Everything was always political. Laws, the economy, conflcit. How is any person not affected by these? The government is responsible for all or a large part of how a country functions.
People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict
One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics. They can trust that government action is relatively consistent over time, that laws will be enforced fairly enough, that their property will be protected to a reasonable degree, that the currency will be reasonably stable, that the roads will be maintained, that some public transport will be available, that sudden wars won't erupt around them, and so on.
That's what makes working democracies successful. But it seems that it also makes democracies vulnerable because people don't realize they have these benefits because they live in a working democracy. They start to think these benefits have nothing to do with politics and are just the way things are, like the laws of nature.
Interestingly, I believe that the reality is exactly the opposite: on the political regimes' spectrum of democratic -> authoritarian -> totalitarian only the middle one doesn't require people's participation. Both democracy and totalitarism need to be actively maintained by significant part of the population, otherwise they converge to the "natural" state of things - authoritarian order. None of the stuff you listed (fair laws, property rights, etc.) occur naturally once it has been set up at some point in past. That's why they talk about "checks and balances" all the time, and they are impossible without active participation.
I think the most significant distinction is exactly that:
Authoritarian - leaves people alone in general as long as they stay out of politics. Examples: 90% of regimes throughout human history. Almost all post-soviet countries, almost all of Middle East and Africa, Singapore, etc.
Totalitarian - forces people into actively participating in leader's political goals and penetrates the daily life. North Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy.
The distinction is fuzzy, but I think what is meant here is more directly political. In a totalitarian system, it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds. In the least totalitarian but authoritarian system, the state just wants apathy and obedience from its citizenry.
So it would be totalitarian leaning for a leader to make a speech (watching is mandatory btw) saying that buying foreign is anti-patriotic and generating social censure, in addition to the tariffs, for people seen with foreign goods.
>it is considered important for everyone to know and openly and regularly support state ideology with words and deeds.
People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced.
As for the remainder, I do see the forced part but I'm not sure of how meaningful that is. If I don't agree with Trump but I'm forced to watch his speeches what does this do?
As for supporting state ideology, while not forced, there are hats, bumper stickers, flags to identify yourself
Imagine Trump forced everyone to wear his MAGA hat. What effect does it have? I don't think being forced to do this and that has much value
> People literally do this on social media and they aren't even being forced.
I think applying the authoritarian-totalitarian distinction in a democracy gets weird because democracies like totalitarian systems but unlike the archetypal authoritarian system expect the average person to engage in politics. So it's not a straight spectrum from democracy to totalitarian with autocracy in the middle.
And if someone forces everyone to wear their symbols, then it becomes obvious who the open dissenters are, and it becomes hard to tell who is neutral, who is enthusiastic, and who is silently dissenting, everyone looks like a supporter and people may start becoming more supporting simply because of apparent social consensus.
Anyway, here's what Wikipedia has to say. Maybe it clears up
> In exercising the power of government upon society, the application of an official dominant ideology differentiates the worldview of the totalitarian régime from the worldview of the authoritarian régime, which is "only concerned with political power, and, as long as [government power] is not contested, [the authoritarian government] gives society a certain degree of liberty."[6] Having no ideology to propagate, the politically secular authoritarian government "does not attempt to change the world and human nature",[6] whereas the "totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens",[5] by way of an official "totalist ideology, a [political] party reinforced by a secret police, and monopolistic control of industrial mass society."[6]
Well, a bit. A part of liberal democracy is that elections don't matter that much. The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. The established system like the courts, constitutions separation of powers and other anti-majoritarian things will prevent most extreme measures. And in at least some political systems, it is expect that no matter what some minimally competent people will win and govern not that differently from what the election loser was going to do.
And remember voting is not mandatory and a lot of people don't vote. Those people are ultimately letting others decide, and a lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.
>The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc.
Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc.
I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you?
>lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.
Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip
You had asked "how can you not care about poltiics?" which implies there's some force driving people to care about the outcome. Similarly "why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip" is effectively the same question.
If someone doesn't particularly care about the outcome given the available options then it follows that how close or far the odds are isn't going to matter to them.
> Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc.
It's important to be clear about the context. There's the thing, and then there's the thing relative to the election where only a few outcomes are possible once the ballot has been set. It is possible to care deeply about the former but not particularly about the latter, either because all options are either good enough or pointlessly bad from your perspective. And of course it is also possible to simple not care (ie be emotionally invested in and go about broadcasting your opinion to others) about the things you listed to begin with.
It's also important to keep in mind that "not caring" can be at odds with "ought to care", although that is obviously a subjective third party judgment.
> Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc.
I meant this more like what people could be worried about. In a functioning liberal democracy, there are things people usually don't worry about, which allows some people to just ignore politics. Sure the economy is an issue, but there isn't a serious communist contender in the election or a candidate wanting to start wars of conquest.
Imagine this election. Candidate A you think will deliver GDP growth of 2+-0.5%. Candidate B you expect to deliver GDP growth of 3+-2% growth. No other big difference between them. Maybe you prefer A, maybe you don't, but in the end you'll probably be relatively fine either way.
Now imagine this other election. Candidate A hates your ethnic group and you are likely going to be fired from your government job or worse if he wins. Candidate B is from your ethnic group and will do reverse Candidate A. Now the point is that this sort of election isn't supposed to happen in a functional liberal democracy.
Consequences are rarely this extreme, and even when they are it's not a product of personal or group targeting just a general policy like "ban fracking", which means even affected people can still carry on with their lives.
And also this is one of the reasons elections "work" at all. If the losers think they will be chased by the state after losing, there's no reason to participate in the election, might as well arm up before the polls and take your chances in the battlefield and/or negotiate directly with the other side's elites.
> I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you?
> Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip
My point is that it's a coinflip between two acceptable choices. Some of those nonvoters would be literally undecided if asked who they prefer. It may matter, but not that much. And even if it does, it may matter in a way where the consequences are hard to predict or not obvious.
>The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics?
I don't think there's a direct correlation between the ability to vote and caring about politics. People usually care about politics when it affects them negatively. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments and, thus, are not incentivized to care about politics.
Note that I'm not making an argument that they should not care. I think they should, but the very system that allows participation probably also decreases the incentive for most people to participate.
Alternatively people who say “I’m not political” are benefiting from the status quo and political direction of things (long term, not necessarily short term). They frame inaction as apolitical.
It is apolitical for any reasonable definition of the term "political". That doesn't mean you don't benefit, or that it's a responsible choice, or anything else. It just means you aren't engaging in political activity - attempting to convince those around you, to gain influence, etc.
> People who say "I'm not political" are deflecting to avoid conflict
A great truth. Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision: you are rejecting society as it is, and prefer to live in your own solo society. That's politics.
I don’t think that’s totally accurate. If I live as a hermit but perform my civic duties like voting and paying any taxes, I don’t see how choosing to live in solitude is anything more than a lifestyle choice.
> Even isolating yourself from society like a hermit is still a political decision
That is a nonsensical definition of that term. It implies that literally any action you take falls into the set "political" instead of outside of it. That defeats the purpose of the term. The point of qualifiers is to differentiate between different sorts of things.
Obviously the intention of the person using such a term is to distinguish between things. Thus such a rebuttal amounts to intellectual dishonesty by intentionally misinterpreting what was said.
When this is discussed, what's being meant is that everday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics, which are often a completely disconnected meta.
Appealing to "well everything is connected" I'm not sure is useful. It's interesting from a semantics perspective the first few times you come across it maybe, then swaps around into being plain frustrating, then lands on just missing the point.
Finally, I think people who want to stay out of said party political meta I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and I really can't fault them one bit for it. No coincidence either.
"Party politics" is ill-defined, and so a "no politics" rule becomes an arbitrary hammer that bosses can use to smash employees. If I say "I'm going to get a COVID vaccine this afternoon" is that discussing party politics? In the UK, where I live, the vaccine was provided by the government, so I'm implicitly discussing the actions of the government. That is under any reasonable definition a discussion of politics.
"everyday party politics are spilling out and overwhelming a project's or industry's individual, internal politics" is how "no politics" rules are usually justified, but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules (37signals, Coinbase). 37signals in particular tried to spin it this way, but it was the actions of a group within the company approved by the founders that caused the problem. (Coinbase was just completely incoherent from the start. Their mission is something like "End economic inequality" which a reasonable person could take to mean anarchist or communist discussion is on topic.)
There's no way to define any modality of politics such that someone like you won't come around and start going off about how it's a leaky segmentation, and is actually just an excuse for censorship.
Every artificial segmentation of the real world is leaky. Just like the recognition that politics is everywhere, this too is not actually inquisitive. It's like arguing that stairsteps are chairs. They can be, but that doesn't make the word "chair" ill-defined.
> but this was not what happened in the poster child cases of implementing "no politics" rules
There is no such thing. These may be notable cases in your cohort, for me it's the first time I heard of these. And I've seen my fair share of these rules.
What's the purpose of a "no politics" rule at work? Is to stop people starting shit with their coworkers, or is to give those in power an arbitrary hammer to apply to those without power in the organization?
If it's the former, 1) it should be just that and 2) it isn't needed because it's never ok to start shit with coworkers that is unrelated to work. If someone spends all their time starting shit, whether about politics (however that is defined), sports, food choices, clothing, or anything else you can just fire them. No need to have a "no politics" rule.
I think it's more simple. Just avoid any conflict. As you pointed out "don't start shit" already covers this but they specifically call out politics because some might not think it would cause offense.
What if you speak about something with no intention of creating conflict, but a few people around you get riled up? You haven't done anything wrong yet the divisive topic isn't a good fit for the workplace.
Some employees either can't or won't see this, hence rules such as "no politics".
The covid vaccine example is a good one in terms of something in everyday life that is politicised.
It is also illustrates the problem with discussing politics in an international forum. The KCL study of covid conspiracy theories (carried out during the pandemic) found that in the UK young people and those who identified as left wing were more likely to believe conspiracy theories. I am pretty sure this is significantly different from the US. Also matches things I have heard (e.g. my daughter met people at university who refused the vaccine because "we don't trust the Tories".
It is pretty common for Americans to assume that the Conservatives are equivalent to Republicans, and Labour are like the Democrats, which is very far from the truth. It has always been far from the truth but the reasons why change - e.g. in the 80s Thatcher and Reagan were not far apart, but that that time Labour were far to the left of the Democrats (actual socialists).
> I think are doing a pretty big favor to their mental health, and
It your mental health is harmed while defending your political views it's possible your views are the issue.
For example if my view was that "domestic animals shouldn't be abused and penalties increased for such crimes" I wouldn't have mental health issues discussing this.
The vast majority of people will get stressed talking to people they think are evil or against their values. Someone breaking down in tears because another person says they "don't give a fuck about the bloody Gazans" is not behaving particularly unusually.
The views don't matter as much as how strongly they are held.
I understand this happens and I agree but there's two options.
1. Avoid talking about politics
2. Learn to control your emotions when discussing politics even if you have a strong view.
I think 2 is a better solution otherwise the worse things get the more people will avoid talking about it.
It's worth the effort because, based on your example, if you really cared about the people of Gaza you need to stand up and defend them, not avoid the topic due to how uncomfortable it makes you feel
> Someone breaking down in tears because another person says they "don't give a fuck about the bloody Gazans" is not behaving particularly unusually.
it might be reasonable if you have personal close links to Gaza (e.g. you are worried about family who live there), but otherwise it OUGHT to be very unusual.
> it might be reasonable if you have personal close links to Gaza (e.g. you are worried about family who live there)
That's another problem with political discussions at work - you're often not sure why someone has a particular beliefs and so it's hard to know whether disagreement will be taken as an abstract difference of opinion or as an attack on their family, friends, or homeland.
So if I now said some intentionally asinine garbage, e.g. about how dogs need to be disciplined, shown who the pack leader is, and sometimes that necessarily involves a beating, and how if you disagree you're woke, that wouldn't make you very understandably very distraught?
Because it would make me pretty distraught, and I don't think that it's because anything is wrong with the idea of not abusing animals.
Even doing this mental exercise for the sake of this conversation is already extremely frustrating for me. And I don't think this should surprise you, or is anything strange or unusual.
Actually yeah if someone stating their views in a context that doesn't directly impact you leaves you "distraught" I'd say you have an emotional issue on your end. That said, in the real world people commonly have those and avoiding the situations that trigger them is perfectly reasonable.
Let's just be clear that something can be commonplace while also being a personal issue.
My entire point there was that this is not exceptional in the least. People having emotional issues is quite common!
Incidentally, the response you're exhibiting here - a reflexive emotional rejection as opposed to critical thought - is closely related to the phenomenon being discussed here. That exact response is often (but not always) what leads to people becoming distraught in the first place. It's an emotional feedback loop.
Examining the context we see something of a dichotomy. That mental health being harmed by political discourse is likely to indicate a problem with personal views versus that being normal and expected depending on context. I'm presenting a third viewpoint tied to the example you provided. The idea that it is related to an emotional issue which is largely independent of personal views, that this is a relatively common thing to encounter, and that people should not be criticized for taking steps to mitigate personal issues.
In other words, I am largely agreeing with you but going on to point out that it's a personal issue deserving of long term work.
I mean I think The Republican Incumbent was chosen specifically as a tool because he is so extreme, pervasive and demoralising and creeps into everything. Definitely by Russia, maybe also by our "friend" in the ME. Although it's not that reported on they are on friendly terms.
Disaffection lends itself easily to creating a Russia-style society. This all feels pretty Dugin-esque, and his proposition (return to values, reject interest/hope in politics because it is always flawed anyway, bind together under the state) fits perfectly, and is finding prominence at the perfect time.
Just my opinion, but to me this seems far more akin to Dugin than whatever Curtis Yavin is pushing
Agree, but it goes both ways, with technology (that many of us here have helped create and maintain) also reaching out into every facet of society and community, many times in close symbiosis with the political powers that be, to the detriment of said society and community.
Not 100% sure what I wanted to say, maybe that said politics (and the political as a whole) wouldn't have invaded almost our entire lives without the help of technology.
> That's because we got reliant on the funds from government
Not we, some people got reliant on the funds from government. It is always at the cost of someone else. The tax the rich and bourgeoisie mentality is what led to Mao Zedong and Stalin, but no-one wants to learn about history anymore.
Tax the rich mentality also led to the "golden age of capitalism" of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The tax rates on the wealthiest in the US at that time were huge, and that money went into job programs, housing assistance programs, construction projects, etc.
Stalin and Mao were both cults of personality being driven by a young, disaffected population who were so sick and tired of the status quo that they were willing to murder and burn and kill and destroy and didn't really care about what came after.
