Tumgik
#Apolitical
heyguys-itsnicole · 7 months
Text
Here's something I'm sure you find infuriating;
"I'm not into politics. I don't really know, I'm just not a political person."
We know that this IS being political! It means you condone everything - you don't think anything is worth fighting for, you're fine with the status quo as long as it benefits you vaguely. It's the mindset of someone so aggressively individualist, that the suffering of others is simply not a concern - since the system can't be broken, if they're alright. The kind of people to vote for a fascist if it'll mean that their taxes are lower next year. To stand by and watch oppression is insidious. Not even watch - to Celebrate oppression as long as it's against the "savages" and "beasts." Mass mistreatment still exists beyond the gulf surrounding apathetic suburbia.
1K notes · View notes
Text
I cannot stand an apolitical hoe
That's embarrassing.
14 notes · View notes
snudibranchs · 7 months
Text
if asexual people are ace, are apolitical people ape?
25 notes · View notes
primoresplendens · 8 months
Text
No offense to the "apolitical" people but they almost always end up siding with the fascists and the bigots because fascists and bigots are never the ones to bring up systemic, status-quo problems as politics :\
14 notes · View notes
normalweirdoboy · 10 months
Text
THIS IS BULLSHIT:
Tumblr media
Yeah sure, just a cherry on a dung cake lol.
Diversity doesn't mean shit to anybody in this country, just a decoration to be discarded whenever seen fit.
A Sikh will be mocked as a Khalistani
A Muslim will be called a Jihadi terrorist
A Christian, and especially if he's from the North East? You're an exotic species brooo!
And it doesn't even matter if you're a Hindu, 'cause a Nepali will just be a 'chinki minki' to these North Indians (the people who constitute majority in our nation, not saying everyone is like that but you can't deny that most cases of racial or communal discrimination and bullying happens in North India or by North Indians).
Oh and I'm not making this up. It's stuff I've seen in my own college, which is supposed to be relatively better in terms of anti-bullying regulations. I wonder how people-of-diverse-backgrounds survive in other colleges.
Honestly, our generation is far worse than our parents or grandparents. At least, even if they disliked other communities, they had the decency to shut up and keep their thoughts to themselves and not go around bullying others.
And don't go in the comments starting a rant about political parties. They are just a face of what the people want and I doubt the people (or at least the majority population) wants peace or diversity. They only use it when they need to subdue the others or show a front in front of foreigners calling India a 'unity in diversity' or whatever. Then they go home and tell their kids to bitch about Bengalis or mock Marathis.
Can we just see people as people and stop picking out everyone for their religion or ethnicity? Or the least u can do is let people just live and mind your own fcking business...
13 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
There's no such thing as "apolitical".
3 notes · View notes
judasskiss · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
[apolitical is sugar-coated privilege]
4 notes · View notes
jhobruhfro · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
etherealkiller · 8 months
Text
I'm a stranger thing
So call Winona back
Flyer wings
So I can ride her
My ambitionz like Pac
Now what the fuck you got?
Hopper maybe in Easter
For now Imma eat her.
I find these curses
In the byyy bull versus
These snakes goes in herses
Now Hershey for she who loss these sneaks, before she speaks
Mousie squeaks
Thunder booms
Get your brooms cuz this witch is cleaning out closets like hiv positive
So direct deposit it!!
Now I'm back with the type
Cuz this how I write
Timing is night
Whooo this shit hype
Flows tight
Something right
Eyes wipe. Drip.
Light light lift
Off with your clothes
Make this girl shake those
Hopes give God throat
Now that's dope
Shit I'm shooting
No heroin here
That just pollutin
It the universe I'm eschew in
Blessings and whatnot
To make sure my soul hot
Hells never to far
Just a drive in a car.
Shoot fucking Star ⭐✨
5 notes · View notes
ihatethenews · 1 year
Text
Dennis knows
12 notes · View notes
bravecrab · 1 year
Text
A little underwhelmed by Andrew Callaghan's new documentary, This Place Rules. For the record, I've only been vaguely aware of his work prior when his videos would show up in my youtube recommendations, so I wasn't a fan before with an established parasocial relationship.
I had heard the film was not only tackling the run up to January 6th, but how the media was at least partially responsible for it, and it somewhat hits this target. However This Place Rules also wants to say that media companies of both sides (namely Fox News and CNN) are both complicit, yet the film rarely focuses on it. More time is spent interviewing Alex Jones, and the more progressive news sources are also being lumped in with social media platforms deplatforning Jones and his fans, pushing them into further isolated echo chambers.
This Place Rules is most successful at making the interviewees look stupid in ways that validate viewers who are opposed to the interviewee's politics. The film includes leftists too including self-proclaimed antifa, but gives plenty airtime to the more awkward members who could be dismissed as calling anyone a Nazi, or more interested in legalized weed. The whole film exudes awkwardness that makes pretty much everyone on screen look bad, with perhaps the exception of Callaghan.
I really wanted to like it, but it mostly comes off as shallow, Both Sides blaming, and more interested in gaining apolitical clout than really getting into the root causes for January 6th.
Also from the user reviews I saw on IMDB, there's a lot of praise for Callaghan's hands off interview style, saying that he's more honest because he's just letting his interviewees talk, yet completely ignoring that Callaghan expresses his bias through the edit. He can make people look smart or stupid based on who he follows their interview with, so be a little wary when he acts like he has no bias.
12 notes · View notes
custardfist · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
PARTYPANTS 👖
2 notes · View notes
hellblazerserpent · 1 year
Text
both conservatives and liberals are fucked in the head
4 notes · View notes
primoresplendens · 7 months
Text
Westerners need to have learned already that world politics are NOT things that should be judged through fandom lenses. I don't give a fuck how much their fictional creation means to you. Either go educate yourself before forming your opinion, or KEEP YOUR BIG TRAP SHUT. DON'T YOU DARE. Real lives and livelihoods, both living AND lost, are at stake, and all you care about is your favorite little show getting called out. Disgusting.
2 notes · View notes
potatotalksculture · 1 year
Text
Potato Tweet: Following up on my thoughts about Eurovision being oh so much apolitical that it’s inherently political in a very obvious way, I have watched the video essay by Rowan Ellis [1] on bans placed on LGBTQ+ books, mostly in recent years, mostly in schools, mostly in the US, but also in the UK.
When I studied philosophy, some of my favorite topics were political philosophy and the so-called production of the truth [2]. So the subject of phenomenons, things and/or groups of people being politicized is, as some say, right up my alley.
In her essay Rowan Ellis talks about the fact that books, or any kind of media for that matter, that serves any kind of LGBTQ+ representation, is being deemed political or sexual and so unsuitable for children or even teenagers. (You can catch up with this whole argument by watching her video, I've lined it at the end of this post.) While talking about all this, she mentions that the LGBTQ+ people and their lives became political because the society, expressed in this case mainly by politicians, made them so by taking a very close look at them. I don't have a thorough research to back it up, but I'd suspect that the sudden political interest in this matter was caused by the LGBTQ+ people rising up their voices, coming out of the closets and demanding being seen as they are. So people who didn't like this happening, because anyone who's not white, cisgendered and straight is a threat to the status quo, started looking for arguments to support the claim, that anyone who's not white, cisgendered and straight is at the very least not normal. Ideologically this was followed by claims of those people being a threat not only to the status quo, but mostly to the most precious thing a straight couple can share - their children. The other front are the second most vulnerable members of the straight, cis, white society - the women. What about the men? They are supposed to protect those women and children, so they cannot become another victim group. Obviously leaving the whole discussion about the fragile masculinity aside.
So something, someone, some group of people became the subject of a political debate. They actively wanted that. The fact that oftentimes LGBTQ+ rights and lives are discussed without some direct representation of the group concerned being in the room is another topic. With this fact on the side one can say that being politicized and being part of the political debate are two different things. When someone is a part of a debate, they are active in their role, they can present their arguments and defend them against criticism. When someone or something is being politicized is it a passive part of the debate and gets little to no representation.
The example of the ESC showed that deeming something apolitical is a deeply political statement. When a school board or a legislator deems political topics unsuitable for children, they declare those topics political and the children apolitical. Which is a concept as old as time. Back in the ancient Greece and Rome you had to be of some age, among other requirements, to be allowed to participate in the political life of a state. But what if a child, even before it becomes a teenager, confronts itself with a thought that they are gay, lesbian or trans? If homo- and transsexuality are political topics, does this person become political in the process of realizing their differentness? The intuitive response would be: yes. This child becomes politicized and so an object of a political debate. A kind of debate, none of the people banning books on LGBTQ+ subjects want to be having.
This post will not find an end some day, in some other post, maybe after some research, as soon as I'm done with my studies. I lost my train of thought but it was something about: How do phenomenons get politicized and why?
Thanks for sticking with the text to this point.
________ Sources: [1] Rowan Elis, "The Dangerous Rise of LGBTQ+ Book Banning" [2] My understanding of that is based on the lectures Michel Foucault gave at Collège de France in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. Those were translated into English and published in two volumes titled respectively "Security, Territory, Population" an "The Birth of Biopolitics".
3 notes · View notes
Text
I am deeply and genuinely concerned about the current state of the world. We are experiencing a very dark era where humanity is on the verge of a Third World War and facing a global pandemic, but that's not what bothers me the most. Due to nihilism, masses in despair have created their own postapocalyptic, Orwellian bubble to deal with our current existential crisis. It reminds me of the dystopian, absurdist, kafkaesque, and lifeless world portrayed by Terry Gilliam in Brazil. Yet they like to call it an 'aesthetic', when it's in actuality its antithesis. Or please explain to me where is the beauty in the extermination of life, when life itself and this only planet we have are our main sources of beauty?
What baffles me is the fact that many are oblivious of their power as individuals to influence the course of history. We need nihilism to understand that morals are relative and change through time, to challenge and defeat the tyranny of the absolute. However we must also learn to overcome it and realize that even though slavery, mysogny and so many horrid things were moral once, the one thing that has evolved positively is that things continously improve for the wide majority.
The nihilist just stands in a moving train thinking he/she/they is neutral. He/she/they claims to be 'apolitical' inside a system where taking no sides is taking a side, where being apolitical is actually being political. The nihilist cynically refuses to vote, while a collectivity decides how he/she/they will live his/her/their life in an ongoing election. The nihilist is a tool, an instrument of the status quo.
God is indeed dead, but you know what? Now is the time that you stop whining about it and get over it. You might well be alive as you are reading this. What's more, you are privileged enough to have the time to think and reach these conclusions, so why don't you go and find some meaning for your existence? And if you can't find it, build it yourself.
Please understand the fact that there is a lot of suffering in this world, and I'm not referring to the extremely privileged pain of going through an existential crisis, I am referring to poverty, to social, racial, and environmental injustice. You can count yourself as lucky if you have a meal on your table today, count yourself as even luckier for being able to meditate and read this right now, because it is the sole product of people in history finding meaning to their life and joining the fight to make things better for future generations who actually made it possible.
It's sad to be brought to life in such a hopeless world without anyone asking you first, but regardless of what you believe in (or what you don't), it's an even sadder solid fact to go to a deathbed without leaving this world a better place than you found it.
18 notes · View notes