this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
368 points (96.0% liked)
memes
19134 readers
2141 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree
Then politics for you is a meaningless concept, and not the same one that people mean when they say "don't talk about politics in [x]" (where x is never "public", for the record).
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...
I already clarified My position on My blog, not once, nor twice, nor even thrice, but quice, each time building upon the ideas and exploring the definition of politics in a new context.
But it will not take Me an entire blog post to dismantle your claim that definitions can't have ethical consequences. I can simply point out Trump's definition of gender, or Albanese's definition of antisemitism, as definitions with the potential to cause a great deal of harm. We choose how to construct our understanding of the world around us, and with this power comes a responsibility to do so wisely.
I don't remember the exact definitions they chose for those terms, so I don't want to comment on those without knowing them precisely.