| > "Everything is political" is such a boring tautology. 1. The comment above didn’t say “Everything is political”. 2. "Everything is political" isn’t true. One might say that many things are influenced by politics; that’s fine, but downstream influence is neither pure single-factor causality nor equality. 3. "Everything is political" isn’t a tautology either. Support for #2 and #3: There are things in the universe that existed prior to (and independent of) politics, like the Earth. There are phenomena influenced by politics but not inherently political, such as the phenomena of global warming or measuring the level of inflation. What to do about global warming or inflation is political, if you are lucky, meaning you have some persuasive influence at all (not the case in a dictatorship) and/or don’t have to resort to violence. |
| |
| ▲ | xpe 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Here, I'm thinking out loud. Are "Everything is political" and "There are no apolitical institutions" are functionally the same thing? When I read "everything is political", I interpret that as meaning "all human interactions involve power relations, competing interests, and/or resource allocation". When I read "there are no apolitical institutions", I interpret that as meaning "all institutions are downstream of politics (meaning government, whatever its form)". I think it is useful to differentiate between the two phrases and their meanings. But of course they are closely related. Beyond each of us understanding what the other means, I'm not sure we're making specific enough claims to warrant litigating if "they are functionally the same". It seems like a contextual and subjective choice of where to draw a line. Feel free to say more if I'm missing something. | |
| ▲ | tpm 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > tpm is claiming that any institution which interacts with the government in any way is political in nature I am arguing that any institution is political by its very existence. Even if the true nature of the institutions is hidden by the current regime, as it is often the case in the West. The funniest thing, of course, is that we are arguing under an article containing a political attack in the political magazine Reason, published by the political Reason Foundation. That's not the ideal starting point if you want to prove the possibility of apoliticalness of anything. | | |
| ▲ | dahfizz 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you define "institution" and "political" for me, then? I would argue that there is nothing political about a local bakery, for example. Just a dude making some cakes. He may occasionally be forced to interact with the government, but his bakery as an institution has nothing at all to do with government organizations or political theory. By its nature, a bakery is apolitical. | | |
| ▲ | tpm 7 days ago | parent [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution is as good as any. I would not consider a small (one person or family) bakery an institution. A large one (measured by number of employees etc) would be an institution, and defining the threshold is not important here. Political - relating to the government or public affairs of a country | | |
| ▲ | dahfizz 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Okay. And your argument is that a large bakery is fundamentally related to government affairs? What about the nature of a large bakery is political? | | |
| ▲ | tpm 6 days ago | parent [-] | | My argument is that every institution is political whether it wants or not.
Bakery is very obviously political because everyone tends to eat food and as such food is an evergreen political theme. Perhaps this is more visible in some countries than others, for example in a neighboring country the price of butter is a quite common item in TV news (really), and it's not a poor country. But also other than that, a few years ago there were some articles about a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for gays, and it was a public affair for a few weeks. Is that political enough for you? | | |
| ▲ | dahfizz 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I just think we are talking about different things. I hear what you are saying, but I don't think that bakeries being tangentially related to politically charged topics make them a political institution.
Bakeries also handle and store money, but that doesn't make them a bank. etc. The nature of bakeries as an institution is not political - they are not concerned with the organization of government and policies. They may interact with the government but that doesn't make it a political institution. | | |
| ▲ | tpm 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This started as a discussion about whether not-primarily-political institutions (like Scientific American) should have and publish political opinions. It was started by an attack of a political institution (Reason) saying they should not. That attack itself makes the target politically relevant. Bakeries are in a similar position. Once an owner declines to serve a customer based on his (owner or customer) political leaning, it's politically relevant. If a politican attack bakers because (he feels that) the bread price is too high, it's politically relevant.
I think there was an American civil rights movement in the 60's which was in a great part about equal access to services for all ethnicities. Was that not political? > they are not concerned with the organization of government and policies 'or public affairs'. You wanted a definition and then you are ignoring it? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xpe 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I read tpm's core points as (1) all institutions are downstream of politics (meaning government, whatever its form) and (2) Therefore, don't take institutions for granted; they rely on compatible upstream governance. I think tpm most wanted to impress the second point upon readers. When reading dahfizz's comment ""Everything is political" is such a boring tautology."... (a) I didn't see how a point being boring has any bearing on tpm's second point; (b) So I couldn't tell if dahfizz agreed or disagreed with tpm's second point; (c) As a result, dahfizz's comment felt nit-picky to me. Meta-commentary: It would seem that dahfizz and I both feel like the other is being nitpicky. It seems to me this is a signal that some kind of breakdown is happening on at the conversational level. |
|
