• FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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?

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You understand the meaning of the word politics but disagree with it? Good how does that work?

        • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            54 minutes ago

            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…