I've seen people get upset about discussing what's happening in Gaza and trying to dismiss it by saying 'no politics'; if America was at war (I mean an actual war, not a beatdown of a country that can't fight back) and we had enemy troops occupying our country and slaughtering a ton of people, would we really consider discussing it a taboo and as just 'politics'?
If a black person in my old neighborhood got gunned down by the police, am I not supposed to get upset because black people being murdered by pigs is just politics? (I mean I ask but people would probably classify it as being similar to BLM and they consider BLM to just be 'politics')
MLK hit that right note with his letter from Birmingham jail (I'm posting a large portion because it's all amazing, but the part I recall most starkly and keep quoting time and again because of its importance and universal relevance I've gone ahead and bolded):
"...You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
…We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
…I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
that term, "political" as used by the typical ignorant American / resident of the hegemon is a catchall bucket to help them compartmentalize and file away the contradictions, injustice, cruelty, and power imbalances that they don't want to confront.
maybe they have been discouraged, "talking politics leads to trouble" etc. bosses and bar owners tend to discourage talk of "politics" because it can interfere with profits. people internalize this. and think about how much popular media purports to be apolitical, but really maintains an active slant towards preservation of the existing order while framing anything left of center as "political activism", making those characters annoying and distasteful. audiences internalize that too. who wants to be the annoying blowhard nobody likes! better to be the agreeable one who has no strong opinions and has lots of friends.
and of course there are plenty of people who avoid the topic because it makes the treats of empire taste bitter.
I still recall after some of the torture the troops were committing in (Afghanistan? Iraq?) came out, a fox news host saying they didn't want to know, that they wanted to continue believing their troops are awesome, angry that they're being informed. Liberals are honestly no different; they want plausible deniability no matter how tenuous the plausibility is, and even if they have to imagine the plausibility, and they ignore how disgusting it is that people who inform them of these atrocities are portrayed in such a ridiculous way in the media we consume (the way wikileaks was portrayed in South Park was literally what made me stop watching, especially as at the time they were uncovering war crimes by our troops).
They really mean, "I want to avoid that topic" and are looking for an excuse. The inconsistent and absurd rules by which Americans consider something political or not tends to be biased towards liberal positions.
You know what's
sadfrustrating? Their struggle to avoid talking on any of these matters, or worse to oppose any leftist movement, will drop the moment Dem politicians change their stance; the same people begging BLM activists to stop and go home will then cheer and pretend they were supporters of BLM all along any time any Dem politicianactually strivesis forced to make changes based on the demands of the movement. They'll gladly take credit for any change in policy towards Israel while spending this whole time trying to get people to stop talking about it.Yes, they are naive partisans that mostly just fall lockstep into whatever media narratives tell them. Their main goal is to maintain an allegiance to a team and feel like a good person, not seriously engage with political questions, let alone comment political struggle.
This is how they are taught to behave and think by liberalism. To that extentbit is not entirely their fault. They are just following hegemonic thought that is rarely questioned.
Does the guy wagging his finger know it’s insane to go out in a scarf covered in swastikas?
Assuming you are talking to democrat voters, it is because of the simple reason that it is deeply inconvenient.
Theirs is a party that has existed on the basis of being 'morally superior' to their counterpart, so it openly encouraging a genocide somewhat damages their ability to hold that position. So their simple stance is to not acknowledge it, and if forced to do so, insist that the opposition would be worse in some nebulous way, because 'they always are'; the lunacy of the implicit claim that a genocide is 'better' when a liberal government runs it is not acknowledged either.
As disgusting as some lib articles I've seen are, a small portion of me is at least grateful for their honesty when they ask their audience "why should we care?"
The writers still deserve to be thrown into the Nazi pit, but at least they're honest (although my standards still place honest Nazis in the pit).
One time in a bar while the news was on i recognized a talking heads and made a comment to my friend that it was awesome the news company hadn't gotten rid of an aging female anchor with chops in favor of a young thing as i had seen/heard was typical. The lady on my left was aghast, and said "that's sexist"
I couldn't think how to respond. If i had known her better maybe. Did she mishear me? The bar wasnt crowded... Was she upset at my mentioning the fact mysogyny exists? Was broaching the subject of mysogyny mysogynist? I still think about this sometimes and that happened over a decade ago.
I mean that's kind of an awkward statement, if you were like "wow it's really cool that nobody lynched Obama" it would also come off as weird, even if the sentiment is supportive of antiracism
Hmm, i guess you and miz might be right. It's an easy statement to misinterpret. I was genuinely surprised and delighted but people often think I'm being sarcastic when I'm not... Not to mention, what stranger would catch the context that i hadn't watched the news in a decade?
Thanks
if she didn't mishear you (which is honestly the most likely) she may have mistakenly thought you were being sarcastic
I mean that logic lines up perfectly with the people who have the mindset "racism wasn't a big deal in this country until Obama shoved it down our throats."
The logic is "what that person said is bad, i know sexism is supposed to bad, I don't agree with what that person said and I'm a good person so what that person said is bad and therefore sexist"
All their arguments make a lot more sense if you start to frame it as "I'm always right. Anything that challenges my worldview is wrong." And working backwards from there.
I think about this every day, in all seriousness I really do. It really uniquely shows how we have removed politics from what we would consider "the political". I don't know if it's just hyper-normalization or consent manufacturing, but there is some big brain leftie word to describe this exact feeling.
It genuinely feels like if you'd put it to a liberal just a few years ago that Democrats would entirely support a genocide if their favored foreign government was doing it that the lib in question would've denied it as preposterous, but of course when it happens their words afterwards while not directly saying they don't really care, does actually translate to that they don't actually care.
It genuinely feels like if you'd put it to a liberal just a few years ago that Democrats would entirely support a genocide if their favored foreign government was doing it that the lib in question would've denied it as preposterous, but of course when it happens their words afterwards while not directly saying they don't really care, does actually translate to that they don't actually care.
Exactly! Fuckin' exactly. Liberals today and even those of yesteryear (Iraq war liberals for example) love to use their fancy language and stuff to dance around the very clear message of "I don't care, the status quo is fine and whatever maintains it is worthwhile".
People are gonna try to give one liner dismissals of your inconvenient arguments. Ya a decent person would manage the discomfort, but these aren't decent people.
200 years ago being pro slavery was just politics.
100 years ago supporting segregation was just politics.
20 years ago transphobia and homophobia were just politics.
One side of politics is just maintaining the status quo, even if that status quo is fascism.
It's why "no politics" in the current day means that chuds can openly say we should round up and shoot gays and communists (they mean linerals) but if you call them a bigot you're bringing politics into it.
The status quo upholds power structures and the most you're allowed to do in "polite" society is bemoan that's the case without doing anything about it.
I had a canon event talking to my dad one time when I mentioned that a million Iraqis died in the wake of 9/11 and he hits me with a "yeah but". It really makes me wish that he and others would consider, if only for 10 minutes a year, that if the shoe was on the other foot you'd do a 180 degree face turn on wanton violence. So maybe when it turns into a talking point you'd shut the fuck up.
Honestly just think it's why communists should stop hiding their power level.
If they can hand wave away saying that a million dead Iraqi citizens isn't a big deal you shouldn't feel bad about casually saying you can't wait to line them up against a wall.
Honestly just think it's why communists should stop hiding their power level.
1000% agreed.
Communists seem to be the only people in America with anything resembling morals.
There are only two genders: male and political.
There are only two ethnicities: white and political.
Etc.
