You are allowed to mention them and explain what they officially stand for, we even made roleplays, to simulate how the parliament works (the class was distributed into parties according to the distribution of Parliament at that time and everybody tried to pass a law), it's too tricky for me to explain the fineprint in english , sorry ;)
It is in America too. I had to debate shit like gay marriage in high school. We even have mandatory civics classes that teach you how the government works and my teacher told us how jury nullification works and why you should never talk to cops
We sure do NOT have universally mandatory civics, not anymore. I graduated in 09 and my school district didn't teach anyone anything beyond the basics of the voting system.
You'd have to be completely out of your mind to call the Donbas war a genocide. And that's coming from Russian national who frequently calls out Ukraine government for being the same sort of garbage as Russian, if not much worse.
So unless this is some form of high level meta-sarcasm and/or trolling, I'd advise you and everyone who upvoted this to seek therapy.
In Sweden they seem to be trying to make the first one true. A university made it forbidden to have 'any conversation that may be interpreted as political to a passer-by' anywhere on campus. It was celebrated by the minister for higher education (liberal party member) as a brilliant step against "wokeness". It was retracted, because it is not possible to enforce. But the government is doing an investigation against universities to root out "wokeness".
Russia invaded Ukraine, but war is not genocide, as much as the banderite government likes to turn everything into genocide to minimize their history of the original Banderites and other collaborators perpetrating the actual Holocaust.
If Russia wanted to carry out the war in a way that involved genocide, just carpet-bombing cities or things like that, it absolutely could, it has maybe the second or third strongest air force in the world. Luckily for everyone involved (other than perhaps frontline Russians), Russia knows that it shouldn't do that, and so it isn't.
I don't see why you feel the need to so readily call people who disagree with you fascists. I don't think you're a fascist, I just think you're a well-meaning individual who was tricked by the PR of a liberal-fascist alliance. What would make me a fascist? I certainly don't like Russia, I don't have some fantasy of the Eurasian peninsula united under the Russian Federation. I'm not here to tell you that Putin is a good guy, he's a mafioso like you see at the head of most liberal states. I've got no problem with people speaking Ukrainian, though I sure wish they'd find a better national hero than, it must be repeated, a literal perpetrator of the Holocaust, but I also think those weirdos in Russia who worship the pogromist Tsar Nicholas II should get a better idol as well. Please, tell me what kind of fascist I am.
How's the anti-terrorist operation in Donbas going, champ? Oh, half the Ukrainian army left to fight for the RuZZian terrorists?! Yikes, better call Lindsay Graham, Amy Klobuchar, John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, the real architects of the plan. I'm sure the West's limitless arsenal and money will be able to support Ukraine against those dirty bydlo vatniks, heh heh. After all, haven't you seen all those videos on reddit of their crazy shit falling apart? This is gonna be a piece of cake.
That's only true in an academic sense. When a layman uses the term "political", they refer to discussion pertaining to things like how a formal government is run, comparisons between types of governance, government policy, etc.
While deciding what cookie to eat or what color your cat's litterbox is might technically be political in an academic sense, you're just going to annoy people if you try to tell them that those are political decisions. I have found that trying to force academic definitions into common use is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst.
An example of where a word's academic definition has no place in common speech can be found in "information". The informal definition of "information" typically is seen as referring to knowledge and the transfer of said knowledge. This definition allows you to gain information from a lack of something.
However, it is my understanding that the scientific definition of "information" does not allow for the aforementioned action, as "information" refers to the properties of physical matter. The result is that you cannot gain "information" from a lack of something. You might be able to come to conclusions based on a lack of "information", but you cannot actually gain "information" from a lack of something because "information" is inherently linked to matter.
Now. All of that said, this meme is related to something said at an engineering school, so on the one hand, it isn't entirely out-of-place to expect the academic definition to be used because it is an academic setting. Yet, on the other hand, it is an engineering school, not a political science school. As such, while OP should be aware that the academic definition of "politics" may come into play, it's also reasonable to expect that their professors and peers would mainly be using the common definition of the term.
However again, in my experience, trying to force academic definitions into casual discussion is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst. Please stop trying to do it. Thanks.
(Also, imo, genocide is like Schrodinger's Cat; it is both political and not political at the same time. Personally, I think it mainly depends on the depth of the discussion; but its "political" nature varies from person-to-person. Imo, saying that genocide is happening shouldn't be considered "political", but talking about why it is occuring is political.)
Edit: whoops, somehow my comment doubled, within the comment. The fuck happened there?
Edit 2: I swear I need to find a new phone keyboard, and I need to read over my comments before submitting. I'm finding a lot of stupid auto-correct errors, and it seems like they're becoming more common.
Edit 3: the reason I got hung-up on it, and I should have mentioned this, is because I often see "everything is political" used to justify bringing heavier topics into places where it's inappropriate (like chatrooms where people are trying to just hang out and have light hearted discussions).
Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn't inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.
In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It's technically true, but that doesn't make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.
1000% this. I live in the bible belt and am a big burly bearded bastard so people "quiet part out loud" at me with supersonic speed (1). I'd almost make a mortgage payment if I had a buck for every time someone said some ridiculous shit then I got in trouble for "getting political" aka politely and calmly engaging with the statement just made directly to me.
I didn't make it political. The person saying trans folk should "wear the right clothing" made it political. I believe the word you're looking for is "uncomfortable," and if you don't want it to get uncomfortable maybe tell HIM not to get political. If he says it, I have a right to respond - and silencing my speech but not his is an explicit endorsement of his speech.
(1) It has literally happened in like 5 sentences or less between even me and a stranger multiple times. "Hey what's up" "nothing much started a new job" "cool, I haven't worked in a bit but I worked at target for a bit" "why? Target funds ANTIFA TERRORISTS"
That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.
would still get restricted because they’re contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that’s something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn’t be political. But it’s going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it’d be restricted.
If this is the best example you can come up with, it is fairly unconvincing that any mainstream political will be restricted.
I don't have a strong sense of what's mainstream because I usually only engage with politics in a left-leaning online space that was popularized by a protest against a corporation. Can you think of anything mainstream that's likely to get a pass? I'm 80% sure if you can, it's going to be because someone will see it and not even consider that it could cause an argument because it's such a given... I'll drop that down to 50% if you're trying to pick an example to prove me wrong.
