Miscellaneous What is “Politics”?

[skeller047]

In the current thread on AI, Pete reminded us to keep politics out of the discussion, and to put side queries in another thread. So here is the side query…

When does a discussion become political? If something is an important societal topic (e.g., the state of music education, or the emergence of AI), there are certain to be politicians and government employees involved somehow. (Well, maybe not in music education, more’s the pity.) I’d like some clarity and perhaps a discussion on where the line is.

Case in point - government involvement in and support of health care. In most of the developed world, this is a non-issue. In the USA it’s a political hot potato. But this topic is important culturally and socially. Studies on strategies for extending lifespan. What tests to get, and where and how to get them. Seeking advice on a particular health condition. Etc. Here in the US, this can stray very easily into political waters - because of the various money, power and philosophical opinions around the subject.

So if I say “I think taxpayer funds should be used to provide a sensible baseline of health care support for everyone”, is that political? Or do I have to add something about a particular politician, or perhaps discuss specific legislation, to make it cross the line? “Joe Blow is an idiot because he thinks Medicare should be cancelled.”

I ask because topics like AI and healthcare affect us all, both as musicians and as humans in society. (Also as saxophonists, because some AI systems seem to think one needs 7 or 8 fingers per hand to play one!)

In the current discussion of AI, which is important IMO, there are obvious cultural and societal implications around the uses of AI. And these very easily stray into discussions of current political topics because various governments and government agencies are actively involved. Some guidelines on where to draw the boundaries of the discussion would be helpful.

 

[mizmar]

Unfortunately, for several issues, things become politics when politicians stick their oar in. That can be for good reasons or just to be decisive; but at that point one has to be hyper aware of what the core issue is, where the political boundaries are or, indeed, whether the whole isse has been polluted.

 

[Gandalfe]

That AI thread was so good I shared the link with a lot of my musician friends.

 

[Jeanette]

I think defining the line is very difficult. Here is my take and @Pete Thomas may differ

think taxpayer funds should be used to provide a sensible baseline of health care support for everyone”, is that political?

Probably, but it is not inflammatory so I would be comfortable with it.

Joe Blow is an idiot because he thinks Medicare should be cancelled.”

That is definitely inflammatory and would be deleted but 'Joe's Blow thinks Medicare should be cancelled because....." Would be staying facts.

However experience shows not everyone can post in that style and whilst an individuals post may be fine it is what comes next that makes the thread deteriorate.

It's not that we mind political topics it is that members have strong views that they cannot share in a civilised manner. This leads to members disliking each other for their views and this dislike then carries over into other threads and factions develop.

Posts are not always read in the way they are written, you may be making a small attempt at humour that is lost in the reading! Saying something to someone face to face is very different to writing/reading it unless the members know each other very well.

Jx

 

[Pete Thomas]

Some guidelines on where to draw the boundaries of the discussion would be helpful.

I know this and really wish I could do that. An analogy would be COVID. A hugely important topic to discuss at the time. And it was all fine, we could even discuss a mask you could use while playing the saxophone. But then mask mandates became political. And then vaccinations became political.

In an ideal world I wish we could discuss politics in a sensible adult way, but we learned that it wasn’t possible on this kind of forum.

Maybe partly because the written word can’t be as nuanced as a friendly debate down the pub.

I think the fact we are international had something to do with questioning what is political. In the UK hunting is political, in the US it doesn’t seem to be. Likewise in the UK gun legislation isn’t really political. And so on.

To answer the question though…

What is politics used to be easy. I used to think it was defined by discussion of party politics, e.g. republican vs democrat, labour vs conservative etc however I think politics has changed and is so often about the personality.

E.g. we should be ok to discuss economics per se as in it’s ok to discuss tariffs but not when it’s labelled Trump tariffs because that is so loaded

think taxpayer funds should be used to provide a sensible baseline of health care support for everyone”, is that political?

Probably, but it is not inflammatory so I would be comfortable with it.

I think it could be in the US but less likely in the UK unless there was a current political debate going on about healthcare.

It's not that we mind political topics it is that members have strong views that they cannot share in a civilised manner. This leads to members disliking each other for their views and this dislike then carries over into other threads and factions develop.

This hits the nail on the head. We have tried in the past and it led to a very bad place.

Often the main issue may not be so much the content of a post as it stands, but where it is destined to lead.

So Im afraid it's hard to give a definitive answer for all cases apart from the most blatant "vote for **** !"

 

[Grumps]

So if I say “I think taxpayer funds should be used to provide a sensible baseline of health care support for everyone”, is that political?

I just hope it's not political to disagree with this. First and foremost, medicine is a business. Most of it is wholly unnecessary. I ain't payin' for it. So that's not political. It's just good sense. There is no right to healthcare as if it's some godly reverence. Historically, it's just been used to rip people off... and of course, that continues. Its true nature given our own sensibilities.

 

[turf3]

...

E.g. we should be ok to discuss economics per se as in it’s ok to discuss tariffs but not when it’s labelled Trump tariffs because that is so loaded

...

Well, there's a classic example. Even the discussion of the history of tariffs will become political.

I guess we will have to wobble on, using the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" principle, and also the "the referee may not always be right, but the rules of the game say that we follow the referee's rulings" principle.

 

[ghostler]

I guess we will have to wobble on, using the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" principle, and also the "the referee may not always be right, but the rules of the game say that we follow the referee's rulings" principle.

Nah, just common sense; you can kind of tell when a thread is going into a direction of contention, when the tone of the discussion starts to border with expressions bordering abuse. At least IMO is what I gather.

 

[Pete Thomas]

"I can't define it but I know it when I see it"

Yes, although sometimes as I said above you can define it and it's obvious.

"the referee may not always be right, but the rules of the game say that we follow the referee's rulings" principle.

When it's not clear cut we act in what we see as the best interests of keeping the forum nice, if not alive. We don't moderate for the sake of being the forum police - but of course we aren't 100% correct and we do allow appeals (if it's a specific mod action that should be done privarely of course) and critique of the policy. As we are doing here.

Nah, just common sense;

It's often common sense but as I also mentioned above (hunting, gun laws etc.) the international nature means we will obviously have differnt ideas about what is inflammatory.

 

[Colin the Bear]

Politics. Where ideology supercedes facts.

 

[ghostler]

Where ideology supercedes facts.

I've even seen that on mouthpieces. 😉

 

[mizmar]

just common sense;

Always with remembering Rene Descartes' preface to his little book:

Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.

Quite good bit of sarcasm/irony for a French philosopher.

It depends on your environment. While most fish think water is a myth, most birds might think air is.

 

[ghostler]

Quite good bit of sarcasm/irony for a French philosopher. It depends on your environment. While most fish think water is a myth, most birds might think air is.

Common sense was basic "common" intuition that guided someone from the earlier generations when faced with issues they had little to no experience in, who had their senses trained. Today seems many rely on celebrity opinions, but perhaps not the best source when it comes to issues outside their acting realm. But, I digress ....

 

[Dr G]

I just hope it's not political to disagree with this. First and foremost, medicine is a business. Most of it is wholly unnecessary. I ain't payin' for it. So that's not political. It's just good sense. There is no right to healthcare as if it's some godly reverence. Historically, it's just been used to rip people off... and of course, that continues. Its true nature given our own sensibilities.

Ah, the “good sense” argument. That’s become a common catchphrase lately that is more deflection than reason.

I agree that there is too much greed.

 

[Targa]

Politics. Where ideology supercedes facts.

A couple of days ago there was a vote on ‘assisted dying’.
It was expected to pass but failed to do so because of dozens of Labour MPs not voting for it who did so last time. The difference is that Starmer was for it Burnham is against it.
To a politician career is more important than life or death.

 

[Grumps]

Politics. Where ideology supercedes facts.

Or like the very first post here, innocently advocating what to do with other people's money. But hey, it's not political because that makes good sense, right? Everyone's for health, right? Not inflammatory. As if...

But therein lies the rub. Folks being political see their political pronouncements as just restating the norm. It is correct, therefore they are justified and they are compelled to tell people. Folks need to listen and agree. And if you don't? Self-reflection is out the window. Instead, they'll put a red hat on you; and most ignorantly so.

 

[ghostler]

But therein lies the rub. Folks being political see their political pronouncements as just restating the norm. It is correct, therefore they are justified and they are compelled to tell people. Folks need to listen and agree. And if you don't? Self-reflection is out the window. Instead, they'll put a red hat on you; and most ignorantly so.

That seems to fit the classical definition of PROSELYTIZE - "to try to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to your own" (Cambridge Dictionary), does it not?

 

[skeller047]

Or like the very first post here, innocently advocating what to do with other people's money. But hey, it's not political because that makes good sense, right? Everyone's for health, right? Not inflammatory. As if...

But therein lies the rub. Folks being political see their political pronouncements as just restating the norm. It is correct, therefore they are justified and they are compelled to tell people. Folks need to listen and agree. And if you don't? Self-reflection is out the window. Instead, they'll put a red hat on you; and most ignorantly so.

Well, that was not what I meant, sorry you took it that way. The line you objected to was in quotes, as an example; I was not stating my opinion. I have one 🙂, and will be happy to discuss it in person in January when I see you (I hope).

The fact that you, an obviously intelligent person, misunderstood my post just highlights the problem that Pete and Jeanette struggle with daily. In text, it's difficult to express subtle distinctions that would be obvious in a face-to-face situation.

What "makes sense" to one person can be "completely off base" to another; it depends on their experience and upbringing, and (perhaps less) on their natural proclivities. I wish it were easier to accept other people's idiotic opinions, but it just isn't....

 

[wakyct]

I think it would be difficult if not impossible to have a discussion about national healthcare, or any program like that, without discussing politics. Politics deals in part with the allocation of common resources. It would be interesting to have those discussions here but I'm ok with the policy as it stands.

 

[Jeanette]

wish it were easier to accept other people's idiotic opinions, but it just isn't....

But what you think is idiotic, someone else will not. And that my friends is where the problems start....

It's that type of language that starts a trail of posts to be deleted.😘


Jx