• petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    To the average listener, you are likening our distorted Luigi friend to Rosa Parks.

    Not really. I just assume more of their intelligence than you do.

    We are not in fact on a moving train,

    Was Roe v. Wade overturned with or without you?

    It was overturned without a lot of people.

    But, regardless, this actually has nothing to do with whether having Christmas dinner with mom’s family or dad’s is an issue of politics (the family’s).

    If you lack the imagination for why two people might disagree about some Luigi head, whatever. They still can. Maybe somebody views it as ableist, maybe it becomes a nazi dogwhistle, maybe it’s not funny enough and the community argues about whether content like this should even be welcome here. Maybe somebody thinks it’s gross and doesn’t want it in their eyes, and what was just an image of Luigi is now a point of stubborn unwelcomeness from the community and the reason why this individual decides to leave forever.

    Not all of these examples demand that you care about them. People leave sometimes. Oh well.

    You don’t have a counter to the idea that politics is everywhere—you keep agreeing with it and then dismissing it. This grandstanding about treating very serious ideas very seriously is getting really boring.

    • testfactor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think you’re misunderstanding me, willfully or unwillfully.

      It’s not about treating serious things seriously. It’s the understanding that when someone says “let’s not talk politics at the dinner table,” they don’t mean to not talk about distorted pictures of Luigi.

      Words have meanings. Sometimes multiple meanings. But we have to share a common understanding of what a word means to have meaningful conversation. All the arguments about the Luigi image are as much “politics” as a chef boyardee ravioli is a “sandwich.” Which is to say, probably arguably so, but people will think you’re stupid if you make the argument in all seriousness.

      As for roe v wade, it depends on what you mean. I’m not on the supreme court, so I certainly didn’t repeal it myself. I didn’t vote for Trump, so I didn’t repeal it in that manner either. But I didn’t campaign for it. I didn’t call anyone or post angry messages online. I think it was ruled the wrong way, but it also isn’t an issue that directly affects my life.

      And that’s my point. If you spent emotional energy on every miscarriage of justice, you wouldn’t have time to live your life. Are you equally mad about every dictator in Africa or the middle east? Did you buy products from companies that take part in deforestation? Do you eat meat? Follow every single local election closely and have deep opinions about the two people running for the children’s court judge position? Do you have opinions about the people running for president in the Philippines? In Canada? Mexico? If you don’t actively care about all of those things, then you’re the one “standing still and reinforcing the status quo” on all those issues.

      It’s okay to not let every issue dominate your life.

      But I do agree I got bored with this exchange 2 messages ago, and am mostly responding on autopilot. Happy to call it here if you’d like to. No worries either way.

      Hope life is treating you well, and you’re having a restful weekend my guy.