Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 26.03.21 08:32, Christian Kastner wrote:
> All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
> apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
> possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
> for being impossible.
> Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
> inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
Exactly, the position "we should be 'apolitical'" is still a political
position, and inaction, (especially) after discussion, is still a
political statement (that we're fine with the situation as is).
That's why it's impossible to be "apolitical" here.
We can't distinguish between a "political" debate and a meta-debate that
defines the terms of the debate. It's all part of the same big ball, in
the same way that we're holding GR votes on changing the procedure of GR