A working class guy with hayfever.
The oppression that cames with being a worker and humiliation expressed by an L on his forehead. Combine this with a suffering from a force of nature, no one is to blame for. But than again, why can’t he afford hayfever spray. A rich guy would get a cure, he has to endure it.
And did you know that climate change worsens hayfever. We already established that hayfever is a sickness of the poor and therefore inherently political. The rich are to blame for climate change, still the poor have to endure it. Still he does everything but stop it but all he can do is greenwash his hat. If this doesn’t scream “proletarians of all nations, unite”, I don’t know what does.
I can’t tell if you’re being ironic or not.
Neither do I
Then it is too and truly art itself.
And let’s talk about health care. If he had access to affordable health care he would be able to buy the medicine he needs to feel better. As long as the government doesn’t regulate what they can do with their body.
He looks to the left and has a green hat. How much more political do you want?
I think the better way to say it is that all art can be understood in a political frame of reference
Using this as a rebuttal to the idea that art can always be understood in a political light for example, is a political statement, that statement being “stop bringing politics into my field of view!”
The idea of apoliticalness is one that originates from, as a maddened wizard once drivelled, “devout followers of the status quo”, they see politics as a tool only for fixing things, and so the idea that everything is political is to them an extremely radical statement that should be regarded with suspicion, it’s almost an accusation in their eyes, and people go into fight or flight mode when feeling accused.
This guy chose freeze and put up a distorted luigi model in an attempt to soil himself so that the bear would stop eating him
I think the issue with this interpretation is the word “inherently” in the original post. It implies there is some intrinsic value to the art that makes it political.
While it’s true that all art can be interpreted politically, it’s no more or less true than “all food can be interpreted politically” or “all cats can be interpreted politically.” I can understand absolutely anything you want in a “political frame of reference.”
When a definition is that broad, it becomes useless.
It’s not useless.
It’s specifically not useless because people forget this.
Where there is disagreement, there is politics.
Telling Mariah Carey to leave politics in her b-sides is, inherently, not possible.
It’s true that where there’s disagreement there’s politics. It’s also true that where there’s agreement there’s politics. There’s politics in Mariah’s B-sides and A-sides and in the font chosen in the album cover. The material the disc is made out of is politics, and so is the air that transmits the sound waves to your ears.
My point is that if everything is political, then calling something political loses all meaning. The term political is, then, useless.
But how would you tell someone of the world’s politics without it?
You don’t seem to agree, but it’s kind of incontrovertible.
All communication is rhetoric. The way that you stand, the clothes you present, the style of speech you adopt—but rhetoric is just the name for all of that.
Colloquially, political just means something is more terse than usual.
But that’s the thing I’m arguing about. The usual, the normal, is still at odds with the fringes. There is no debate between the political instigators and normal, apolitical society, who would like to return to a time when trans people weren’t in movies (or blacks, or women)—there is only politics.
I’m just saying, a lot of people are afraid to rock the boat, and they need to get off that shit.
The issue I have is that when you say that “trans people deserve equal rights,” and “I prefer my toast with butter on it” are equally political, I can’t take that position seriously. You might as well be saying they are equally “clifnibble” for all the meaning of has.
What you’re doing here is an “everything is a sandwich” type thing. Taco, sandwich. Ravioli, sandwich. The planet earth, basically a ravioli, so sandwich.
While that’s a fun thought experiment, and maybe technically true depending on how you define the word, if someone started trying to eat dirt because they said they wanted a sandwich, I’d call them nuts.
Yes, all things are political, if you define the word political that way. But when you start spouting off about how someone butters their toast being political, you’re reducing issues that actually matter down to that level.
And look, I do understand what you’re driving at. You are pushing back against people who don’t want to involve themselves “in politics.” I think it’s horribly reductive to paint them all as wanting to go back to the 1950s. I think most are probably fine with the LGBTQ+ community, and aren’t looking to go back to some racist “utopia.”
I think most just want to live their lives. They have families and jobs and parents with failing health and financial pressures. There are thousands of marginalized groups. They would happily throw a dollar in a donation tin for them, but they don’t have the emotional bandwidth or time to travel to DC and stand in protest, or argue with strangers on the Internet over it.
They’re not scared to rock the boat, they just have shit to do that has a far more immediate impact on their life and mental/physical health.Equally political…?
Mate, I don’t imagine that Mariah Carey’s latest album and the Rosa Parks Bus Boycotts are, like, the same severity. I don’t really know how to respond to that.
You are pushing back against people who don’t want to involve themselves “in politics.”
No.
I’m pushing back against people who don’t see politics. Who view being “normal” and doing what society expects of you as anti-transgressive.
To coerce people into normal society is transgressive. After all, you can’t do that without power.
What I’m describing is a “no standing still on a moving train” kind of situation. I’m challenging the idea that “being normal” or “maintaining the status quo” or “not rocking the boat too much” is a moral good. That “difference” is political, and “the same” is where we ought to be. The idea that the real problem with society is that people complain too much.
Somebody can agree with everything I just said and never talk to their congress person once.
I think it’s horribly reductive to paint them all as wanting to go back to the 1950s.
But in the 1950s, people wanted the rabble-rousers about women to shut up, didn’t they?
The issues today are different, but it’s all the same.
The issue then is one of definitions. 99% of people would say that the OP image of a distorted Luigi is, in fact, apolitical.
While you can argue that it’s political, it cheapens the word.
If, on a spectrum from 1-10, with Rosa Parks being a 10, this is, well, I suppose I can’t say a number lower than one.
The colloquial understanding of the word political then, is one not just of kind but severity. There is some severity threshold of “abstract political-ness” of a thing that, below that said threshold, would not be considered “political” in the colloquial sense.
The issue is that, when you assert that “no, those things are political,” you are elevating them in severity above that threshold. To the average listener, you are likening our distorted Luigi friend to Rosa Parks, and that is offensive.
That’s why I’m pushing back on the all things are political position.
The issue with the latter point is that you’re painting a false dichotomy.
We are not in fact on a moving train, we are living life where we find ourselves.
Yes, society moves forward, but it isn’t a monolith. Some parts move faster, and others slower. There are 10,000 different cultural fronts, and on some you are extremely progressive, and on some you are “standing still” or “normal” as it were. It’s impossible to devote the emotional/mental bandwidth to be on the bleeding edge of every front.
And standing still isn’t the same as advocating that where you’re standing is where everyone else should stand. It’s more than possible to live a “normal” life without “coercing” other people to do the same.
I think the differentiator here is “a” moral good vs “the” moral good. I think it’s more than reasonable to see unity and peace as worthy goals to strive for, and to know when to pick your battles on any given issue. That compromise can be preferable to chaos for all reasonable parties.
Which is not to say there aren’t hard limits. Compromise of human life and dignity are clearly unacceptable. But the idea that someone is willing to not build their identity around political issues (which is to say, those that rise above the political severity level to make them so in our current cultural zeitgeist), and to live in peace among those with whom they disagree. That doesn’t seem so bad to me.
Quality public health!!
