/siberia/ - Off-topic

neutrality is a metaphysical idealist myth. you have objective material interests. a person can only socially perform a theoretical neutrality for the purposes of behaving in a scientific manner, but they cannot be actually neutral since conflicts of interest are omnipresent.

>>808594
But I don't want to be.. political..

>>808594
You can delude yourself into believing you are apolitical but you cannot actually be apolitical.

>>808602
Doesn’t he review literature?
Also, apolitical isn’t an impossible thing. It’s a rarity but not a myth

>>808592
Lobotomy or become drug addict

>>808604
If a person is alive, they have needs, if they have needs, they have to struggle to meet those needs within human society, which implies material interests, conflicts of interests, politics, class, and class struggle.

>>808604
apolitical is a tacit support for the status quo, thus implicitly taking a posture, retard. it's not a question of rarity, it's a fucking contradiction.

>>808605
someone who is lobotomized or drug addicted is not apolitical. Their existence is highly political.

>>808608
They're influenced by politics and matter but not consciously, atleast not in any serious manner, I guess you could argue the addict would want some kind of decriminalisation and welfare of they're down bad.

if*

>>808609
being political isn't about feeling political or subjectively internalizing yourself as political. it's about how you interact with society and what the political consequences of your existence are. A person who is brain dead for example has no political feelings or thoughts, but they require resources to stay alive, making their existence have political consequences, meaning they not only exist, but are political.

>>808607
Care to clarify? Because you assume that there’s only side A and side B

“If you’re not with me you’re against me” is just petty vindictive nonsense

>>808606
It’s not political, it’s just nature
Politics can only exist because of evolution/nature

>>808612
if A is stronger than B, and you refuse to intervene in the struggle between A and B on the side of B, then that means A will continue being stronger than B. A is the status quo, because A is stronger, therefore neutrality in the face of a struggle between strong and weak benefits the strong.

>>808613
>Politics can only exist because of evolution/nature
yes. politics is natural and it is impossible to escape politics. one can only pretend to transcend it, which pretending is itself a highly political act.

>>808592
realise that 99% of politics is people signalling their personality type and so should not be taken seriously.
high openness, high agreeableness? leftist or liberal
low openness, low agreeableness? conservative or fascist
high openness, low agreeableness? generally some kind of libertarian or ancap, occasionally a prickly leftist or esoteric rightoid.

since this isn't easy, another option is to cultivate great open-mindedness. allow yourself to be convinced by elements of both communist and bourgeois econ theories, while picking up other eclectic stuff from random weirdoes, such that you're generally in a neutral position when it comes to anything against abject idiocy.

>>808607
naive, for most opposition to the status quo is also incorporated into it. why do you think /leftypol/ exists, if not because the overall structure of society has evolved in such a way as to let it exist?
in a brittle authoritarian society, you crack down on dissenters because if enough people go "the status quo sucks", they might actually overthrow you.
in our current society, you actively sell the idea that the status quo sucks because people are disempowered enough that it just acts as a release valve, and in any case they disagree (based on personality) as to exactly why the status quo sucks. does it suck because capitalism is mean and exploitative and the world has trade-offs that you don't want to make, or does it suck because you have to see brown people and women and brown transgender women when you go on /v/ specifically to get mad about those people?

to be genuinely political you must have some power or influence as a political actor. it makes not one jot of difference whether i post here in opposition to the status quo or in its defence. posting is just posting, to be genuinely political i'd have to organise, and not only organise but do so effectively. (pretty much every western "communist" party is an apolitical LARP.)

>>808614
if A is overwhelmingly stronger than B and overwhelmingly stronger than you, and if your actions will not inspire others, then intervening in favour of B makes no difference. Particularly if your "intervention" consists of posting on leftypol.org.
(on twitter there's at least the chance you're shifting sign value around ever so slightly. e.g. this is why i will go to bat for the moderate political usefulness of annoying vegans - their theory of voluntary abstention from consumption as individuals to reduce meat production is wrong, but by pushing it publicly they change the marketing image of meat, which has an aggregate effect. this is also true of, say, BDS. the great irony, then, is that many of the most effective political actions one can take are "virtue signalling" posting on the internet, while many ostensibly "more effective" actions like joining a communist party to prepare for revolution are utterly impotent.)

>>808631
>realise that 99% of politics is people signalling their personality type and so should not be taken seriously.
>99%
source on this statistic you have provided?

>>808631
>opposition to the status quo is also incorporated into it
even more evidence that it is impossible to be apolitical. anyway. false opposition or recuperated opposition or kayfabe or whatever you want to call it is not true opposition. true opposition takes a material form of real violent resistance. you can tell one from the other quite easily. If you are a real threat, you will be violently suppressed.

>>808633
source: the internet

>>808634
if you magically disappeared and it would have no effect in the political situation, it is safe to say that you are "apolitical" in the sense in which you mean it. it therefore comes as no harm to cultivate "apolitical" attitudes as OP means it. if you are neither for the status quo, nor truly against it, what can your position sum to except zero?
(this before we get into the complications where your attitude, actions, and actual results are not always coherently linked if you are a political actor. think, for example, of Gorbachev destroying the USSR.)

it is true that real threats will, in the last resort, be violently suppressed, but many violent non-threats are also violently suppressed. 250+ US mass shooters this year so far, many of whom ate a police bullet, all of whom are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. "apolitical" nutters even if they had a LARP manifesto.
(but i will obviously grant that, say, all the arrested pro-Palestine people in the UK are "political". i would take Britain and Trump's turn towards more overt repression and reaction as a mark of underlying weakness compared to the recent past.)

but for all my posting, the main practical advice i seek to offer is how OP can spend less time thinking about politics. it is not productive. if you disagree with my theories on the whole, you only affirm my point that it was a waste of time to come up with them and i may as well have been playing animal crossing and making happy little houses for the animals.