I see. I disagree with them if they think everything really is political propaganda, but I think in a sense everything is political (in the wider sense) in its causes and consequences, so perhaps it might as well be propaganda, even if those involved don't think of it that way.
To return to your previous comment that "everything is political" is a tedious worldview, maybe there's a possible compromise. We could accept the idea that "non-political" everyday things have a (small) political significance, while never (or rarely) engaging with that political significance in any specific instance.
> To return to your previous comment that "everything is political" is a tedious worldview
It is tedious specifically because of the "in the wider sense" you put in parens
It is an overly broad definition of political to the point of uselessness and absurdity
Edit; for example, consider the case of a child throwing a ball for their dog.
The child is not political. The dog is not political. Yes, you can say that there's politics in letting people own pets like dogs. There are politics in having a public space where children are allowed to play fetch with their dogs. There are politics involved in the parents deciding to have children in the first place, or where they choose to live and work.
> It is an overly broad definition of political to the point of uselessness and absurdity
I don't think it's useless or absurd, just not usually applicable. After all, each action has a specific political significance.
> It's also just tedious
Fair enough, but couldn't we say the same about many other things? For example, Brownian motion might not usually warrant our attention, but it's there for when we decide it is of interest.
What they mean in my experience is "everything must be viewed as political propaganda"