Actually, it’s the other way around. I have a coherent and useful definition of politics, while most people are being manipulated by a harmful meme that shapeshifts its definition so it matches whatever they don’t personally like.
I understand the meaning you assign to it and think you’re wrong. I think you haven’t thought through the logical and ethical consequences of your meaning.
Meanings are arbitrary. They don’t have “ethical consequences”. It’s only what you do with the concepts you have at hand that have ethical consequences.
If we changed the definition of murder to be “eating strawberries” but kept all practical actions the same, there would be no ethical consequences. We would no longer say, “murder is wrong” though (because eating strawberries is perfectly acceptable) or “if you are found guilty of murder you’ll go to jail” (because what we now call murder would not be illegal)
So, what you object to is not a world in which politics means “decisions and activities concerning the governing of a population”, but a world in which certain things which are labelled politics are suppressed.
I’m glad for this opportunity to clarify your own position, but it was weird that I had to do it…
Actually, it’s the other way around. I have a coherent and useful definition of politics, while most people are being manipulated by a harmful meme that shapeshifts its definition so it matches whatever they don’t personally like.
It’s not useful if it causes you to misunderstand people, which you obviously have done.
If your employer’s office policy is “no politics in working hours” are you able to not get fired?
I’m perfectly capable of understanding you, I simply disagree with you.
You understand the meaning of the word politics but disagree with it? Good how does that work?
I understand the meaning you assign to it and think you’re wrong. I think you haven’t thought through the logical and ethical consequences of your meaning.
Meanings are arbitrary. They don’t have “ethical consequences”. It’s only what you do with the concepts you have at hand that have ethical consequences.
If we changed the definition of murder to be “eating strawberries” but kept all practical actions the same, there would be no ethical consequences. We would no longer say, “murder is wrong” though (because eating strawberries is perfectly acceptable) or “if you are found guilty of murder you’ll go to jail” (because what we now call murder would not be illegal)
So, what you object to is not a world in which politics means “decisions and activities concerning the governing of a population”, but a world in which certain things which are labelled politics are suppressed.
I’m glad for this opportunity to clarify your own position, but it was weird that I had to do it…