Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid? The answer will reveal the solution to this issue.
Unironically though, saying you don’t do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege OP is talking about. Choosing to avoid politics to save yourself mild discomfort can have life-threatening effects on others. Saying you don’t want to discuss it is fine, but if that causes you to become uninformed it’s probably not wise for your effect on societal health.
Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid?
Views differ. All I know for certain is that if two people have divergent views, the best thing for them to do is to grow increasingly angry and disparaging towards one another until one finally concedes the other is correct and admits everything they’d believed up to that moment is wrong.
Unironically though, saying you don’t do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege
Which is why the people with the most social privilege are always the most soft-spoken, while the people with the least privilege are the loudest and most agitating, right?
I remember driving through Vidor, TX with a friend and him turning to me saying “Just don’t get us pulled over, because I’m not going to make it back if we do”. That coward was attempting to avoid conflict with a notoriously racist local police force. I, of course, did donuts in the Vidor PD parking lot. Because I believed it was my duty to provoke a conflict in order to prove that I was sincere in my liberal beliefs.
“I don’t do politics” could mean a lot of things. It usually means they don’t discuss it, but it also often means they don’t participate or know much about it.
I’m not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics in situations that vould get you hurt. Almost the opposite, actually-- I’m saying that when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically.
I’m not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics
It doesn’t have to rise to the level of existential threat. Plenty of people don’t feel comfortable voicing outside views in front of what could easily be a hostile audience.
What’s cowardly is presenting the “I don’t have a politics” person as nebulously white and atheist and male, while the counterpart is explicitly brown and muslim and a woman. The bitter truth is that it’s far more often the opposite. Women and religious/ethnic minorities are the ones who are perpetually under pressure to “hide their power level” so to speak. Either because they really do fear some kind of physical or social reprisal. Or because they just don’t want to have a screaming match with a MAGA shithead at a BBQ they didn’t want to be at to begin with.
It’s the Entitled Asshole who feels the need to vomit political views into every discussion and “have a debate” on every issue.
when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically
Who the fuck says they’re not? Do you think it’s your job to audit someone else’s life, to see if they’re doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you’ve set for sufficient political engagement? It’s none of your fucking business.
I don’t really think that makes the critique fall apart, it’s just referring to a different situation than you are thinking of.
Someone who is in a vulnerable position* has the right not to discuss politics with strangers. I don’t think discomfort (as opposed to real danger) is a great reason, but fine, whatever. They should still understand it and vote accordingly, but refusing to discuss it is sometimes necessary.
Someone who is in a position of social power* and refuses to use it to help others by addressing other people’s real issues is complicit in whatever system they continue to accept and often vote for. Again, the primary duty here is understanding and voting: refusal to learn about how politics is important and in what ways it affects people, and vote accordingly, is morally wrong. It may still be necessary not to talk about it sometimes, but when and where you have the power to do so, choosing not to speak allows an unjust system to exist uncontested.
*with the understanding that this changes based on context
when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically
Who the fuck says they’re not?
If the OP is read as an overall refusal to engage politically rather than about discussions specifically, which seems to be their point, then the OP does? And I would agree. Plenty of people use their social power to help others, but those who refuse to engage politically are much less likely to do so, and this harm deserves to be understood and avoided.
Do you think it’s your job to audit someone else’s life, to see if they’re doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you’ve set for sufficient political engagement? It’s none of your fucking business.
Uh, no, it’s everyone’s business. Politics sets the rules by which society is allowed to operate. It’s the most invasive, everyone’s-business topic there is. The only bar there is, is “care a little bit about other people”. Yes, I will make it other people’s problem if they refuse to do that-- I would consider that the “bare minimum” (I hate using that term, it’s misused so often) to participate in society.
You’re just entitled.
Shut the fuck up, loser. Nobody agrees with you and your ideas are stupid. Never talk to me about politics again.
Uhhh… what?
Are your views stupid or is the other person stupid? The answer will reveal the solution to this issue.
Unironically though, saying you don’t do politics because you want to avoid conflict is a form of the privilege OP is talking about. Choosing to avoid politics to save yourself mild discomfort can have life-threatening effects on others. Saying you don’t want to discuss it is fine, but if that causes you to become uninformed it’s probably not wise for your effect on societal health.
Views differ. All I know for certain is that if two people have divergent views, the best thing for them to do is to grow increasingly angry and disparaging towards one another until one finally concedes the other is correct and admits everything they’d believed up to that moment is wrong.
Which is why the people with the most social privilege are always the most soft-spoken, while the people with the least privilege are the loudest and most agitating, right?
I remember driving through Vidor, TX with a friend and him turning to me saying “Just don’t get us pulled over, because I’m not going to make it back if we do”. That coward was attempting to avoid conflict with a notoriously racist local police force. I, of course, did donuts in the Vidor PD parking lot. Because I believed it was my duty to provoke a conflict in order to prove that I was sincere in my liberal beliefs.
Literally what’s happening in OP’s comic.
I don’t think they realized you were pointing out hypocrisy using sarcasm.
I did think it was odd, usually I agree with weevil
Yeah it also took me a minute to realize what was going on.
“I don’t do politics” could mean a lot of things. It usually means they don’t discuss it, but it also often means they don’t participate or know much about it.
I’m not saying you need to endanger yourself by talking about politics in situations that vould get you hurt. Almost the opposite, actually-- I’m saying that when people do have the social capital to spend on supporting those who can’t easily express their views, they should take the time to understand and help them politically.
Which is where the critique falls apart.
It doesn’t have to rise to the level of existential threat. Plenty of people don’t feel comfortable voicing outside views in front of what could easily be a hostile audience.
What’s cowardly is presenting the “I don’t have a politics” person as nebulously white and atheist and male, while the counterpart is explicitly brown and muslim and a woman. The bitter truth is that it’s far more often the opposite. Women and religious/ethnic minorities are the ones who are perpetually under pressure to “hide their power level” so to speak. Either because they really do fear some kind of physical or social reprisal. Or because they just don’t want to have a screaming match with a MAGA shithead at a BBQ they didn’t want to be at to begin with.
It’s the Entitled Asshole who feels the need to vomit political views into every discussion and “have a debate” on every issue.
Who the fuck says they’re not? Do you think it’s your job to audit someone else’s life, to see if they’re doing enough and for the right people to meet some bar you’ve set for sufficient political engagement? It’s none of your fucking business.
I don’t really think that makes the critique fall apart, it’s just referring to a different situation than you are thinking of.
Someone who is in a vulnerable position* has the right not to discuss politics with strangers. I don’t think discomfort (as opposed to real danger) is a great reason, but fine, whatever. They should still understand it and vote accordingly, but refusing to discuss it is sometimes necessary.
Someone who is in a position of social power* and refuses to use it to help others by addressing other people’s real issues is complicit in whatever system they continue to accept and often vote for. Again, the primary duty here is understanding and voting: refusal to learn about how politics is important and in what ways it affects people, and vote accordingly, is morally wrong. It may still be necessary not to talk about it sometimes, but when and where you have the power to do so, choosing not to speak allows an unjust system to exist uncontested.
*with the understanding that this changes based on context
If the OP is read as an overall refusal to engage politically rather than about discussions specifically, which seems to be their point, then the OP does? And I would agree. Plenty of people use their social power to help others, but those who refuse to engage politically are much less likely to do so, and this harm deserves to be understood and avoided.
Uh, no, it’s everyone’s business. Politics sets the rules by which society is allowed to operate. It’s the most invasive, everyone’s-business topic there is. The only bar there is, is “care a little bit about other people”. Yes, I will make it other people’s problem if they refuse to do that-- I would consider that the “bare minimum” (I hate using that term, it’s misused so often) to participate in society.