics is important and in what ways it affects people, and vote accordingly, is morally wrong. It may still be necessary not to talk about it sometimes, but when and where you have the power to do so, choosing not to speak allows an unjust system to exist uncontested.
*with the understanding that this changes based on context
when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically
Who the fuck says they’re not?
If the OP is read as an overall refusal to engage politically rather than about discussions specifically, which seems to be their point, then the OP does? And I would agree. Plenty of people use their social power to help others, but those who refuse to engage politically are much less likely to do so, and this harm deserves to be understood and avoided.
Do you think it’s your job to audit someone else’s life, to see if they’re doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you’ve set for sufficient political engagement? It’s none of your fucking business.
Uh, no, it's everyone's business. Politics sets the rules by which society is allowed to operate. It's the most invasive, everyone's-business topic there is. The only bar there is, is "care a little bit about other people". Yes, I will make it other people's problem if they refuse to do that-- I would consider that the "bare minimum" (I hate using that term, it's misused so often) to participate in society.
The top orangutan has been accused of murdering babies and pregnant teens that he raped. So I would assume most of us Americans are unaffected since nobody is even investigating anything like that. Oh they investigated Cesar Chavez and there was much reason to do so and the biggest accuser was also part of the movement. But not the uber-rich. No siry Bob.
Ironically, this is actually a very entitled position to take. There are many justifiable reasons to be apolitical - first and foremost what this cartoon seems to criticize: The issue does not affect you and you have better things to do. You might still have basic empathy, but you would rather spend your limited time on earth with your kids, in your garden, reading, watching TV, etc. instead of fruitlessly thinking about all the injustices of the world. Usually, the people who judge others for not making a war, famine or garbage dump at the other end of the planet their main focus on life are those privileged enough to live life without major problems of their own. Whoever has that privilege, I'm happy for you. Just show some humility before judging others for being apolitical.
The point is some minorities don't have the option to avoid politics at all. Your perspective is from the privilege of someone who has yet to be directly affected by them. What you fail to understand is that there are politics that directly affect people and are their major problem - this isn't them having the "privilege" to get involved in politics as a hobby.
There are people at the same end of the planet where that war, famine, or shit are happening, and they don't have a choice because it directly affects them. Even in the US, ask anyone getting hunted around by ICE because of where they work and how they look. I think the comic is very clear about whom it refers to, and it is not the boogeyman you think it is who pick politics as a hobby (the hijab is a clue).
I agree that this was the message of the cartoon and that's a valid concern that some people do not have the privilege of being apolitical.
My comment was made in reaction to some other comments in this thread which seems to take the generalized and very cynical position that anyone without a politicized outlook on life should be considered, to paraphrase, stupid, a bad person or not worth knowing. And I don't agree with that.
I don't think so. I'm privately a very political person; I work in public policy.
I just know enough people from different walks of life with different degrees of interest or capacity for politics.
Some examples:
A friend; she was raised by parents who themselves were socialized in a former Sowjet state and hence never talked about politics at home. To this day, discussing politics with others feels uncomfortable to her. She has opinions, but frequently cannot properly verbalize them.
My grandmother; she is old, depressed and in pain. She does not want to know how bad the world is because she feels powerless when she is exposed to the news etc. She is protecting herself by not thinking about politics.
My uncle; spends basically all the time that is not used up on work caring for my grandparents. He literally does not have any time or mental bandwidth to think about politics.
A friend; he is from a rather poor family background and his main priority in life is building a good life for his children. He cares about certain political issues that affect this plan, but "wasting time" on the big picture does not contribute to increasing his own family wealth.
Etc.
Most average humans have other things to think about. They might be mobilized to protest when shit hits the fan - but the people who actually make activism and politics their main concern and think about political issues all the time are a comparatively tiny group, even in functioning democracies.
"I don't do politics" for me translates to "Shut up you rightwing asswipe, your inane bitching about irrelevant culture war nonsense bores me." Or it otherwise means I can't get a good vibe on you so I'm gonna just bullshit.
"I dont do politics" to me is "I'm somewhere that calling you a racist bigoted cunt might get me fired"
I actually called HR on someone who continually tried to drag me into political discussions. I had to explain to them that I deliberately dont interact with him on that subject for very good reasons and either he gets a warning letter OR I want it in writing that I cant be held responsible for what words I use if dragged into one of those conversations again.
Also that that's also a common subtext. Though I do know why it happens, I'm a pretty stereotypical Redneck by appearance and by accent so for some reason assholes think I'm like them. The only thing we have in common is violence and some cultural ancestors which is not a good thing for them.
Sometimes; when you hear somebodies political take, you can instantly tell they fall in one of the two extremely simplistic, easily marketable positions.
When this happens, the easiest thing to do is politely decline to discuss politics with them, because you know they lack the nesessary context to understand your well thought out, nuanced position.
If you never encounter this problem, I suspect you may be in one of these two camps, and would strongly encourage you to think about your politics in detail. Do you know why you believe what you do?
Ok, but in a practical scenario, elections are happening and we only got 2 candidates for the main role, each from one of those two extremely simplistic, easily marketable positions. What will you do?
I'm assuming "I don't do politics" in this scenario is abstaining from debate, not abstaining from voting at all. Of course you go with the side that aligns best with your beliefs.
My point is, if you're talking to someone, and all they're doing is waiting to see which shibboleths you spit out to decide if they hate you or love you, then you aren't going to get any meaningful discussion out of them.
Work at the state level to replace First-past-the-post voting with a voting system that let's people transfer their vote if their first preference doesn't win.
A lot of progress has been made, e.g. the abolishing of child labor. There's this weird thing of taking whatever we have now as a baseline, thus ignoring all historical achievements.
"Do politics" in this case refers to talking about anything that can be perceived as political.
Obviously people need to be willing to talk about issues before we can fix them, instead of everyone with privilege choosing to ignore it until they personally are affected.
We don't have a system that optimizes for quality of life or satisfaction for the many.
Money "solves" things in favor of money, not in favor of people, which is why houses are so fucking expensive right now - young adults see most of their income taken away to pay for housing so they even have fewer children, whilst those who already have the most money make even more money with their realestate investments.
It's also the reason for enshittification - the competition of free market capitalism definitelly optimizes the system ... for making more money for those who own the companies and investments, not for higher quality or cheaper products: if a market is bound by high barriers to entry (say, memory or water supply), you get cartels and even monopolies and those won't don't need to make better products at a cheaper price to compete, so instead they try and extract as much money from costumers as possible with the cheapest possible production costs.
Capitalism only ever improves things for anything else than capital as a side effect of improvings things for capital: companies pay betters salaries only ever when otherwise they would not have the workers that create the wealth that investors capture, they make better and cheaper products only ever when otherwise they would be making less money by selling inferior and more expensive products and services. Unsurprisingly, were a market's structure herds customers and/or keeps away competition - marketing shapes consumer choices much more than quality or price, networking effects pull people to a handful of providers, physical constrainst make it harder or even impossible for competition to enter the market - it invariably ends up expensive and enshittified.
I asked chat gpt what system it think would produce a system where most people are happy and it suggested the same system as in nordic countries:
If the objective is high average living standards while keeping poverty, insecurity and extreme concentrations of power relatively low, one model worth looking at closely is the social-democratic mixed economy used, in different forms, in the Nordic countries.
It is still a market economy: people can own companies, become wealthy, invest, compete and make profits. But the market is constrained by institutions designed to spread the gains more broadly:
private enterprise and competitive markets for most goods and services
strong unions and collective bargaining, so workers have negotiating power rather than relying entirely on employers
universal healthcare, education, pensions and social insurance
relatively progressive taxation and substantial redistribution
unemployment protection and retraining, so losing a job is less catastrophic
regulation of monopolies, workplace conditions and environmental damage
publicly provided infrastructure and services
usually some combination of public,
cooperative and private ownership rather than insisting everything must be privately owned
There is empirical support for several of those mechanisms. OECD research finds that taxes and transfers substantially reduce market-income inequality, although the effect differs considerably between countries.
research finds that greater collective-bargaining coverage is associated with smaller wage disparities, and that labour-market institutions can counteract some of the inequality created by concentrated employer power.
Nordic tax-and-benefit systems have historically produced comparatively low poverty and inequality after taxes and transfers, together with high employment.
I mean, the definition of “poor people” has shifted somewhat over time. I don’t think there will ever not be poor people, but is nice that poor people often have access to healthcare etc these days… at least in any country that has sane politics
Is this a serious question? Because there's a shit ton of examples.
You don't have to be a fan of China to acknowledge that their government lifted hundreds of millions (nearly 1 billion by some reports) of people out of extreme poverty in the last 40 or so years.
Social struggle is political struggle. The civil rights movement was a political struggle. Socialist revolutions were political struggles. When people say politics matters, we aren't saying that the capitalist state can be bent to help working people. We are stating that it is through social engagement that real victories are won.
Ironically, too much progressivism is accelerating the western world back to the dark ages fast.
Also, regarding the worst genocide since WWII: An estimated 70 to 85 million people died worldwide during World War II, while cumulative legal abortions in major Western countries (such as roughly 60–64 million in the U.S. since 1973 and over 10 million in the UK since 1967) total tens of millions, though a single comprehensive aggregate total for all of Western countries combined is not centrally tracked.
Also more black people get aborted than anyone else.
Fuck Israel, Palestine & anyone else who kills innocents.
"I spend a lot of time fighting cancer, but thanks for reminding me that I should also invest time in politics to stop Islamic immigration. Oh, wait, you don't agree with me? Oh dear."
The irony of this comic is that it's usually the Generic White Guy with opinions written on his sleeve and the Brown Woman with the Foreign Religion who needs to walk on eggshells and keep her politics close to the chest.
Honestly, politics getting shoehorned into literally every discussion is exhausting; it's not the message that's the problem.
Yeah, politics affects everything, but it doesn't always have to be the focus of the conversation. I think people here forget that not everyone is terminally online like we tend to be.
Not everyone has the capacity to remain constantly outraged. For some of us, it's literally detrimental to our mental health.
You know you can have opinions about things, and thinking they're bad, without being outraged, right? Like, I think (idk about what you'd think) that dog poop smells bad. That is my opinion, and it's consistent no matter where I am or what I'm doing. I don't feel strongly when dog poop is mentioned. I still decline when someone offers me a bag of dog poop. If someone talks about a big poop their dog did, I don't feel big emotions, I just know that I don't like it.
The same is with politics. Like I believe that all people should have access to free healthcare. Am I seething with rage constantly over the state of US healthcare? No. Am I upset whenever someone discusses which health insurance company they should go with? Also no, it's them doing their thing trying to survive. But if someone's saying "oh we should replace the national health system in countries X, Y, and Z with a private system like the US", I'd potentially even comment on it, but still not have a burning flame of outrage inside.
Do you get my point? You can have knowledge, opinions, and reactions to things without being constantly full of a certain emotion or another.
291 Comments
EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml · 113 pts · 2d
I’ve been on dating apps the last few years and while I always swipe left for Conservative, I also say fuck no to anyone Apolitical.
In these times anyone who supports or is ambivalent to the madness in our country is a shit person that I want nothing to do with.
Take a stand, pick a side or fuck right off.
jtrek@startrek.website · 75 pts · 2d
I can maybe cut a little slack for someone who's like "I don't really understand politics or know history, so I don't feel confident having a strong opinion" if they were curious and honest. We all start ignorant and not everyone had the good fortune to get a quality education.
But the aggressively ignorant and apathetic can fuck right off.
Soggy@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 2d
In your 20s sure. At my age there's no excuse other than willfull ignorance and I'm not engaging with that. (I'm also not looking to date, thankfully)
mycodesucks@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2d
Unless you had an absolutely shit background or a learning disability, not understanding history or politics is a choice they made.
I'm not holding it against them that their brains might not have been developed or focused enough at that age to take in the information, but if you realize you are missing something critical later in life and don't make moves to rectify it, that's also a choice
EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 2d
I agree and the only folks I give a pass to are immigrants, otherwise if US born there's absolutely no excuse to choose being uneducated or choosing to sit out politics.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 6 pts · 2d
You could also be a genuinely non-intelligent adult who's naturally vulnerable to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Or you could be from a local / regional culture in which you're essentially mistreated for entertaining progressive thoughts, or from shifting away from herd-thinking. Rural areas come to mind with all that.
xtr0n@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Which is fine for existing in general but might not be OK for a potential partner. In the context of a dating app, I will 100% discriminate against people who are significantly less intelligent than myself. They may be perfectly lovely people but there is no chance that it would be a good romantic match. (If it were a hook up situation, maybe that’s different?)
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
Well, there you go!
atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Its not hard to fall for propaganda, its not easy to find information about politics that you can ensure is not misleading, doesnt miss context, doesnt contain false information
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2d
That was my stance when I was ~16 when Trump was first coming into the political scene... When I got more curious, I got shut down for even asking "what has he said that was racist?" like it was a crime to even ask.
I was sooooo close to becoming a right winger, because the right wingers would JUMP at the chance to explain why they hated the people they hated. I disagreed with a lot but I bought enough lies to feel like the conservatives were overall the ones to vote for.
That era of my life was so embarrassing in retrospect. I was a teenager, but still. I still have a Trump hat my friend bought me in my closet.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 2d
im guessing if you are not aware of trump and his history going back decades you would think he is "great", alot of people seem to ignorant his past racist, business dealings.
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
I didn't even know he was a celebrity before he got into politics tbh. I just knew he was brazen and 16 year old me found that appealing at the time.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Trump sure proved one thing, that USians don't vote based on looks. Because a couple looks at how that saggy sack of rusty shit handles himself, should've been enough for anybody.
This here is the most to-the-point impression of Trump I've seen so far.
Squirrelknight@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
That's fine. You were in your blunder years and not even old enough to vote. At least you were paying attention and willing to learn.
There are people three times your age who've voted for that pedo rapist three consecutive times and still support him, even as he burns their world to the ground.
Unlike them, you were smart enough to avoid the cult. Be proud of that, if nothing else.
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I'm 26 now and I'm constantly dumbfounded at the sheer unwillingness of my peers and the older generations to truly listen to their political opponents.
When I was a teen I was listening to Steven Crowder, Sargon of Akkad, etc. but I at least eventually got around to giving people like Anita Sarkesian and Lacy Green a chance. It only took about a year to realize that they weren't saying anything to warrant the right pissing their panties as hard as they were. It also took significantly less time than that to realize that people like Steven and Sargon were assholes. AND I WAS A TEEN.
That kinda shit makes it hard not to be pessimistic. I can at least hope that the generations after mine won't contract their willful ignorance, and this BS will die with my generation.
OpenStars@discuss.online · 3 pts · 2d
This is what the left refuses to understand: when you spit upon everyone who is even slightly less left than you, the recipients end up being driven rightward.
Example: Hexbear.net.Edit: actually, that's a bad example since they aren't truly "left", just cosplaying as such while acting similar to MAGA, differing mainly in the words chosen yet similar in thinking processes, i.e. an echo chamber by a different name is still an echo chamber.Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2d
Can you explain why communism isn't truly left, and how dialectical materialism is similar to MAGA thought? Both of those concepts are highly confusing.
Also, the idea that political struggle from the left drives people rightward doesn't seem to bear out in reality. I always see this concept coming from conservatives, but I have always seen it as an excuse for people to blame their own right-wing views on others.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
Fortunately your intellect is far to great for you to be caught in a echo chamber.
jtrek@startrek.website · 1 pts · 2d
Evokes this comic https://thenib.com/fault-right/
OpenStars@discuss.online · 0 pts · 2d
I mean, that argument seems a little... hyperbolic.
It is possible for people to disagree and not be dicks about it.
jtrek@startrek.website · 3 pts · 1d
Sure, but "you were mean to me so now I'm joining maga" is pretty silly.
Some people are like that, I guess, but if someone rudely explains how racism is deeply entrenched in the US that doesn't mean they're wrong. Rejecting their message because they were mean is childish.
OpenStars@discuss.online · -1 pts · 1d
You were the one who brought up that comic, not me. Yes, it is rather silly, or I would say reductionistic.
I'm not (fully) disagreeing with your statement here btw.
Though this one here again is too reductionistic:
I am saying read up about how human psychology works. Let's use a hypothetical: a single mother, widowed even, is trying to take care of multiple children, and on her way to work every single leftist that she knew irl punched her in the face every single day. On outcome is that she would probably be unlikely to desire to spend the time to even so much as read what leftist philosophy is all about, and therefore she would come away with a false impression of what it even meant.
Consider the case of Christianity: do those who e.g. interrupt funeral proceedings holding signs and yelling at the top of their lungs how "god hates f4*s!" provide an accurate portrayal of their supposedly central message of showing love to one another (gentleness, faithfulness, self control, and the like)?
Likewise communists punching out not actual Nazis but merely the stressed out and uninformed - particularly those less intellectually endowed - is not likely to win many converts to the cause. But that's just my two cents.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 2d
tankies are more liken to conservatives then like to admit.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 2d
How are communists more liken to fascists?
OpenStars@discuss.online · -5 pts · 2d
Echo chambers that deny facts in favor of their preferred view of reality? (e.g. that Ukraine is the aggressor rather than Russia) Check.
Tribal politicking, where facts chiefly matter depending on who is speaking them? Check.
Refusal to update one's viewpoint after seeing incontrovertible evidence that would otherwise demand it, if someone's goal was truth? Check.
Making use of every logical fallacy to sow FUD in their opponents? Check.
A better strategy might be to stop thinking of humans as "opponents" and rather than "beat them", aid their thinking to enlighten and uplift them by knowledge, essentially turning an opponent into a true ally, as opposed to merely a worn down victim of bullying practices.
Moral purity beatings will continue until morale improves.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2d
All of what you said applies to you, though, which is why the only example you gave was the strawman idea that Ukraine is the aggressor, rather than NATO. No matter how many facts I have given you, irrefutable evidence, you generally dismissed it as "propaganda" while sowing FUD everywhere. Seriously, there are only a handful of people as obsessed with communists on this collection of websites that I've seen, and I only really recognize you because you kept mentioning me long after we had had a conversation.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
You should keep it. You never know when you gotta go undercover.
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23h
You're allowed to grow and change your mind with new information. Keep growing and learning and thinking and you may find yourself agreeing on an issue or two with your opponents. Never let your mind be so open that it's closed. Being a brainless zealot is never good.
RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org · 6 pts · 2d
I understand if someone doesn't understand the federal budget and stuff like that.
Buy that's no excuse for not having a strong opinion about rape, pedophilia and genocide.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 1d
Is your strong opinion on genocide in support of it or something?
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
It took me a whole year to educate myself on all the current issues of today which led me to a decision to finally vote. Nevertheless, I don't look back.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
it started when russia was getting thier hooks into social media around 2016, i became more aware of it.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
most people arnt that honest, alot of them that are ignorant about it and they dont think it affects them if they ignore it(so they think it will get them into arguments, so they ignore it as much as possible). the "apoliticals" are conservatives though, i suspect the even ignorant ones lean conservatives it comes time to vote, because they are less informed.
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23h
I understand them, I'm informed, I have opinions that likely largely match yours, and Im a registered voter who routinely casts a ballot. I prefer to not discuss politics with anybody other than my spouse.
I'm not apolitical, but I also don't believe there's a career politician out there that actually cares about any of the issues that seem like a big deal to me. The ball players on your favorite baseball team do not care about your team getting to the playoffs -- they care about their personal stats for leverage during contract negotiations when trade deadlines come around. Do not expect them to always dive for the ball.
I'm also fat as fuck.
I'm guessing you'd deem me apolitical and swipe left on me (if I were single and in your age group).
SailorFuzz@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 2d
there was this clip of some kind of like dating show/bar event thing? Basically two people speed/blind date on stage and the audience waves green/red flags based on the conversation. Neat concept...
Anyways, man and woman go up and one of the first questions she asks is "who did you vote for?" and dude just shrinks. Does this whole "politics aren't that important to me" and then "I didn't vote". And in the crowd all of the women are raising red flags. Because yea... they know what that signals.
In a later round another womans asks the same thing, and guy is like "that's a personal thing" and "I don't feel comfortable talking about it"... red flags going up.
This dipshits KNOW their poltical views are toxic to women. And instead of owning it, they're trying to pretend to be "apolitical" because no woman will fuck them.
EDIT: I found the clip/vid.
Also, just realized, it's the same guy. So first lady he's like "I didn't vote" and then later is like "okay I voted, but I don't wanna say"..... everyone knows bro... and that you're still tryna hide/lie about it to get laid is pathetic.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Yup, they're cowards on top of everything else. Can't even stand up for what they purportedly believe in.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · 17 pts · 2d
I dunno, everyone says this of the issues about which they care but other ones are too large etc.
For example, do you feel the same way about say, sweatshop clothes? In that we should take a stand,pick a stand or fuck off?
Personally, I feel the 12 year olds making the most of the clothes I see when I walk down the street is much more important than most national issues in my country AND is something where individual action really matters but, it's also an issue that requires actual sacrifice and work. Much easier to be angry at people online over politics...
jtrek@startrek.website · 25 pts · 2d
I think there's a difference between "I affirmatively do not care" and "there's no purely way to be ethical, and that horror has fallen under my personal bar for attention right now"
Zorque@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
It's also significant if you go out of your way to say you're not making a decision on the issue. That, in and of itself, is often a very significant decision to make.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 2d
If you're not taking sides, you're siding with whoever is the oppressor.
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
I used to think I could be neutral. Then someone told me that neutral can easily be manipulated. I settled after a year of educating myself. It's impossible to be completely unbiased. People who say they don't care, actually care too much, they whine and grumble about everything and wonder why it gets bad--they don't do anything about the issues that affect them. It takes a really big leap to get out of the undecided 'pit'.
RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org · -1 pts · 2d
I think it's pretty clear that if you "have no opinion" in sweatshops, you've chosen the far right. Every normal person is against them.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · -1 pts · 1d
Against them but also wearing their products, which is even worse. What's the point of being "against" something then? It's like saying you're "against" trump but sitting out the elections.
RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
You know that "but yet, you participate in society. curious." Meme?
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 1d
You uhh, don't think you can participate in society using fewer sweatshop endorsed clothes? Like thrift stores don't exist or?
RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org · 1 pts · 1d
Have you heard this term "fast fashion" being used more in recent years? That's all about that
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 16h
You don't know that you're allowed to sit out immoral trends, like fast fashion? Or is being trendy more important than what's right?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 2d
conservatives should just stick to conservative apps, then again theres probably less conservative woman on those niche apps, as even these woman might find the conservative men too intolerable.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
You should pick who you want and need in life. Im glad youre making these choices for yourself.
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Nobody cares. Go back to 4chan.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
Did you forget which post this comment section is under?
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Not really. I don't engage with maga edgelords.
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Safe space? I'm an OG internet troll. You suck at this.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Priorities
Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 1d
You can tell which side he's on by that comment alone
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · -8 pts · 2d
You do realize most people can’t really afford to care about politics right? When you’ve got people to care for, a job to work, a house to maintain, hobbies to participate in to keep a sane mind, how much time do you really have to spend on politics? Because whatever amount that is, it’s not enough. All sides spend a huge amount on propaganda and to see through all that takes more effort than normal people can spare.
Besides, there are far more important things you could focus on other than politics. That might depend on where you live and how old you are, but most people out there just don’t see the effect of politics beyond the occasional headline and higher taxes/inflation. Why not then spend the time you would spend on politics doing something that has an actual impact?
erin@piefed.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 2d
Hard disagree. Keeping up with politics takes very little of my time, and I'm a "normal person." It doesn't take deep research to figure out how a platform could help or harm the things you care about. I don't know a single person of a vulnerable community affected by political decisions that has no political opinions. The only people that don't care about politics are those unaffected by its consequences, and thus consent to the status quo.
I work full time and I'm paying my way through a degree after returning to school as a full time student (18 credit hours). I maintain several friendships, a relationship, a home, pets, and hobbies, and yet I find the time to understand the political climate, because sticking my head in the sand isn't gonna help me when ICE comes for my friend, or the government takes away my right to medical care. If you don't feel the effects of politics beyond the occasional headline, you live a privileged or ignorant life. If you choose to be apolitical, you are choosing the status quo.
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
The problem with that like I said is your opinions and beliefs become really shallow and you pretty much just swallow whatever you feel like believing. To actually make sense of politics takes a whole lot of time, though most people, even on lemmy, actually know really little of it. However everyone on this platform is super confident in their opinion, though they don’t seem to able to debate it at all.
This was the big issue with direct democracies. You can help the problem a bit with representative democracies or republics, but you still have people taking a few minutes or sometimes hours every couple years to vote for the one that sounds better to your ears. This is how you get someone like Trump as president. People can’t really be trusted with any decisions about something they know nothing about.
One person changes nothing anyway. What would my vote change in a 80% conservative region? I’d rather spend that time on things I enjoy.
*Bit of a different situation in the US, but the US isn’t the entire world.
ramble81@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
Your landlord cares about politics… that’s why he votes people in who make sure renters have less rights.
Your boss cares about politics… that’s why he votes people in who make sure you can’t form a union, and keep the minimum wage low
You may not care about politics, but the people who have a direct impact on your life definitely do. And the longer you leave it to them, the less rights you’ll have.
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 1d
True, but their votes also make no difference in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that does make a difference is if your boss is the CEO of a big company that donates to politicians. But you can’t counter that.
That you’d bring up the minimum wage argument kind of shows exactly what I was talking about. Most people think this is remotely relevant and keep bringing it up as an argument when all it does is show how little they know of how economy works. This is the kind of people that got Trump in office, no thinking, just parrotting what feels good to say because they’d like it to be true.
krisevol@lemmus.org · -8 pts · 2d
This is the stance of someone in for a long road of loneliness. Enjoy.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 97 pts · 2d
--Nina Turner
FE80@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 2d
It's worth pointing out that the democratic party came together to ensure this woman was defeated in her primaries.
kettuli@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 2d
So the politics did indeed do her.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
This is why it is important to vote and vote in every election including special, local and primaries
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 2d
2 women, even though the first one was not a first choice for most people. they know women is a losing strategy, almost 100% of the time a s president.
sukhmel@programming.dev · 3 pts · 2d
Do you want to say they never let women win justifying that with the fact that women had never won?
Pxtl@lemmy.ca · 92 pts · 2d
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de · 43 pts · 2d
In some sense, kinda big of him to admit that he's been privileged and unaffected so far? I feel like many like Dave think they are victims of anti-white anti-straight anti-male agenda or some bs.
yyyesss@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 2d
he's not aware that he's admitting anything. he's complaining that it's finally happened
Signtist@bookwyr.me · 6 pts · 1d
Yeah, this guy is basically saying "Hold on, isn't this bad stuff supposed to be happening to someone else? It's never supposed to happen to me, see?"
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
It's amazing how often republican arguments end up coming back to the old chestnut of “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”
AzuranAurora@piefed.ca · 12 pts · 2d
Admitting there's a problem is the first step in finding a solution and getting your shit together. Maybe there's hope for him, unlike many with similar views.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
He didn't admit anything about himself here. He did not come to the same conclusions about him that we've come to.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Christ. This country is full of ignorant fucking sociopaths. At best.
village604@adultswim.fan · 40 pts · 2d
I mean, not everyone wants to discuss politics all the time, and that should be an acceptable position to have.
Just because you don't espouse your beliefs at every conceivable moment doesn't mean you don't have beliefs or don't participate in the political process.
I live in a red state, and I'd definitely say something similar if a magat tried to strike up a conversation about politics. Most of the time I just don't have the mental energy to get into a discussion about it.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 2d
It should be noted that the comic is very purposefully using a woman of color for a reason. To say you are not political to someone whose entire existence is ruled by politics is to lay bare that you are privileged enough to be apolitical.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · -21 pts · 2d
BS
You're assuming we have any actual power, whether POC or not.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 2d
I did not specify much in my comment. Can you share who the "we" is in your sentence here?
sukhmel@programming.dev · 4 pts · 2d
I'd guess ‘general populace’ and while I agree to some extent, I don't think people have no power at all, especially privileged ones
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
I think it’s ‘men’, but I want that user to admit they jumped to conclusions about what my comment meant.
sukhmel@programming.dev · 4 pts · 1d
Fair enough
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 2d
Crazy concept but you can concern yourself with things that you don't currently have the power to immediately change.
AzuranAurora@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 2d
Did you actually read what they wrote, or were you just looking for an excuse to jump down somebody's throat?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
Oh my god, I just realized that you weren’t replying to me, my apologies. While I want to blame the cramped style of the instance I use, I clearly didn’t look close enough myself to see you had replied to the other user.
I’ll go ahead and edit my mistake, sorry again!
AzuranAurora@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 1d
No worries!
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
Edit: I followed the wrong thread.
AzuranAurora@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 2d
I guess we'll have to wait and find out.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
Yep.
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 2d
Totally agree. And especially when I know it's just going to upset me and won't change anyone's mind. It's a waste of my energy and happiness to constantly and pointlessly engage. Responding with silence often works pretty well, at least in person.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 1d
I think there's distinction between: “I am completely ignoring politics, because I'm privileged so it doesn't affect me or it does, but I'm dumb to realize it" vs “I am paying attention to politics, but I believe taking to you is a waste of my time".
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 23h
This particular subthread started by village604 is about having political opinions and then choosing whether or not to engage in political discussion. Perhaps your sentiment here would be more applicable to a different thread?
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 5h
I essentially wrote that I agree with both of you guys.
This is different than actual apathy.
jtrek@startrek.website · 10 pts · 2d
This is probably true. I mean, if I started going off about how the workers are entitled to what they produce and fucking Joanne doesn't do shit, so why does she get a fat salary while we don't even get paid for thanksgiving, I'd be fired. Wouldn't even move the needle.
But sometimes the smaller conversations can change people. It takes a lot, and it can be infuriating when they just don't get it, or relapse after another bender on fox news, but interactions with people they see as in-group change minds.
I had a coworker way back that was a big homophobe, and over the months we worked together I got him from "we should just kill the gays" to "i guess they're not hurting anyone i just think it's gross". I understand that there's not always energy in the budget for that, though.
Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 2d
It's common sense that it's terrible for your mental well-being to obsess over things your have little-to-no-control over.
Politics makes that a bit messier because there's the idea that we all need to pull together if we want change to happen. But ultimately you're only 0.0000006% of the vote, and online political discussion is usually just in a echo chambers where no one's mind is being changed. On the other hand you have a huge amount of control over what you expose yourself to online. If you're choosing to doom scroll though content that makes you depressed and miserable, I feel like that's a terrible trade off for how little (if any) difference it's going to make.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Yes, but this sentiment is also used by people who love talking about politics right up until they are called out for an immoral stance. They suddenly don't want to talk about politics then.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -4 pts · 2d
Like, if you have a serious mental disorder maybe?? I've never met a single person who didn't like politics. I've met octopuses who don't like politics, though. Octopuses don't work together to make decisions, they don't have a society. They're about as smart as humans, but their apoliticism makes them weak. Being the most political animal is literally the main thing that separates humans from other animals. Not even ants are as political as humans.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip · 37 pts · 2d
I move to call this a Sheeran. You're pulling a Sheeran right now
danc4498@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
Oh, that's what this was getting at. For me, "I don't do politics" is cause I live in the south and really don't want to hear the other person's opinion.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 2d
I don't think it was actually getting at that specific interaction, that was just one of them that recently went very badly for the billionaire ball coddler.
I think it's looking more broadly at how many of those in privileged positions, including everyday citizens in a country like America, will simply say they aren't political because they are individualistic, unaffected, and lack empathy. Many "enlightened centrists" pull this schtick because then they don't have to stand on any principles and "broaden their appeal." When in reality, just like a corporation, they couldn't care less and only seek their own personal enrichment.
A lot of times, they actually are very political when it benefits them.
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzeOBPeb3w
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 2d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykHmAGQ1Z_0
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2d
I don't think those who "don't do politics" are privileged. Many simply easily feel depressed hearing of bad news and literally tune out of the constant news cycle. But as others have pointed out, regardless of the reason for not doing politics, politics eventually do them. Plato once said that not being engaged in politics is letting inferiors rule over them. And oh boy, the world is experiencing first hand being ruled over by manbabies.
Edit: it was Plato not Socrates who made the statement
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 2d
Some people also just get scared at arguing even if its friendly, because it reminds them of their parents and brings up trauma.
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 2d
I didn't do politics when I was a younger man. It wasn't depressing or anything. It just didn't exist in my world. I didn't watch TV, listen to the radio. I did the things which I enjoyed and politics was a million miles from that. That did change within a few years though once I caught on.
And that is why I didn't vote at the time. I didn't feel "qualified" to vote because I had no idea about any of it. And that is what worries me the most in present time. People who vote without any idea what they're voting for, or worse, people who are voting on a very narrow topic and nothing else. "Stop the boats" comes to mind.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 2d
bush era is many of still in k-12 became aware of politics, if bush hadnt gone to war all over, i think people would still be voting for the same milquetoast candidates without much outrage.
keyez@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
It is rooted in a form of privilege though to be able to just tune it out because it's depressing
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 26 pts · 2d
I think everyone does politics. However, many people just don't have an opinion on something because they don't know enough and don't have the mental capacity to
Life is hard enough for many people as it is.
Joelk111@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
Everyone does do politics, and everyone is affected by them, even if they don't realize they're being negatively or positively affected. My mind goes to bicycle infrastructure when I think about this. Everyone can cycle, and it has physical benifits for your health, which people of any class can appreciate. Additionally, even if you don't want to ride a bike or use public transit, you'll appreciate the roads being clearer, and populated with only those that want to drive. The funding for these things is political, and everyone benifits from them, even those too dumb to realize it.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 2d
Yes, but that is in my immediate community. I don't give a shit about a bike lane in seattle. I don't give a shit about a highway in australia. And the topics are so irrelevant to my daily life that it's just not worth thinking about it.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
At the same time it can be effective to say "hey this is working out over there". That's why I as an American care about Dutch traffic design. And from there bike lanes in Seattle are a way to say "hey, it's not something that only works in the Netherlands and Denmark, it also works in a hilly American city".
I totally get why most wouldn't care about bike lanes across the world, but I figured I'd point out why I care about such things.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
I mean, a lot of the topics right now in the US are really easy to understand.
We're not discussing socioecomic strategy, we're talking about concentration camps, war mongering, human trafficking children, murdering civilians, etc.
And it's truly unbelievable how much work that "etc." is doing...
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 21h
Not everyone lives in the US.
The problem here is that that is your view. I'm german, I don't know anything what's going on over there. The only thing I can do is rely on the reports of people and news, and those are conflicting as fuck. As an example, there was this case where the woman was shot by an ICE officer in her car, it was earlier this year if I remember right. Checking the fediverse, I saw a lot of people that she was just gunned down for walking away or making a rude gesture toward the officer, but checking other news sources I read that she attempted to run over the officers and was shot to prevent her from killing someone. And that puts me in a tough spot. I can't say that either side is right because the information is conflicting and in current america, both options seem genuinely reasonable as sad as that is. But is that situation important enough for me in germany to actually spend hours researching dozens of different news sources that talk about it so I can have an educated opinion? In my opinion, no.
So when I talk about these kind of things with people who I know have a strong opinion on it, I also usually just say "I don't do politics" even tho I absolutely do - but the topic we're trying to talk about is a topic I cannot have an informed opinion about and the person I'm talking to is most likely just going to be crazy mad for not having his opinion.
And you can bet your ass this comment is getting downvoted exactly because of that - people are mad I don't have their opinion. Not even the opposing opinion, but simply not theirs.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social · 19 pts · 2d
In my experience, privilege is rarely a factor. In fact, the most privileged people seem to be the most involved in politics because that maintains the status quo in their favor.
People who aren't interested in politics usually say they're too occupied with struggling to exist to read about different tax structures, the pros and cons of different immigration policies, or deciphering a local politician's rhetoric. When faced with an immediate problem, such as a hungry child, and a more distant problem, like an unfavorable tax plan, most people will choose to prioritize the more immediate problem.
Yes, politics is the reason why they struggle. But can you really blame someone for placing a priority on day-to-day existence?
Aralakh@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 2d
Well said, I think you've hit the nail on the head in between the lines. This has been my take as well, and personal experience.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 4 pts · 2d
Going to work to feed your hungry kids is political.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Yeah people here seem to mistaking apolitical with not wanting to discuss politics. Someone who is apolitical doesn't hold a stance on whether raping a baby should be legal or illegal. Someone who doesn't want to discuss what age ranges should or shouldn't be legally allowed is different.
Should slavery be illegal?
Apolitical - doesn't have a stance
Doesn't want to discuss - has stance, doesn't want to talk about it
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 2 pts · 2d
I can and I absolutely will.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · -2 pts · 2d
Exactly.
crayons_to_chaos@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2d
FinishingDutch@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
Sometimes it’s just not worth arguing with people. Certainly not if it’s the fifth time that week or something. That shit gets exhausting.
Also, you’re allowed to simply not give a ahit on some things. We’ve all got our own shit do deal with without needing to form an informed opinion on every other thing that might be happening somewhwre in the world.
LordKitsuna@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Yeah, when I say I don't do politics, it's not because I don't care about the problems or they don't affect me, it's because I'm tired of talking about it, I have enough other shit in my life that's stressing me out and it's not going to do anything anyway.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
Thank you and well put. Politics can cause disagreements or arguements so I try and avoid all together
Tiger_Man_@szmer.info · 16 pts · 1d
"i dont do politcs" people when politics do them:
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Right wing chuds, when the "ban pornography to protect the children" act bans their hentai, and not just trans people from public life (trans people are bad, because they got tricked by them (read: got "gay bamboozled" on 4chan with femboy hentai)):
The_Blinding_Eyes@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
If I tell you "I don't do politics" it means I don't want to argue about this shit right now.
BigBoyShuanzee@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 2d
I'm a white male with depression and a long standing medical issue that has consumed my life (Water on the brain.. I have had so many surgeries and stays in hospital)
I still say fuck Israel, Fuck everyone that loves Israel!
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 1d
Ironically at this point the circle of people that are affected is so big, that to be apolitical you are either a moron or at least a multimillionaire.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
A good deal of people have responsibilities that are much more important than politics; while you're reading HuffPo they may be, for example, cleaning an elderly parent who just vomited... everywhere.
People's days can be very full, barely able to drag themselves into bed, even nodding out at the dinner table.
Morons? If you're very fortunate, you'll never learn how oblivious you are. Good luck.
scratchee@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 1d
You’re not wrong, but that was a little harsh.
Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Circles back to the moron point. Not doing anything to try and make better is on you if you stick your head in the ground.
My marriage is falling apart. I'll focus on work. That will fix it.
TechieDamien@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 2d
Either that or worked to the bone and left with no energy to organise.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 13 pts · 2d
If more people that were privileged and weren't affected by things just shut the fuck up about them we'd be a lot better off. Like there's no reason most of us should give a shit about gay marriage or what transgender people are doing. We're not getting gay married or transitioning, we should mind our own business and leave commenting to the experts for whatever legislation is necessary. Instead we have all these conservative mfers throwing tantrums about all these issues and we all have to get involved to counter them just so people can go about their lives the way they want.
DigDoug@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
It could also be "If I told you my actual politics, you'd realise what a vile person I am and leave".
deeprlyeh@lemmus.org · 5 pts · 2d
This is my experience. Also their talking points are easily dismantled with simple questions. So they wont even talk about outside of their echo chambers.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl · 12 pts · 2d
Is valid to distance yourself from politics when it gets too depressing IMO.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 2d
That's the utility of revolutionary optimism. You have to truly believe a better world is possible in order to actively work towards that, and this can become an anchor to ground yourself when news looks bleak.
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
It's depressing because too many people have distanced themselves. You were given the gift of self governance and you have a sacred duty to your fellow citizens to engage with democracy to ensure everyone's rights are protected. Nobody cares if you post political memes, but if you don't show up to vote once every two years to keep fascists out of power? That's unacceptable.
Bieren@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 1d
That. And we also live in a time when literally anything can be made political. Don’t like a movie…political. Don’t like American cheese…political. Believe trump is a rapist, convicted felon and pedophile….political. It’s just nonstop.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
2 of the 3 of those examples are opinion, while one is a fact with supporting evidence.
Bieren@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16h
Correct. I know. But this day and age any opinion on anything can be made political. It just doesn’t matter anymore. Anyone will find any reason to make something political. Maybe it’s the actor or actress nationality or race or sex. Maybe you don’t like American cheese cause you don’t love America. Anything can be spun hard enough.
dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
Man the same post on reddit is wild, people wanting to implement auto bans for people who are apolitical like somehow that will help.
francois@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
Oh i don't really do reddit
I'm privileged enough to use Lemmy so why should i care ?
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Reddit is a perfect example of the results of heavy-handed, politically motivated moderation.
No matter what happens, they are always flabbergasted and oblivious, cursed to never comprehend the big bad world around them.
How many tens of thousands of people did they ban for daring to suspect a lab leak for COVID?
Meanwhile, it was a lab leak. Good job, morons.
dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Man it was really funny last US election cycle with every redditor declaring that Kamala Harris won the election only for the result to be the complete opposite.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
Liberals have really been going full mask off the last ten years. I appreciate the honesty.
Stefan_S_from_H@piefed.zip · 11 pts · 2d
Many Russians are apolitical, too. Not because politics doesn't affect them. It's because saying the wrong thing will affect them even more.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 2d
You mean like how in the UK a tweet will land you in jail?
Joelk111@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
You mean like how in the UK
a tweetattempting to incite violence and murder will land you in jail?Ftfy
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
You wear your ignorance with extraordinary pride
Why is that?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 1d
I'm starting to understand "I don't do politics." to often mean "I don't have the mental aptitude for political discourse and have spent a significant amount of my life becoming educated on other subjects or otherwise being unintellectual about most subjects." I feel it's a little more acceptable that way. Some people are just not that smart or have not invested much time in politics or current world affairs. It usually means, they feel inadequate discussing the subject with you.
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
They're terrified that if they think about it too much or learn too much about it that they will have their mind changed and be alienated by their family/friends/communities.
Some are just incredibly stupid, but I'd say most are just fucking cowards.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 1d
You're seeing fear and cowardice where there is none. Nobody is "scared" of learning about politics.
To make such an assumption is... odd.
So, why are you so afraid?
Leviathan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
I'm not afraid to learn about politics and challenging the ideals of the people around me, which is more than I can say for the magats who live in fear of daddy not loving them anymore when they tell him Trump is a moron.
You don't think these people are scared? I do. I think they're terrified. I'm not so sure why you're defending magats, though.
BlackPenguins@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Part of politics are like this. Like when you hear about people in white house doing terrible things. And you're like who is this guy? "Oh he's the secretary of defense." What's that mean? And soon it feels like if someone was trying to teach me about the people in Keeping up with the Kardashians. Or some other reality show.
But then other ones are like....We are cutting funding for poor people and welfare. And that should be cut and dry.
teslasaur@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Teeny weenie bit hyperbolic, dont you think? By that logic, politicians are the greatest geniuses that ever walked the earth. People don't bother with politics to avoid assholes that can't shut up about it.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
I never said that at all... I said literally nothing about politicians and I said nothing to suggest it's the most intelligent subject. You made that context up all on your own. I said that many people who don't talk politics don't for the exact same reason you might not talk about computers with someone who knows a lot about computers. You might also avoid conversation about gardening with someone who has kept gardens for years. It's not necessarily because of a lack of intelligence (though in some cases it is) but most likely just not the subject matter they have the most knowledge of. Not everyone can spend the time immersing themselves in all the subject matter you have and politics is just another subject.
dogdeanafternoon@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
To be fair it reads like you heavily correlate being political, to intellectual.
By that logic more political = more intelligent.
I understand you didn’t mean it that way, but it’s not hard to see why someone would assume that.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
I feel like that's a flawed understanding of what intelligence is. You can be smart regarding some things and braindead with others. Intelligence is not linear where all particular subject matter just comes with having high intellect.
dogdeanafternoon@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
I completely agree.
That’s why I disagree with your initial suggestion that someone who “doesn’t do politics” probably “doesn’t have the mental aptitude for it”.
venusaur@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
So glad all the time and effort everybody has been putting in to end the genocide in Gaza has finally paid off… and Trump was convicted, so glad he didn’t get a second term… and those Epstein files. Glad all those pedo’s are in jail or dead now.
Sometimes you just gotta take a break from it all. The average citizen doesn’t have much power in small numbers. If some movement is gonna get big enough to actually effect change, you won’t miss it.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
Yes and no. Take breaks when you want, of course. But sometimes you are there at the start of something, if you try.
sirico@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 1d
I'll engage to the point it just becomes a binary football team mentality. Me not engaging with you isn't me not engaging with politics because you're a performative moron and I have a life to get on with.
BananaLama@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
I'm a believer that regardless of topic people sit on a bell curve where most people don't really care
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
A few years ago I would have argued that something like pedophilia would have been something we could (mostly) all agree was bad, but republicans had to show me I was wrong.
theolodis@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1d
Pedophilia really isn't bad, just as being gay or being hetero isn't bad. You can't control who you're attracted to.
What is bad is raping children.
InputZero@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
I see what you're saying but you're not saying it well. You're distinguishing the difference between pedophilia the condition and pedophilia the act. That having the condition of being a pediphile is beyond a person's control, but that actions a person does from that condition is. A good example would be someone with rage issues. Being rageful just is while acting on that rage is wrong.
I get it, but you need to be more clear when discussing something so sensitive.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Wow, it's been YEARS since I've seen someone casually compare pedophilia to homosexuality.
I sorta get where you're coming from, but gay/straight people aren't by definition raping the people they're attracted to. But outside of the concept of pedophilia on paper (someone's brain wired wrong), pedophilia is bad, full stop.
I feel bad for those afflicted with it, and have sympathy for those who are able to not give in, but the disorder itself is bad. Just as sociopathy and psychopathy are bad, so is pedophilia.
At least we agree that raping kids is bad. Too bad we can't get republicans to agree as well.
ddplf@szmer.info · 5 pts · 1d
Calm down, you're being a manipulative dick by bringing that up, because the person you're citing never used that comparison to hurt homosexuals.
It's clear that what they're getting at is not that gay people ale pedos, but rather - people are born with random traits and no one ever chose to be attracted to males, females, or kids in this case.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
You know what's a 'manipulative dick'? The person that says a comparison is not a comparison, and insults others while they do so.
Also, you don't know what their motive is. Could be to hurt, could be to help, could be something in between. Assumptions are weak. Be better.
ddplf@szmer.info · 0 pts · 1d
Where exactly did I say that?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
L. O. L.
So your argument basically boils down to their intentions mattering more than the actual words they say. I guess people who make offhand homophobic, transphobic or racist comments aren't bad people if they don't mean for their words to hurt people, right? After all, that wasn't their ✨intention✨.
And you have the gall to say I'm being manipulative....
Right, which is why I said I have sympathy for those afflicted. But the disorder itself is bad, as I said.
But I guess you needed to but in and reword what I said so you could call me a dick. Oh well, I won't be interacting with your idiocy again.
ddplf@szmer.info · 1 pts · 1d
Why give so much effort replying only to cut it off with this finishing line? I could explain to you why I still think it's just a dick move to bring up that 10's homosexuals and pedophiles correlation antithesis in this completely unrelated context, but you're clearly only interested in your perspective.
redcyberdragon@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
“Pedophilia really isn't bad, just as being gay or being hetero isn't bad.”
The above sentence is not a comparison?
Bringing them up together at all is problematic. What’re you trying to prove here?
ddplf@szmer.info · 1 pts · 1d
Me? Nothing. What's YOUR point though, that's my question. YOU are getting mad that someone has put two words - homosexual and pedophile - in one sentence. Ignoring completely how they play together in that sentence.
But hold on...
Holy fuck you're right, that's putting homosexual people in such a bad light, claiming it's alright to be gay.
redcyberdragon@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1d
I’m out this is stupid. And yeah I’m definitely the mad one lol.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Pedophilia is bad. Bestiality is bad. Necrophilia is bad.
Stop making excuses for the most vile amongst us.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
... and Democrats! It's not as if Biden opened the Epstein files.
Epstein list is FULL of Democrats. He worked at Harvard... 99% Democrats... and so on. The list is full of Rs, too... but why are you only remembering them?
Is there a reason you give all of those Ds a "pass" and pretend that they don't exist? Curious.
Personally, I think it's disgusting. Shame on you.
redcyberdragon@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 1d
The reality is, it does affect you too. Just not as visibly or harmfully
zidanerick@lemmy.patton.id.au · 7 pts · 2d
Politics is complicated (well it used to be) and in the before trump times it was also very boring. Mostly politicians would oversee programs for civil benefits. Instead we are seeing enough money flowing into elections that could purchase small nations and the focus is on whatever the corporations find important.
Now don't get me wrong, I do think that neither party is doing right by the citizens, but one is for educating and protecting it's citizens and the other literally closed the department of education.
I'm in Australia and it's just as messy here but our Trump looks like Ronald McDonald in drag. We also had a couple of leaders recently that were temu and aliexpress Trump respectively.
We don't need a world "reset" we just need to all start agreeing that rules exist for reasons, and while we will never get it right it doesn't mean we stop trying.
balsoft@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2d
Western politicians would also bomb the shit out of brown people in other countries. Politics was never "boring", it just managed to present itself that way for the privileged citizens of the empire.
morto@piefed.social · 7 pts · 2d
Be careful. Here in Brazil, most middle-class people in the past didn't care about politics. When they started caring, we got a coup, bolsonaro, millions of deaths, dismantling of institutions and social programs, loss in sovereignty, cuts in financing to universities, support for a military regime and an attempted coup, and now in a couple weeks, the risk of bolsonaro jr becoming the president.
Some people are really better not doing politics...
OpenStars@discuss.online · 0 pts · 2d
Now tankies would like to see the same happen in the USA... bc somehow in their fantasies the only other political system besides fascism is pure and perfect communism.
Edit: either that or else I should take them at their word that "death to the USA" is not merely symbolic but rather literal. I dunno, when someone tells you who they are, should you believe them the first time or not?
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 2d
I love watching the mythology of "tankies" being built in real time
OpenStars@discuss.online · -1 pts · 1d
While the phrase "death to " is open to interpretation, believe it or not those that identify as (e.g. Redditors) might have an opinion as well.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
"The USA" isn't a group, it's an entity. "Americans" are the group.
But that's beside the point, I was pointing at the classic practice of saying "those people believe , those fools!"
slurped_kinkily@lemy.nl · 7 pts · 1d
Not really accurate seeing as voting rates among the poor and uneducated are substantially lower, even though they are the ones most often impacted negatively.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 2d
Many people are affected by it but don't have the time to be invested, or patience to discuss it with you.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
So that response would be I don't like talking about politics or I dont have the time to get into it would it not?
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 2d
If people were good at communicating then a lot less marriages would end in divorce.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Now you have me wondering how many unhappy marriages might talk themself into a decent divorce. My brain always looking for the contrary. I sure as hell could never marry me, lol
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
That would still seem like a method of "doing politics." Satisfaction with the status quo -> do nothing to change the status quo and accept the repercussions for doing nothing. When you're a public figure, people look to you for leadership, whether you want them to or not. That's one of the costs of fame.
deacon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
The moral cowardice I hid from myself for decades of centrism:
You can only be apolitical in a political system that was built for people like you.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
If there were more two viable political parties, there would be a higher chance these people would find representation that they clearly lack.
Kalothar@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 1d
What do you guys think the best approach is when the apolitical person in question is a person of color, and the political one is the white fella?
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
The best approach is always the same.
Be honest and kind, use logic and facts instead of propaganda and slogans, and realize that a lot of people don't agree with you. Treat them with basic respect and civility regardless.
For example, if you're a Democrat, proceed with the knowledge that only 30% of your fellow voters are Democrats. Another 30% are Republicans, and remaining 40% are Independents.
We all agree on some points and disagree on others; insulting 70% of the people around you isn't going to do anything for you or your political objectives.
To treat a "person of color" differently is racist, in my opinion. They're not special.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website · 1 pts · 1d
We can try to amplify the voices of the underrepresented.
Sometimes that might mean sitting with "let's all take 5".
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 2d
every conservative ever, and the politically ignorant. and about ed sheeran no doubt?
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
I hate politics. I hate talking about politics. I would love to live a life where I just ignore politics and be apolitical, but then politics comes along and gets in the way of literally everything.
What's even worse is when the politics of a whole other country on the other side of the bloody planet comes and fucks up the local politics right over here where I live.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · -8 pts · 2d
Yeah, and I want to be rich. Grow up you whiny baby.
Tattorack@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
I want to live in a world where "being rich" doesn't exist.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
Based
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 2d
I’m Your Friend Who Just Doesn’t “Do Politics”
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 2d
"I'm alright Jack"
Smoogs@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I do politics around the right people. It feels less like politics and just checking in on each other. I thought that was supposed to be what it feels like.. when it starts feeling like pleading for my life for someone else's minor discomfort... that. That is the politics I won't engage on as if it were ever debatable. It's predatory and that's not politics. It's abuse.
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
This used to be me before I watched DeanWithers on TikTok's debates. I was apolitical. Now, it is starting to affect me so now I really care.
solidheron@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2d
I'd just say politics is a good hobby
Napster153@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20h
To be apolitical in a democracy is an oxymoron and, at worst, a sign of willfull, deliberate ignorance.
A system intended for citizen participation in governance must have a politically conscious citizenry.
There's people who are uneducated on the matter, and people who are educated, but choose ignorance. The latter is one of the worst forms of cruelty.
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
This is a stupid take nonetheless because of escalating climate change especially.
jdoexbox360@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Oregano?
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20h
So why should I care?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You're just entitled.
Shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody agrees with you and your ideas are stupid. Never talk to me about politics again.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
Uhhh... what?
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2d
Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid? The answer will reveal the solution to this issue.
Unironically though, saying you don't do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege OP is talking about. Choosing to avoid politics to save yourself mild discomfort can have life-threatening effects on others. Saying you don't want to discuss it is fine, but if that causes you to become uninformed it's probably not wise for your effect on societal health.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Views differ. All I know for certain is that if two people have divergent views, the best thing for them to do is to grow increasingly angry and disparaging towards one another until one finally concedes the other is correct and admits everything they'd believed up to that moment is wrong.
Which is why the people with the most social privilege are always the most soft-spoken, while the people with the least privilege are the loudest and most agitating, right?
I remember driving through Vidor, TX with a friend and him turning to me saying "Just don't get us pulled over, because I'm not going to make it back if we do". That coward was attempting to avoid conflict with a notoriously racist local police force. I, of course, did donuts in the Vidor PD parking lot. Because I believed it was my duty to provoke a conflict in order to prove that I was sincere in my liberal beliefs.
Literally what's happening in OP's comic.
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 2d
I don't think they realized you were pointing out hypocrisy using sarcasm.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I did think it was odd, usually I agree with weevil
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah it also took me a minute to realize what was going on.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
"I don't do politics" could mean a lot of things. It usually means they don't discuss it, but it also often means they don't participate or know much about it.
I'm not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics in situations that vould get you hurt. Almost the opposite, actually-- I'm saying that when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can't easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Which is where the critique falls apart.
It doesn't have to rise to the level of existential threat. Plenty of people don't feel comfortable voicing outside views in front of what could easily be a hostile audience.
What's cowardly is presenting the "I don't have a politics" person as nebulously white and atheist and male, while the counterpart is explicitly brown and muslim and a woman. The bitter truth is that it's far more often the opposite. Women and religious/ethnic minorities are the ones who are perpetually under pressure to "hide their power level" so to speak. Either because they really do fear some kind of physical or social reprisal. Or because they just don't want to have a screaming match with a MAGA shithead at a BBQ they didn't want to be at to begin with.
It's the Entitled Asshole who feels the need to vomit political views into every discussion and "have a debate" on every issue.
Who the fuck says they're not? Do you think it's your job to audit someone else's life, to see if they're doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you've set for sufficient political engagement? It's none of your fucking business.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I don't really think that makes the critique fall apart, it's just referring to a different situation than you are thinking of.
Someone who is in a vulnerable position* has the right not to discuss politics with strangers. I don't think discomfort (as opposed to real danger) is a great reason, but fine, whatever. They should still understand it and vote accordingly, but refusing to discuss it is sometimes necessary.
Someone who is in a position of social power* and refuses to use it to help others by addressing other people's real issues is complicit in whatever system they continue to accept and often vote for. Again, the primary duty here is understanding and voting: refusal to learn about how politics is important and in what ways it affects people, and vote accordingly, is morally wrong. It may still be necessary not to talk about it sometimes, but when and where you have the power to do so, choosing not to speak allows an unjust system to exist uncontested.
*with the understanding that this changes based on context
If the OP is read as an overall refusal to engage politically rather than about discussions specifically, which seems to be their point, then the OP does? And I would agree. Plenty of people use their social power to help others, but those who refuse to engage politically are much less likely to do so, and this harm deserves to be understood and avoided.
Uh, no, it's everyone's business. Politics sets the rules by which society is allowed to operate. It's the most invasive, everyone's-business topic there is. The only bar there is, is "care a little bit about other people". Yes, I will make it other people's problem if they refuse to do that-- I would consider that the "bare minimum" (I hate using that term, it's misused so often) to participate in society.
altphoto@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1d
The top orangutan has been accused of murdering babies and pregnant teens that he raped. So I would assume most of us Americans are unaffected since nobody is even investigating anything like that. Oh they investigated Cesar Chavez and there was much reason to do so and the biggest accuser was also part of the movement. But not the uber-rich. No siry Bob.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
That's kind of an awful thing to say about your partner.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
Politics affects everyone personally. And there are better ways of dealing with it than doing it yourself.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
abc@suppo.fi · 1 pts · 2d
Ontimp@feddit.org · 0 pts · 2d
Ironically, this is actually a very entitled position to take. There are many justifiable reasons to be apolitical - first and foremost what this cartoon seems to criticize: The issue does not affect you and you have better things to do. You might still have basic empathy, but you would rather spend your limited time on earth with your kids, in your garden, reading, watching TV, etc. instead of fruitlessly thinking about all the injustices of the world. Usually, the people who judge others for not making a war, famine or garbage dump at the other end of the planet their main focus on life are those privileged enough to live life without major problems of their own. Whoever has that privilege, I'm happy for you. Just show some humility before judging others for being apolitical.
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 2d
The point is some minorities don't have the option to avoid politics at all. Your perspective is from the privilege of someone who has yet to be directly affected by them. What you fail to understand is that there are politics that directly affect people and are their major problem - this isn't them having the "privilege" to get involved in politics as a hobby.
There are people at the same end of the planet where that war, famine, or shit are happening, and they don't have a choice because it directly affects them. Even in the US, ask anyone getting hunted around by ICE because of where they work and how they look. I think the comic is very clear about whom it refers to, and it is not the boogeyman you think it is who pick politics as a hobby (the hijab is a clue).
Ontimp@feddit.org · 1 pts · 2d
I agree that this was the message of the cartoon and that's a valid concern that some people do not have the privilege of being apolitical.
My comment was made in reaction to some other comments in this thread which seems to take the generalized and very cynical position that anyone without a politicized outlook on life should be considered, to paraphrase, stupid, a bad person or not worth knowing. And I don't agree with that.
Saledovil@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
Oh, look, it's the person the cartoon criticizes.
Ontimp@feddit.org · 0 pts · 2d
I don't think so. I'm privately a very political person; I work in public policy.
I just know enough people from different walks of life with different degrees of interest or capacity for politics.
Some examples:
A friend; she was raised by parents who themselves were socialized in a former Sowjet state and hence never talked about politics at home. To this day, discussing politics with others feels uncomfortable to her. She has opinions, but frequently cannot properly verbalize them.
My grandmother; she is old, depressed and in pain. She does not want to know how bad the world is because she feels powerless when she is exposed to the news etc. She is protecting herself by not thinking about politics.
My uncle; spends basically all the time that is not used up on work caring for my grandparents. He literally does not have any time or mental bandwidth to think about politics.
A friend; he is from a rather poor family background and his main priority in life is building a good life for his children. He cares about certain political issues that affect this plan, but "wasting time" on the big picture does not contribute to increasing his own family wealth.
Etc.
Most average humans have other things to think about. They might be mobilized to protest when shit hits the fan - but the people who actually make activism and politics their main concern and think about political issues all the time are a comparatively tiny group, even in functioning democracies.
crayons_to_chaos@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
"Please show empathy to those who don't extend it themselves."
Get the fuck outta here.
Ontimp@feddit.org · 0 pts · 2d
I don't understand your comment. Who were you quoting there?
crayons_to_chaos@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
redkid1324@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
😭😭😭😭😭
weps@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
he's got a day time job he's doing alright
OwOarchist@pawb.social · -1 pts · 2d
This has some good meme template potential...
razen@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
It is not worth it, cause more or less nothing will change
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
"I don't do politics" for me translates to "Shut up you rightwing asswipe, your inane bitching about irrelevant culture war nonsense bores me." Or it otherwise means I can't get a good vibe on you so I'm gonna just bullshit.
Delphia@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
"I dont do politics" to me is "I'm somewhere that calling you a racist bigoted cunt might get me fired"
I actually called HR on someone who continually tried to drag me into political discussions. I had to explain to them that I deliberately dont interact with him on that subject for very good reasons and either he gets a warning letter OR I want it in writing that I cant be held responsible for what words I use if dragged into one of those conversations again.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
Also that that's also a common subtext. Though I do know why it happens, I'm a pretty stereotypical Redneck by appearance and by accent so for some reason assholes think I'm like them. The only thing we have in common is violence and some cultural ancestors which is not a good thing for them.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 2d
Agreed.
You know who also wasn't political?
Fucking Dolly Parton.
Some people don't make politics the whole of their identity and that's smart right now.
PokerChips@programming.dev · 14 pts · 2d
Dolly was political. She was very political. But she was slick with it.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 2d
Sure Jan.
Gaslov@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
You don't do politics either. You just roleplay like your opinion has any impact and in reality you're just annoying.
zwiebelkaramell@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
Sometimes; when you hear somebodies political take, you can instantly tell they fall in one of the two extremely simplistic, easily marketable positions. When this happens, the easiest thing to do is politely decline to discuss politics with them, because you know they lack the nesessary context to understand your well thought out, nuanced position.
If you never encounter this problem, I suspect you may be in one of these two camps, and would strongly encourage you to think about your politics in detail. Do you know why you believe what you do?
morto@piefed.social · 1 pts · 2d
Ok, but in a practical scenario, elections are happening and we only got 2 candidates for the main role, each from one of those two extremely simplistic, easily marketable positions. What will you do?
zwiebelkaramell@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I'm assuming "I don't do politics" in this scenario is abstaining from debate, not abstaining from voting at all. Of course you go with the side that aligns best with your beliefs.
My point is, if you're talking to someone, and all they're doing is waiting to see which shibboleths you spit out to decide if they hate you or love you, then you aren't going to get any meaningful discussion out of them.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Work at the state level to replace First-past-the-post voting with a voting system that let's people transfer their vote if their first preference doesn't win.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 2d
Convenient is, to group all "i don't care for politics" in the "privileged" bubble.
DudleyMason@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
True. Naive, ignorant, and evil are all also possibilities.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 2d
When did politics make it better for the poor? We still seem to have alot of poor people.
If the solution was politics, wouldn't the problem be solved?
Saledovil@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 2d
A lot of progress has been made, e.g. the abolishing of child labor. There's this weird thing of taking whatever we have now as a baseline, thus ignoring all historical achievements.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
Comparing our information age society to feudalism is not the win you expected.
Saledovil@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
What do you mean by that?
Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 2d
"Do politics" in this case refers to talking about anything that can be perceived as political.
Obviously people need to be willing to talk about issues before we can fix them, instead of everyone with privilege choosing to ignore it until they personally are affected.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 2d
I think we live in a world where money decides everything, and it's very rare that we don't have solutions to our problems.
Its just not profitable.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2d
We don't have a system that optimizes for quality of life or satisfaction for the many.
Money "solves" things in favor of money, not in favor of people, which is why houses are so fucking expensive right now - young adults see most of their income taken away to pay for housing so they even have fewer children, whilst those who already have the most money make even more money with their realestate investments.
It's also the reason for enshittification - the competition of free market capitalism definitelly optimizes the system ... for making more money for those who own the companies and investments, not for higher quality or cheaper products: if a market is bound by high barriers to entry (say, memory or water supply), you get cartels and even monopolies and those won't don't need to make better products at a cheaper price to compete, so instead they try and extract as much money from costumers as possible with the cheapest possible production costs.
Capitalism only ever improves things for anything else than capital as a side effect of improvings things for capital: companies pay betters salaries only ever when otherwise they would not have the workers that create the wealth that investors capture, they make better and cheaper products only ever when otherwise they would be making less money by selling inferior and more expensive products and services. Unsurprisingly, were a market's structure herds customers and/or keeps away competition - marketing shapes consumer choices much more than quality or price, networking effects pull people to a handful of providers, physical constrainst make it harder or even impossible for competition to enter the market - it invariably ends up expensive and enshittified.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 2d
I asked chat gpt what system it think would produce a system where most people are happy and it suggested the same system as in nordic countries:
If the objective is high average living standards while keeping poverty, insecurity and extreme concentrations of power relatively low, one model worth looking at closely is the social-democratic mixed economy used, in different forms, in the Nordic countries.
It is still a market economy: people can own companies, become wealthy, invest, compete and make profits. But the market is constrained by institutions designed to spread the gains more broadly:
private enterprise and competitive markets for most goods and services
strong unions and collective bargaining, so workers have negotiating power rather than relying entirely on employers
universal healthcare, education, pensions and social insurance
relatively progressive taxation and substantial redistribution
unemployment protection and retraining, so losing a job is less catastrophic
regulation of monopolies, workplace conditions and environmental damage
publicly provided infrastructure and services
usually some combination of public, cooperative and private ownership rather than insisting everything must be privately owned
There is empirical support for several of those mechanisms. OECD research finds that taxes and transfers substantially reduce market-income inequality, although the effect differs considerably between countries.
research finds that greater collective-bargaining coverage is associated with smaller wage disparities, and that labour-market institutions can counteract some of the inequality created by concentrated employer power.
Nordic tax-and-benefit systems have historically produced comparatively low poverty and inequality after taxes and transfers, together with high employment.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
The Nordic countries are declining like the rest of the capitalist world, and like other western countries rely on imperialism to begin with.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 2d
If I wanted word salad from a statistical parrot I would ask for it myself.
Thanks for actually proving the lack of intellect I suspected from your previous post having such a simpleton take on Economics.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 2d
Ok :)
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Its so nice when people label their comment as AI in the first sentence. I appreciate you saving me the time it takes to read it.
Thank you. Sincerely, no sarcasm.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1d
Should be a Lemmy tag for comments from AI so people can just skip those maybe. :)
scratchee@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 2d
I mean, the definition of “poor people” has shifted somewhat over time. I don’t think there will ever not be poor people, but is nice that poor people often have access to healthcare etc these days… at least in any country that has sane politics
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Here where we don't have sane politics, it's not the availability of medical care that is the problem, it is the cost.
Also most practitioners do not want to deal with anything that is out of the ordinary.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Is this a serious question? Because there's a shit ton of examples.
You don't have to be a fan of China to acknowledge that their government lifted hundreds of millions (nearly 1 billion by some reports) of people out of extreme poverty in the last 40 or so years.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience
mrmanager@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 1d
That's true. China is impressive!
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
Social struggle is political struggle. The civil rights movement was a political struggle. Socialist revolutions were political struggles. When people say politics matters, we aren't saying that the capitalist state can be bent to help working people. We are stating that it is through social engagement that real victories are won.
mrmanager@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 2d
I agree with that, and we see that in history very clearly too.
crayons_to_chaos@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 12h
mattc@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 2d
Ironically, too much progressivism is accelerating the western world back to the dark ages fast.
Also, regarding the worst genocide since WWII: An estimated 70 to 85 million people died worldwide during World War II, while cumulative legal abortions in major Western countries (such as roughly 60–64 million in the U.S. since 1973 and over 10 million in the UK since 1967) total tens of millions, though a single comprehensive aggregate total for all of Western countries combined is not centrally tracked. Also more black people get aborted than anyone else.
Fuck Israel, Palestine & anyone else who kills innocents.
I'm not political btw. 🖕🏽
MrShankles@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 2d
Uhhh....
......huh, nvm. Not worth my time
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
Fortunately my time is worthless. Got your back brother.
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
You definitely are political
And stupid
Very stupid
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 1d
You are the domestic abuser yelling "look what you made me do" while throwing haymakers at a unconscious person.
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 1d
Only low iq think of politics all day
ddplf@szmer.info · 11 pts · 1d
only low iq use iq scale to measure one's intelligence
danielfm123@lemmy.zip · -12 pts · 1d
That what low IQ people say, because you need to be smart to appreciate intelligence.
Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
Referring to someone as "low iq" sounds exactly the same way it sounds when someone refers to a woman as "a female"
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Only 'low iq' people make ridiculous claims without merit.
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
irony
danielfm123@lemmy.zip · -8 pts · 1d
Or people so useless that the best they can do to improve their life is by policies
latetolemmy@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 1d
People without an iota of though in mind. They come to this world useless and die like a fart contributing nothing
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
If you disappeared tomorrow, no one would even notice.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1d
I'm 14 and this is deep
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 2d
"I spend a lot of time fighting cancer, but thanks for reminding me that I should also invest time in politics to stop Islamic immigration. Oh, wait, you don't agree with me? Oh dear."
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 23 pts · 2d
I hope you have good health insurance because that's politics too
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
The irony of this comic is that it's usually the Generic White Guy with opinions written on his sleeve and the Brown Woman with the Foreign Religion who needs to walk on eggshells and keep her politics close to the chest.
village604@adultswim.fan · 4 pts · 2d
Honestly, politics getting shoehorned into literally every discussion is exhausting; it's not the message that's the problem.
Yeah, politics affects everything, but it doesn't always have to be the focus of the conversation. I think people here forget that not everyone is terminally online like we tend to be.
Not everyone has the capacity to remain constantly outraged. For some of us, it's literally detrimental to our mental health.
seblin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You know you can have opinions about things, and thinking they're bad, without being outraged, right? Like, I think (idk about what you'd think) that dog poop smells bad. That is my opinion, and it's consistent no matter where I am or what I'm doing. I don't feel strongly when dog poop is mentioned. I still decline when someone offers me a bag of dog poop. If someone talks about a big poop their dog did, I don't feel big emotions, I just know that I don't like it. The same is with politics. Like I believe that all people should have access to free healthcare. Am I seething with rage constantly over the state of US healthcare? No. Am I upset whenever someone discusses which health insurance company they should go with? Also no, it's them doing their thing trying to survive. But if someone's saying "oh we should replace the national health system in countries X, Y, and Z with a private system like the US", I'd potentially even comment on it, but still not have a burning flame of outrage inside.
Do you get my point? You can have knowledge, opinions, and reactions to things without being constantly full of a certain emotion or another.