Support NeoGAF

[Ogbert]

Just want to post my daily reminder that they are not the left. They are the idiot creature wearing the left's skin. It is the responsibility of those of us on the left to identify them as an extreme that is not part of our movement, just as it is the right's responsibility to disown the crazy racists.

I couldn't agree more.

One of the problems the left has it that it lost the basic economic arguments (I say that as someone who is left leaning myself) of the twentieth century. They hold the Scandinavian model up as a goal - and a good thing too - but often overlook the fact that those countries are sat on a horde of oil based treasure. Higher government spending can survive when your as rich as croesus. But for all the supposed lefties in the media, when was the last time you heard an economic argument about how the country should be run? In the last decade, I could count the occasions on a single hand.

Because the left is incapable of offering an alernative economic model, it's been overrun by a gaggle of authoritarian bullies that don't care about workers or lower wage people (as humans, rather than symbols) and instead scream at people about gender and invented nazis.It's pitiful.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

The problem with the 'everything is political' position is that it is inherently left wing. Yes, *everything* is political, when you want a government to get involved in *everything*.

This isn't true.

Politics is part of your everyday life regardless of political leaning. Workplace politics, family, friends, all exist with and without influence from the party/policy line you tow.

And then there are politics that don't seem as important to you if you're not a part of the demographic or group affected. Both types exist here.

So the call for less politics is usually focused on something specific that annoys the person, or they simply don't understand how inherent it is to everything.

 

[hariseldon]

The problem with the 'everything is political' position is that it is inherently left wing. Yes, *everything* is political, when you want a government to get involved in *everything*.

You could argue that, but then you could argue that the level of involvement of government in any given activity is dependent upon politics, thus the everything in politics is not just a left view - if your political belief is that government shouldn't be involved in a thing, that is a right-wing view and that is politics

 

[hariseldon]

I couldn't agree more.

One of the problems the left has it that it lost the basic economic arguments (I say that as someone who is left leaning myself) of the twentieth century. They hold the Scandinavian model up as a goal - and a good thing too - but often overlook the fact that those countries are sat on a horde of oil based treasure. Higher government spending can survive when your as rich as croesus. But for all the supposed lefties in the media, when was the last time you heard an economic argument about how the country should be run? In the last decade, I could count the occasions on a single hand.

Because the left is incapable of offering an alernative economic model, it's been overrun by a gaggle of authoritarian bullies that don't care about workers or lower wage people (as humans, rather than symbols) and instead scream at people about gender and invented nazis.It's pitiful.

I'm not sure that I agree the economic argument was lost - it seemed that way for a while before the 2008 crash, but the crash and the response to it have changed the game, and thus a new model is needed, which is probably closer to the left than the right, given it was the de-regulation of banking which led to a huge fuck-up. I'll also add that we have a direct comparison to Scandinavia re oil when we look at the UK. While Scandinavia was sensibly using its oil wealth to create a better society, we had Thatcher and so sold it all off to the highest bidder, meaning the British people didn't really benefit to the same degree. The end result is easy to see, as you don't have millions using food banks in Scandinavia.

 

[Ogbert]

So the call for less politics is usually focused on something specific that annoys the person

But that's my point. Saying *this is political* is almost always left wing people telling others that they need to do/change/adopt their position.

You very rarely, if ever, hear right wing people saying *everything is political*, because they don't seek that level of control over how others behave (on a micro level).

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

But that's my point. Saying *this is political* is almost always left wing people telling others that they need to do/change/adopt their position.

You very rarely, if ever, hear right wing people saying *everything is political*, because they don't seek that level of control over how others behave (on a micro level).

That's also dishonest. I've seen just as many right wing people call for controlling others. From topics on gender identity to abortion, this exists on the left and right in equal measure.

 

[Dunki]

That's also dishonest. I've seen just as many right wing people call for controlling others. From topics on gender identity to abortion, this exists on the left and right in equal measure.

I can agree with that. To me the difference is how aggressive the left has become not accepting anything else which does not 100% fit their ideology. With the right you more of a feeling that this is an opinion with the left it is more that nothing else is acceptable anymore.

 

[Ogbert]

I'm not sure that I agree the economic argument was lost - it seemed that way for a while before the 2008 crash, but the crash and the response to it have changed the game, and thus a new model is needed, which is probably closer to the left than the right, given it was the de-regulation of banking which led to a huge fuck-up. I'll also add that we have a direct comparison to Scandinavia re oil when we look at the UK. While Scandinavia was sensibly using its oil wealth to create a better society, we had Thatcher and so sold it all off to the highest bidder, meaning the British people didn't really benefit to the same degree. The end result is easy to see, as you don't have millions using food banks in Scandinavia.

Again, agree.

But the points you make - tighter regulation, effective use of natural assets - those are tinkering around the edges. It's still a free market economy, just we're debating the rules around 'offside'. If you spoke to most people, they'd have no problems with higher taxation, higher NHS spending - all that good stuff.

However, if you said, we've got this idea to nationilse all the banks and financial services companies and, in the UK, have the Bank of England run all functions of ecocnomic activity (not just the rates), people would say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

Royal Bank of Scotlan aside!

 

[hariseldon]

But that's my point. Saying *this is political* is almost always left wing people telling others that they need to do/change/adopt their position.

You very rarely, if ever, hear right wing people saying *everything is political*, because they don't seek that level of control over how others behave (on a micro level).

Wrong. By demanding that government leave a particular sphere they ARE saying that x is political, in that it is a political issue around how much government exists in that space.

 

[hariseldon]

Again, agree.

But the points you make - tighter regulation, effective use of natural assets - those are tinkering around the edges. It's still a free market economy, just we're debating the rules around 'offside'. If you spoke to most people, they'd have no problems with higher taxation, higher NHS spending - all that good stuff.

However, if you said, we've got this idea to nationilse all the banks and financial services companies and, in the UK, have the Bank of England run all functions of ecocnomic activity (not just the rates), people would say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

Royal Bank of Scotlan aside!

Yeah overall I'd favour a market (well strictly speaking mixed) economy, just one that acknowledges some of the difficulties that disadvantaged people (those born into poverty, the disabled/unwell) suffer and offers a leg up to those people as well as a safety net to allow people to take risks, that invests in its people through high quality education, that builds out its infrastructure to enable better economic development, etc. I think we went a bit too far into unregulated stuff and have done a bad job of helping the poor, given food banks being a thing, and I'm pretty pissed off that the people who paid the price for the banks fucking up were the poorest in society, not the banks themselves. The sensible course of action would have been to let the banks fail and to bail out the individuals who lost money, to avoid creating a too-big-to-fail situation where banks now know they can be as reckless as they like and we face the risk of doing it all over again.

 

[Ogbert]

That's also dishonest. I've seen just as many right wing people call for controlling others. From topics on gender identity to abortion, this exists on the left and right in equal measure.

Fair enough.

Abortion is interesting though isn't it. As you suggest, it's almost as if the roles are reversed. The left can't get enough of *everything is political*. When it comes to abortion or women's issues, they argue the opposite - 'butt out men. None of your business. Only women get a say'.

On gender, I don't think the right are saying *everything is political*. They just disagree with what the left is demanding.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the right don't try and get their way. They just do it by ommision, as in, *leave me alone*. So when someone argues *everything is politcal*, you almost de facto know it's coming from the left. i.e *everything is political and therefore you should do this*.

 

[Ogbert]

Wrong. By demanding that government leave a particular sphere they ARE saying that x is political, in that it is a political issue around how much government exists in that space.

Sure - of course; and we're entering into the world of semantics here.

You say I am *wrong* for saying that if the Government is not involved in something, then that is a de facto political position - but you can only say I am *wrong* if it was legitimate to ask that question in the first place.

It's a trick statement, becuase in refuting it, it claims to have proven itself.

 

[hariseldon]

Ogbert you've lost me I'm afraid, I don't quite know where you're going with that post. I'll attempt to explain my post a bit better and see if that helps anything. Basically my point is that the discussion of whether politics should be involved in X is itself a political discussion, thus everything is politics, or rather perhaps I should have better said everything can be discussed as a political matter. I was under the impression you were arguing that the right-wing position of get politics out of x makes x un-political, and my post is in response to that. If I've got it muddled up, which seems possible given my failure to understand post 1063, let me know and I'll try to reset back on track.

 

[bitbydeath]

This couldn't be more wrong. There's never been a more crucial time to be involved in political debate. More and more people are voting now, and when we vote more we need to be engaged more.

If you don't like political debate you can ignore it, but calling for less is a call to dumb down.

I wouldn’t call it dumbing down.
Breaks are healthy.
You can go a day without news, Netflix and chill

 

[Ogbert]

@Ogbert you've lost me I'm afraid, I don't quite know where you're going with that post. I'll attempt to explain my post a bit better and see if that helps anything.

Ha! Don't worry, I lost myself too!

My objection, or rather, '*criticism' of the phrase, is that your answer forces you to accept its premise.

a) Everything is political
b) No it's not.
c) Yes it is, your disagreement is political.
d) Oh.

The statment proves itself. For it to be a discussion, it needs to be:

Everything *should* be political.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

I wouldn’t call it dumbing down.
Breaks are healthy.
You can go a day without news, Netflix and chill

No one suggested breaks aren't healthy.

 

[bitbydeath]

No one suggested breaks aren't healthy.

You inferred breaks were impossible after I posted.

I think everyone could do with less politics these days TBH.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

You inferred breaks were impossible after I posted.

No i didn't at all, especially as your post was directly related to this particular conversation thread. Which has a specific focus.

Taking a break is on the individual and can be done without calls for less political engagement.

 

[bitbydeath]

No i didn't at all, especially as your post was directly related to this particular conversation thread. Which has a specific focus.

Taking a break is on the individual and can be done without calls for less political engagement.

Breaks are by definition less political engagement. If you did not have less political engagement then it would not be a break.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Breaks are by definition less political engagement. If you did not have less political engagement then it would not be a break.

Stop trying to spin it like you're right here, you're not. You know very well what the focus was here.

Breaks are on the individual, you decide that. Just walk away from debates. Calling for less political engagement is a stupid position, you don't need to do this to take a break.

 

[hariseldon]

Ogbert Ah ok now I follow, apologies for being dumb as a box of rocks. I blame a long hard morning of swearing at code. I can see why it might seem that way, and certainly I'm no fan of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic (see "power plus" bollocks et al). Perhaps my phrasing was unhelpful, but the thing is that when there are two sides debating whether X should have government involvement, it's political. I'll argue that if there's no opposing side of any substance then at that point it is not political, so maybe all opposed positions on whether government should be involved are political, as well as the items currently facing government involvement.

 

[Redneckerz]

That's correct also for Germany, though of course the Democrats also are the party where actually left leaning (from a European perspective) people find their place. Sanders, e.g. would also be a left leaning social democratic politican in Germany. But in the US he is regarded as far-left, where here, he would probably a member of the centre-left party SPD. The strange thing is that what constitutes being left in the US forum context (e.g. Resetera, but also here) is almost nothing else but a strong stance on social justice issues and aggressive unwillingness to tolereate differing viewpoints. This certainly is not what I understand as left-leaning politics, even though, in principle, the part where it is about personal rights for minority groups, I do agree in terms of the topic. But not in terms of silencing opposing voices with aggressiveness. This is neither a good political strategy, nor is it a good democratic practice.

I agree with this sentiment. I think it should be important to denote that what the US considers left isn't exactly the same as European's impression of left.

You mentioned SPD. We have a party called SP (Social Party really) who has traces of influence going back to communism.

Imagine that kind of party in the US two party strong system. Already the term communism is seen as generally negative and US politics would try to kill that with fire the moment it tried to lay down upon the earth. After all, communism = Soviet and Soviet = bad.

Whilst certain aspects of communism, and generally most governmental system have their pros and minuses. Its like picking consoles (To have a crappy visual analogy): Everything has its pluses and minuses.

I think everyone could do with less politics these days TBH.

Funny that you mention this as there was just a sketch regarding this on the Dutch show Have I Got News For You. (This Was The News). I think the main problem with Trump's politics and society in general is that everything has to be a political debate. Friendships dont flourish, because you are not judged upon your qualities as a person, but by your political stances and opinions.

As if all we consist of are political views and nothing more. Its concerning to see this change happening as time goes by.

This couldn't be more wrong. There's never been a more crucial time to be involved in political debate. More and more people are voting now, and when we vote more we need to be engaged more.

I don't think that is what he meant with the idea that we should do with less politics these days. That isnt a call to not vote, but it is a call to quite politicizing every movement in your daily wanderings.

To talk about something really different but an example of how soft and fragile our generation has become and its apparently newsworthy when there is a supposed solution: Our High school students do exams like everyone else. However, students get tense for such a thing, obviously, as its a big step for an aspiring carreer. Parents tell them that a relatively low grade is due to the college's fault, or that he/she has some kind of disorder and that's why it happens.

As if that isn't already something, there is now a platform called Catvertising (I kid you not) that, this week, introduced the Anti-Stress Dog.

So what is this dog? Its a freaking puppy for students that they can cuddle with before an exam, and its ought to de-stress them before an exam. This was an American invention, it supposely helped the students, so it got introduced here. It was also reported that the puppies themselves actually see their stress increased because of these students.

The fact that this is a thing and its newsworthy is an example of fragility being accepted as a norm. What happened to parents admitting that their kids aren't that brilliant? Why does every kid need to be a new Einstein? Why do we hide behind excuses? Why do we even invent such a moronic thing as a Anti-Stress Dog?

We are looking for solutions to problems that aren't even problems to begin with. Its symptomatic. In today's political world, everything is looked at with a lens of negativity. Why not assume good faith instead?

/Rant. I know this isn't completely about politics nor targeted at you specifically but this piece had to be said.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I agree with this sentiment. I think it should be important to denote that what the US considers left isn't exactly the same as European's impression of left.

You mentioned SPD. We have a party called SP (Social Party really) who has traces of influence going back to communism.

Imagine that kind of party in the US two party strong system. Already the term communism is seen as generally negative and US politics would try to kill that with fire the moment it tried to lay down upon the earth. After all, communism = Soviet and Soviet = bad.

Whilst certain aspects of communism, and generally most governmental system have their pros and minuses. Its like picking consoles (To have a crappy visual analogy): Everything has its pluses and minuses.


Funny that you mention this as there was just a sketch regarding this on the Dutch show Have I Got News For You. (This Was The News). I think the main problem with Trump's politics and society in general is that everything has to be a political debate. Friendships dont flourish, because you are not judged upon your qualities as a person, but by your political stances and opinions.

As if all we consist of are political views and nothing more. Its concerning to see this change happening as time goes by.

I don't think that is what he meant with the idea that we should do with less politics these days. That isnt a call to not vote, but it is a call to quite politicizing every movement in your daily wanderings.

To talk about something really different but an example of how soft and fragile our generation has become and its apparently newsworthy when there is a supposed solution: Our High school students do exams like everyone else. However, students get tense for such a thing, obviously, as its a big step for an aspiring carreer. Parents tell them that a relatively low grade is due to the college's fault, or that he/she has some kind of disorder and that's why it happens.

As if that isn't already something, there is now a platform called Catvertising (I kid you not) that, this week, introduced the Anti-Stress Dog.

So what is this dog? Its a freaking puppy for students that they can cuddle with before an exam, and its ought to de-stress them before an exam. This was an American invention, it supposely helped the students, so it got introduced here. It was also reported that the puppies themselves actually see their stress increased because of these students.

The fact that this is a thing and its newsworthy is an example of fragility being accepted as a norm. What happened to parents admitting that their kids aren't that brilliant? Why does every kid need to be a new Einstein? Why do we hide behind excuses? Why do we even invent such a moronic thing as a Anti-Stress Dog?

We are looking for solutions to problems that aren't even problems to begin with. Its symptomatic. In today's political world, everything is looked at with a lens of negativity. Why not assume good faith instead?

/Rant. I know this isn't completely about politics nor targeted at you specifically but this piece had to be said.

Don't you lean more on the Libertarian / laissez faire economy side?

If so, let them have their dogs. They'll be all the more crippled and unable to usurp your own job position when they do eventually enter the job market.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Often political opinion and fundamental views go hand in hand, things people can't make concessions for. I think political dentate merely brings these things to light, which is the main cause for the judgement and people separating imo. Now obviously there are people who will write you off form the moment they hear your voting tendencies, etc... but I also know for certain the latter is true very often and I think is probably more common. I only know a few people in real life who are set in their political leaning so much that opposing leaning means instant judgement, most people seem to be more willing to speak about it first.

Online we see vocal minorities making noise all over the place, real life feels much more subdued even when engaging in focused political debate.

And sure, there are many examples of over-politicizing, but there are also too many "fuck politics, I don't care" style posts that the onus is really on the person making the comment to not be ambiguous. Nothing the user I spoke with above points to either way specifically.

 

[Ogbert]

but the thing is that when there are two sides debating whether X should have government involvement, it's political.

Agreed.

The problem is that technically and operationally, the Government can be involved in *anything* At that point, it's a statement of the banal. That's why it's such a potent phrase and so readily deployed by those on the left, because you're forced to cede ground in just having the discussion.

So perhaps, and to use a Resetera mod favourite , to argue in good faith, we should amend the phrase from

*Everything is political* to *Everything is subject to Governmental control*.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Agreed.

The problem is that technically and operationally, the Government can be involved in *anything* At that point, it's a statement of the banal. That's why it's such a potent phrase and so readily deployed by those on the left, because you're forced to cede ground in just having the discussion.

So perhaps, and to use a Resetera mod favourite , to argue in good faith, we should amend the phrase from

*Everything is political* to *Everything is subject to Governmental control*.

But politics exist even when not talking about the government. It can simply be about power struggles in a specific group, from day care mums arranging a kid's party, to workplace rivalries vying for attention.

It also does come across as a position of privilege thing often when people say "can we not make everything political", and this has nothing to do with left Vs right, but more "that doesn't affect me I wish you'd stop talking about it" style posts which happen very often.

What we need is for the person making the claims or comments to be specific in the first place. If you want to unplug from political discussion, either disconnect from the net for a bit or just ignore the threads in question.

 

[hariseldon]

Agreed.
So perhaps, and to use a Resetera mod favourite , to argue in good faith, we should amend the phrase from

*Everything is political* to *Everything is subject to Governmental control*.

Perhaps we should go with "Everything is subject to debate about the role of government"

 

[Ogbert]

But politics exist even when not talking about the government. It can simply be about power struggles in a specific group, from day care mums arranging a kid's party, to workplace rivalries vying for attention.

It also does come across as a position of privilege thing often when people say "can we not make everything political", and this has nothing to do with left Vs right, but more "that doesn't affect me I wish you'd stop talking about it" style posts which happen very often.

Politics, by definition, can only exist when there is an ability for government intervention - by way of allowing or disallowing certain behaviours.

Saying politics exist everywhere is saying that everything is subject to governmental control.

Unless your simply extending politics to mean 'human interactions', in which case it is a statement of the frivolous.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Politics, by definition, can only exist when there is an ability for government intervention - by way of allowing or disallowing certain behaviours.

Saying politics exist everywhere is saying that everything is subject to governmental control.

Unless your simply extending politics to mean 'human interactions', in which case it is a statement of the frivolous.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of politics, because it's not a word limited to government involvement.

 

[Ogbert]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of politics, because it's not a word limited to government involvement.

Thanks for the unnecessary snark. I’ll overlook it. Believe it or not, I am well aware of the varied uses of the term ‘politics’ from government, office, sexual and school gate politics. Haven’t heard of the kids party one, but perhaps I don’t operate in your sophisticated social milieu.

Did you know that ‘Are you a chicken’ can mean both are you a coward or are you poultry?

Isn’t language wonderful.

 

[Kadayi]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of politics, because it's not a word limited to government involvement.

The onus is on you to support your argument.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Thanks for the unnecessary snark. I’ll overlook it. Believe it or not, I am well aware of the varied uses of the term ‘politics’ from government, office, sexual and school gate politics. Haven’t heard of the kids party one, but perhaps I don’t operate in your sophisticated social milieu.

Did you know that ‘Are you a chicken’ can mean both are you a coward or are you poultry?

Isn’t language wonderful.

It wasn't unecessry snark, it was a call for you to look up the word because you're literally ignoring part of its definition.

The onus is on you to support your argument.

LOL

Google: politics. First page result is the definition. Read it.

2nd definition.

 

[Kadayi]

Software faulty or something? I said the onus is on you to support your argument. Did they not program you how to add links?

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Software faulty or something? I said the onus is on you to support your argument. Did they not program you how to add links?

You're trolling or being absurd either way good luck with that!

 

[Ogbert]

It wasn't unecessry snark, it was a call for you to look up the word because you're literally ignoring part of its definition.




LOL

Google: politics. First page result is the definition. Read it.

2nd definition.

Well, where I am, the first thing that pops up is:

'the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.'

But maybe that's down to google and my nefarious right wing googling habits. And as we all know, search engine algorithms are most assuredly political.

Anyway, I understand the point you're making. You have the modern take on politics - privilidge, intersectionality etcetc. Everytihng is a power struggle. Everything is political. Fair enough. I would suggest that those statements are fundamentally inconsquential unless you also believe that those topics are also subject to governmental control.

If not, we're just discussing ethics. And we've been doing that for thousands of years. And we managed just fine without Twitter.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Well, where I am, the first thing that pops up is:

'the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.'

But maybe that's down to google and my nefarious right wing googling habits. And as we all know, search engine algorithms are most assuredly political.

Anyway, I understand the point you're making. You have the modern take on politics - privilidge, intersectionality etcetc. Everytihng is a power struggle. Everything is political. Fair enough. I would suggest that those statements are fundamentally inconsquential unless you also believe that those topics are also subject to governmental control.

If not, we're just discussing ethics. And we've been doing that for thousands of years. And we managed just fine without Twitter.

This really shouldn't be this hard, I'll do it for you...

• 2.
  activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization.
  "yet another discussion of office politics and personalities"

From: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics

ALSO

• use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

From: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/politics

 

[Kadayi]

You're trolling or being absurd either way good luck with that!

Not really. It's how debates/discussions work. If you refer to something then cite it. This idea that your opposition should search for it is not acceptable. The onus is always on you to support your claims.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Not really. It's how debates/discussions work. If you refer to something then cite it. This idea that your opposition should search for it is not acceptable. The onus is always on you to support your claims.

No mate, it would have taken you a few seconds to google it. If it were an actual effort involved to find the evidence required to back up my claim I would have provided links, but the fact you're too lazy to type a word into google and view the immediate results is not on me at all.

Again, you're being absolutely absurd.

 

[Dunki]

That's correct also for Germany, though of course the Democrats also are the party where actually left leaning (from a European perspective) people find their place. Sanders, e.g. would also be a left leaning social democratic politican in Germany. But in the US he is regarded as far-left, where here, he would probably a member of the centre-left party SPD. The strange thing is that what constitutes being left in the US forum context (e.g. Resetera, but also here) is almost nothing else but a strong stance on social justice issues and aggressive unwillingness to tolereate differing viewpoints. This certainly is not what I understand as left-leaning politics, even though, in principle, the part where it is about personal rights for minority groups, I do agree in terms of the topic. But not in terms of silencing opposing voices with aggressiveness. This is neither a good political strategy, nor is it a good democratic practice.

I do not think Bernie would be SPD he would be more in the middle of SPD and CDU but yeah center is what I can agree with. Hillary would be almost AFD, Trump NDP? What America is missing is a middle ground and not only on the political spectrum but also in every form of debates, about political issues. IT is either or there is nothing in between and people who try that will get attacked for not taking a stance (from bth sides)

 

[Ogbert]

This really shouldn't be this hard, I'll do it for you...

Well, I'm afraid the business of language is rather tough. Thank you for looking it up for me though - I'm getting on a bit these days and lack the technical felicity of youth. One day you will be my age. Do not fear the inevitable march of time, what you lose in digital dexterity will be replaced with wisdom.

A suggestion - is the second use of politics exactly the same as the first? For example, when we say 'office politics', are we not really talking about the schemes and intrigue that individuals get involved in - the House of Cards - so to speak, rather than the governmental edicts that control the behaviour of that company in its Nation State?

For example, if I said, 'oh, it's just office politics', would you imagine I was talking about the rates of VAT that the Bank of England sets on export tariffs?

 

[hariseldon]

search engine algorithms are most assuredly political

Or to put it another way, here's something non-government related that's politics (just yanking your chain). Youtube is an interesting one btw, since I've been going here and having various youtubes embed the youtube homepage now shows me a whole bunch of right-wing stuff where it always used to be left plus sim-racing stuff.. I can no longer open youtube in front of people!

On the ethics thing - I have a feeling (and it is just that, a gut feeling, I wouldn't call myself sufficiently educated to call it much more than that) that a better understanding of ethics, and indeed of philosophy and how it defines ethics, among the general population would do wonders for political discourse. I'll just leave this (https://www.neogaf.com/threads/philosophy-where-to-begin.1466832/) here.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Well, I'm afraid the business of language is rather tough. Thank you for looking it up for me though - I'm getting on a bit these days and lack the technical felicity of youth. One day you will be my age. Do not fear the inevitable march of time, what you lose in digital dexterity will be replaced with wisdom.

A suggestion - is the second use of politics exactly the same as the first? For example, when we say 'office politics', are we not really talking about the schemes and intrigue that individuals get involved in - the House of Cards - so to speak, rather than the governmental edicts that control the behaviour of that company in its Nation State?

For example, if I said, 'oh, it's just office politics', would you imagine I was talking about the rates of VAT that the Bank of England sets on export tariffs?

The second use is literally just about power dynamics with a specific group and nothing to do with governments.

Which is why calls that "everything doesn't need to be political" are ridiculous. If you mean something else, you need to articulate it properly because words have specific definitions.

 

[Ogbert]

Which is why calls that "everything doesn't need to be political" are ridiculous.

Well, this bring us back to what we're discussing.

It depends on your definition of 'political'. I'd wager that when most people say 'everything doesn't need to be poltical', what they really mean is 'everything doesn't need political intervention'.

If political intervention isn't being mooted then the statment is utterly pointless - it's just human interaction. Hence why you gave the example of a children's party. Who, in a sound state of mind, gives a flying fuck about what happens at a kid's party? I can barely muster an interest in my own childrens' soirees.

 

[Yoshi]

I do not think Bernie would be SPD he would be more in the middle of SPD and CDU but yeah center is what I can agree with. Hillary would be almost AFD, Trump NDP? What America is missing is a middle ground and not only on the political spectrum but also in every form of debates, about political issues. IT is either or there is nothing in between and people who try that will get attacked for not taking a stance (from bth sides)

Sanders is a big advocate for free education on all levels and higher taxing for big incomes and Wall Street gains, so he would be closer aligned to SPD than CDU.

Hillary would probably be middle to right wing CDU on fiscal issues and left wing CDU on social issues, Trump would be right wing AfD on both, fiscal and social issues. For NPD, he is missing a bit of the fully open racism and Nazi sympathising. Some prominent Republicans would clearly be NPD people though. Which is worrisome for such an important party, considering we are talking the (inofficial) successor party of the NSDAP, which is always on the verge of being banned in Germany - and rightfully so.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Well, this bring us back to what we're discussing.

It depends on your definition of 'political'. I'd wager that when most people say 'everything doesn't need to be poltical', what they really mean is 'everything doesn't need political intervention'.

If political intervention isn't being mooted then the statment is utterly pointless - it's just human interaction. Hence why you gave the example of a children's party. Who, in a sound state of mind, gives a flying fuck about what happens at a kid's party? I can barely muster an interest in my own childrens' soirees.

And I'd say that assumption and ambiguity is not a good place to build a foundation for debate, so even if this were the case it would take only a little more effort to articulate the thought and avoid this.

The children's party was to show that political power struggles exit within even within the more banal instances of reality, to back up the claim of the second definition. Again, I'm not sure why you're struggling to see this.

 

[Ogbert]

The children's party was to show that political power struggles exit within even within the more banal instances of reality

What *political* power struggle?

Like the theme? If it's Scooby Doo or Star Wars?

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

What *political* power struggle?

Like the theme? If it's Scooby Doo or Star Wars?

I don't know what's hard to understand here, or if you're messing with me, so I think we should leave it.

 

[Ogbert]

I don't know what's hard to understand here, or if you're messing with me, so I think we should leave it.

I was being a bit daft but, ok, in good faith:

Are you suggesting the *politics* of who is invited or excluded. How the parties are set up? If it's girls only or boys only? If they play football or with Barbies. If there is a vegetarian option? All things that we, as individuals, have very strong opinions on.

Now, if you say 'yes, all these are political considerations', my response is 'no, they are individual, ethical considerations for those attending'. The term *political* can only carry legitimate weight when it falls under the scrutiny of governmental control.

I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that there should be edicts on how a children's party is formed. However, I believe the term *everything is political* is used to try and usher as many subjects as possible under the umbrella of potential governmental control. Which is why it's used almost exclusively by left leaning individuals. And they often use disagreement with the term as validation, regardless.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

I was being a bit daft but, ok, in good faith:

Are you suggesting the *politics* of who is invited or excluded. How the parties are set up? If it's girls only or boys only? If they play football or with Barbies. If there is a vegetarian option? All things that we, as individuals, have very strong opinions on.

Now, if you say 'yes, all these are political considerations', my response is 'no, they are individual, ethical considerations for those attending'. The term *political* can only carry legitimate weight when it falls under the scrutiny of governmental control.

I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that there should be edicts on how a children's party is formed. However, I believe the term *everything is political* is used to try and usher as many subjects as possible under the umbrella of potential governmental control. Which is why it's used almost exclusively
by left leaning individuals. And they often use disagreement with the term as validation, regardless.

You're literally arguing against the established definition of a word.

Why?

The point is the phrase is correct, and many people (including myself) use it in response when people make a throwaway single sentence post like "why does everything have to be political?", to highlight the phrase is indeed ridiculous and to call for them to better articulate their point if they want to actually contribute something.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

And I'd say that assumption and ambiguity is not a good place to build a foundation for debate, so even if this were the case it would take only a little more effort to articulate the thought and avoid this.

The children's party was to show that political power struggles exit within even within the more banal instances of reality, to back up the claim of the second definition. Again, I'm not sure why you're struggling to see this.

If you insist on using the second definition (which is a turn of phrase, not a standard definition used by any governing body), the you need to demonstrate why that definition applies to governmental politics.

Additionally, the etymology of that usage stems directly from the standard definition. You're using slang to replace the original meaning of the term.

Most people are familiar with office politics in the workplace. Most people do not use that same definition when discussing Senators and bills, let alone the whole scope of society.

In order for the word to have any meaning, we must be precise with that meaning. I agree with Ogbert when they draw a line between "choices that have the potential to be a political issue" and politics itself.