Why do certain people think "everything is political" and that we need to insert politics in everything?

they're irrelevant/lolcows irl so they start to worry too much about other people
 
Uncle Ted talks about this in his article on the Washington Post.

Basically some people have no way to directly influence the world around them - Ted calls this "participating in the power process" - so they live vicariously though IRL video games AKA politics. They identify strongly with a group and work for that groups supposed goals, experiencing achievement of said goals as a simulacrum of real life achievement.

One problem though: fake achievement doesn't have the same real benefits or emotional sense of fulfillment. My life still sucks; I just fooled myself for a short time into believing otherwise. Thus I need to keep doing it - and doing it more often and in a more extreme manner - to get the same high.

So if I'm an underemployed loser who needs to kiss everyone's ass to survive, I cope by identifying with far-left political organizations and spend my free time improving my life and achieving financial independence getting people fired for petty BS.

tl;dr

In modern society, everything is a Skinner box; we are trapped in the belly of this horrifying machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.

Yeah, this. Factor in a medium that allows anyone to put their stupid "world-changing" thoughts on blast and presto, infinite echo chambers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pomme Poire Peche
This is also a lesbian thing. Like sex with men is by nature rape, a penis as in instrument of domination ... women who have male partners are like chattel, due to the way they have accepted being the less dominant sex, etc etc.

I don't know about working class lesbians, or science-minded lesbians, but I know liberal arts and social science university people are like this.

Every goddamn thing is political, down to the choices of food in the cafeteria.

I think the question about "Why" was already answered by others. But among these overanalytical types, politicizing everything probably gives them a sense of joined purpose and group cohesion. And their theories do work ... I mean the fact that femininity is considered weak, when appropriated by a man, says a lot about femininity. Why are pants default, and skirts the "other?"

A lot of these folks are in their own world, and have the time and resources to politicize everything. For the rest of the world, getting through the day is an exhausting endeavor, let alone burden yourself with political chatter.
 
Last edited:
Bourgeois pseudo-Marxism, in which all artistic things must have a moral, and the moral must always be about social power. Nothing can simply be beautiful to these people; all aesthetic things must be morally comforting to them, because they have a juvenile conscience that struggles to define itself against evil.

One day, they'll tattoo PROTECT TRANS KIDS on the wings of butterflies.
But before that they'll get kids to play crossgender in school, not tell parents about it and drag parents in front of human rights tribunals if they discover and object.

I mean the fact that femininity is considered weak, when appropriated by a man, says a lot about femininity. Why are pants default, and skirts the "other?"

Male femininity is weak because he doesn't have the attractiveness and implied fertility to go with it.

Female feminity is sometimes considered weak, because it's power is mostly indirect. The more directly it is used, the more it is attacked.
 
Last edited:
I think for the average person, things tend to get politicized because of social conditioning. Anything a person does reflects them and themselves to some extent or another, reflecting their values and beliefs.

Art imitates life, as they say. A prime example is the body of early "Gangsta Rap". That music was angry, violent, and sexist as a result of the surroundings those performers grew up in. Same can be said for most artistic expression.

The issue now is that contemporary artists don't understand nuance or subtlety and use their platform not as a means to be paid for their performance but as a soap box.

Star Wars 30 years ago was political discourse between authoritarianism and libertarianism, but no one complained because it was entertaining and the commentary was an undercurrent, not a cudgel the audience was beaten with as it is today.
 
But before that they'll get kids to play crossgender in school, not tell parents about it and drag parents in front of human rights tribunals if they discover and object.

Male femininity is weak because he doesn't have the attractiveness and implied fertility to go with it.

Female feminity is sometimes considered weak, because it's power is mostly indirect. The more directly it is used, the more it is attacked.

I could reply to your reply, and then another person chimes in, and then we are falling into the same trap that the OP is addressing.

Another answer to the question, is because we can cultivate this stuff on a global scale.

in many parts of the world, we have almost universal literacy these days. And I don't know about internet access, but a he'll of a lot of people have it. When people have an IQ in the upper 85th percentile (I am using the concept loosly) we are still talking about millions of average Joe's and Janes. Folks who see things beyond an apple being an apple, something you put in your lunch ... People are curious about the world and bored.And we feed off each other.

So why do we politicize everything? I would argue, that it is because we can. And it is fun, if you are one of millions who is adept at writing and conceptualizing abstractly.

Some folks politicize because it is a mental habit. And their view is broad because they have bigger, better faster neurons in their brains. So they put an apple in their lunch bag, and start thinking about apple farmers unionizing in Washington State. This is how these folks are built.

It is like why can some people sit on the couch all day, while others feel like they have ants in their pants and need to go jogging, or clean the house or something?
 
Last edited:
Because they want to justify the subject that they're talking about to be the soapbox for their politics which is kind of like family guy cutaway gags, rather than it being part of the combination of audio, visual and game play elements that flow well together like these 2 examples
 
  • Like
Reactions: ??? and Lemmingwise
I could reply to your reply, and then another person chimes in, and then we are falling into the same trap that the OP is addressing

I think it is a mistake, or at the least, unpractical to be too concerned with falling into such a trap or not. Listen to it, sure, but when you start to censor oneself it's going too far.

---

I agree that globalism and literacy play a role in it, but podcasts and streams may be where the real influence spread is, more so than by written word.

----

Modernism and postmodernism brought with it a general attack on grand narratives historically. We've also seen a general receding of religion/ spirituality. To some degree freud's psychiatry attempted to fill (or create) the hole.

It's not like people lose the desire for big answers and absent any others, politics becomes the substitute. Politicians who tell you why you're miserable or cheated and who is responsible.

But converting people to vote for you isn't effective. You want to convert people to convert people for you. It's the ultimate pyramid scheme. And the end result is that you run into converts all day long, who run everything through that lens, with their political branch as ultimate authority. Especially the people that don't think for themselves crave authority. The uncomfortable thing to accept that all of us like to flatter ourselves that we're far removed from that, while in practice we bow to authorities on a lot of subjects.

And then when we're pawns of ideology and we come to a place where ideas have us rather than us having ideas, there is an endless survival of the fittest.

That's how it seems to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between everything having a potential moral or political dimension and all events being crude bumper stickers supporting your position.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Spedestrian
I think it is a mistake, or at the least, unpractical to be too concerned with falling into such a trap or not. Listen to it, sure, but when you start to censor oneself it's going too far.

---

I agree that globalism and literacy play a role in it, but podcasts and streams may be where the real influence spread is, more so than by written word.

----

Modernism and postmodernism brought with it a general attack on grand narratives historically. We've also seen a general receding of religion/ spirituality. To some degree freud's psychiatry attempted to fill (or create) the hole.

It's not like people lose the desire for big answers and absent any others, politics becomes the substitute. Politicians who tell you why you're miserable or cheated and who is responsible.

But converting people to vote for you isn't effective. You want to convert people to convert people for you. It's the ultimate pyramid scheme. And the end result is that you run into converts all day long, who run everything through that lens, with their political branch as ultimate authority. Especially the people that don't think for themselves crave authority. The uncomfortable thing to accept that all of us like to flatter ourselves that we're far removed from that, while in practice we bow to authorities on a lot of subjects.

And then when we're pawns of ideology and we come to a place where ideas have us rather than us having ideas, there is an endless survival of the fittest.

That's how it seems to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

No, you are 100% right.

But I think that what is generalized as "politicising" can loosly fall under the category of "critical thinking."

Except for phrases that begin with slurs like "libtards" or "wingnuts" or "feminazis" + verb. Although that isn't really politicizing, that is a foolish attempt to polarize oneself, and s3ek solidarity, in the face of an actual political debate.

... basically before the 1960's history was the study of DWMs (Dead White Males) and presented in a paradigm of "the March of Progress." That was the master narrative, but post civil rights arguably postmodernism, these master narratives fall apart, as is was made known that there is more than one voice, and more than one set of hands that built the modern world as we know it.

I would argue that modernism is less of a questioning of authority, as it is a broadening of it. Postmodernism is where anti-authoritarianism effectively becomes institutionalized, hence the burgeoning of the ideological "politicization" of what was previously taken for granted, as part of a master heirarchy
 
Last edited:
Most people I see that act this way seem to be unemployed and or have no meaningful employment, no life commitments like a wife or children giving them too much "free time" so they get addicted to the computer. Now I'm not saying all people are like this but there is clearly correlation to it.
 
I think it's older than you may believe. There is a second wave adage of feminism that goes "the personal is political", and that gives leeway to take every minor inconvience in life and make it some grand political statement. The only reason we notice it more now is you can tweet about it and everyone will see it. It's a convient get out of jail for free card with personal responsibliy too
 
Back