![Opossum In The Underworld 3.5 (Ferryman's Coins) [Nick Maskell]](https://media.piefed.social/posts/P0/yU/P0yUyGltt3G33N0.png){kind=link}
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/nonpolitical_comics/p/1675929/opossum-in-the-underworld-3-5-ferryman-s-coins-nick-maskell
Hey everyone! In case you haven’t noticed, this is a new community focused on NonPolitical Comics (NPCs), which essentially means no gloom and doom of the day stuff.
If you like the idea, we need help! Check out the pinned post on the community.
I’m people who try to influence the way a country is governed. I’m a political activist. In fact, if you vote, you’re people who try to influence the way a country is governed too. So everything you and I do is politics, and the term has very little meaning.
But that definition is kind of bad, I much prefer the various other definitions I analysed on My blog. I could make the same arguments over again, but I don’t want to.
TL;DR: Everything is political.
Also at this point, it’s very clear that we’ve devolved into an argument about semantics, as I asserted a few comments ago. While I disagree strongly with your definition, I see no chance either of us will be changing each other’s mind and I have no interest in trying.
All I ask is you stop misrepresenting the community when it’s very clear that we’re talking about different things. I hope at some point you’ll see the value of having safe spaces for people, whether or not you need it yourself.
I do value safe spaces. For example, MULTIVERSE is a safe space for minorities such as otherkin, and I am currently having an internal debate over whether the users here should have to see your apoliticism. Your political ideology is something we consider dangerous and do not want to see. So I am weighing the cost-benefit of allowing the users on this website including Myself to rebutt your political viewpoint against the cognitive burden of feeling a responsibility to do so.
Obviously there would not be any issue if you simply avoided expressing your apoliticist politics.
Oh gods, the irony.
I’m stepping away from the conversation now. Thanks for keeping the conversation civil, even if we disagree.
Yes, that irony was on purpose. I know you won’t reply, but I’ll explain. You want a space free from politics, where your political viewpoint is enforced. That’s hypocrisy. We want a political space for our ideology, where our political viewpoint is enforced. That’s logical and consistent. What I’m saying is, what you want is impossible, because you broke your own rules. You’re already on our side of this debate, you’re just struggling against yourself and hurting your own aims. And I hope one day you get on the same page as yourself.
Your article is based on a false dichotomy to begin with, that politics is either ‘all human interaction’, or ‘stuff I disagree with’. You miss the common definition that most of the world operates by, where politics relates to stuff related to governance.
By your definition perhaps. Most of us disagree.
No, you’ve changed and diluted the word to the point it’s meaningless and taken away a term that’s actually useful. You want to redefine it for yourself, sure. But stop acting as if everybody else agrees with (or is even aware of the existence of) your definition.
The nature of our society is that we are always actively participating in governance of the social groups in which we participate. The common definition is My definition. Even at this very moment, we are arguing over how to govern your community, and you are through well-intentioned carelessness poorly governing My identity, by accidentally misgendering Me. Our every action is political. I ask that you be aware of this fact, rather than retreating from responsibility.