The part most of these stories leave out is that the signs are sold by the local democratic party. It would be interesting to see the outcome for a sign with the same message but without that baggage.
Well, duh. By saying “All are Welcome Here”, we are excluding people who want to exclude people. And they are the ones in charge right now. So simply saying “everyone is welcome” is now subversive, against Presidential policy, and anti-American.
Your citizenship is hereby revoked, ICE will be here soon to ship you to GitmoCECOTSouth Sudan Alligator Auschwitz
That actually isn’t weird at all. People treat “politics” as an epithet for “controversial politics”, but in reality, almost everything in society is political – relating to power structures, the distribution of status and resources, and how those factors are determined. What you’re getting at, of course, is that Republicans have shifted the Overton window so disgustingly far to the right that “everyone is welcome” in a classroom is treated as a controversial ideology.
We’re constantly conditioned to think of the status quo as apolitical in nature (it’s just “normal” and the people who want to change it for better or worse are “the politicals”), but it is and always has been, and it’s why we’ve needed so desperately these past several decades to remain politically engaged to protect what we want and to change what we don’t. Now? Who knows, but we still need to try.
Great comment. Taking it further, making “politics” inherently negative has a lot of propaganda value to power. The people in charge generally want to defend the status quo, so they’d rather depoliticize the populace. This is why you get such strange contradictions as the people in charge constantly attacking “political elites” or “the swamp” or whatever. They’re trying to discredit politics itself to consolidate their power. Similarly, when they do want to change something, they say “it’s not politics; it’s common sense.” They want a population that feels like politics is something inherently dubious, or at least just not worth their time and effort.
Inclusion has always been and will always be a political project, because there are people who want power and who will use it to exclude people for whatever reason.
I think you mean that it is weird that inclusion is controversial.
To me, inclusion is the foundation of politics. It is the uniting idea that people with no blood relation - strangers - can come together to build something that benefits all.
Trump and his gang want to move on from politics. They despise democracy and disdain a system that benefits anyone who isn’t part of their exclusive circle. And for the record, their circle does not include Trump supporters - the maga-hat wearing rubes are just the tools that Trump is using to monopolize wealth and power for his immediate friends and family.
When Trump has achieved what he wants, there will be no more politics in the USA. There will only be the Great Leader and those who exist to serve him.
It always seems odd to me that “politics” is often conflated with “nationalism” or just plain government. That’s not really what politics is, politics is power plays and public relations. It’s more marketing than it is governance.
Inclusion can be a part of politics, in the same way it’s part of companies advertising during pride month… but it’s not the foundation of it.
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. The word politics comes from polity, meaning a group of people who share an identity. When you say that politics is “power plays and public relations,” you are repeating propaganda that was designed to disenfranchise people. Politics is about working on a shared project: building a good society. Bad actors have infiltrated politics, but they don’t get to replace the basic meaning of the word.
That make sense for why the confusion is there. But… “bad actors” or not, the well is poisoned. You don’t keep drinking from a poisoned well just because you think it shouldn’t be. Especially when there are other wells that are readily available. If anything, being able to distinguish between the two is more helpful than trying to keep waters that are already irrevocably muddied just because archaically they were not.
Conservatism is an exclusionary framework, it divides sharply ‘us’ vs ‘them’
When we say “Maybe poor people deserve medical care too”, they hear “I will have to work to pay the bills of someone I hate”
So, yes, inclusion is directly contrary to their core values, and they have learned that whenever they shout the word ‘Political!’ it gets people to back down, so they use it ALL the fucking time
I think it’s really weird that inclusion is political.
The part most of these stories leave out is that the signs are sold by the local democratic party. It would be interesting to see the outcome for a sign with the same message but without that baggage.
Well, duh. By saying “All are Welcome Here”, we are excluding people who want to exclude people. And they are the ones in charge right now. So simply saying “everyone is welcome” is now subversive, against Presidential policy, and anti-American.
Your citizenship is hereby revoked, ICE will be here soon to ship you to
GitmoCECOTSouth SudanAlligator AuschwitzThat actually isn’t weird at all. People treat “politics” as an epithet for “controversial politics”, but in reality, almost everything in society is political – relating to power structures, the distribution of status and resources, and how those factors are determined. What you’re getting at, of course, is that Republicans have shifted the Overton window so disgustingly far to the right that “everyone is welcome” in a classroom is treated as a controversial ideology.
We’re constantly conditioned to think of the status quo as apolitical in nature (it’s just “normal” and the people who want to change it for better or worse are “the politicals”), but it is and always has been, and it’s why we’ve needed so desperately these past several decades to remain politically engaged to protect what we want and to change what we don’t. Now? Who knows, but we still need to try.
Great comment. Taking it further, making “politics” inherently negative has a lot of propaganda value to power. The people in charge generally want to defend the status quo, so they’d rather depoliticize the populace. This is why you get such strange contradictions as the people in charge constantly attacking “political elites” or “the swamp” or whatever. They’re trying to discredit politics itself to consolidate their power. Similarly, when they do want to change something, they say “it’s not politics; it’s common sense.” They want a population that feels like politics is something inherently dubious, or at least just not worth their time and effort.
Inclusion has always been and will always be a political project, because there are people who want power and who will use it to exclude people for whatever reason.
I think you mean that it is weird that inclusion is controversial.
To me, inclusion is the foundation of politics. It is the uniting idea that people with no blood relation - strangers - can come together to build something that benefits all.
Trump and his gang want to move on from politics. They despise democracy and disdain a system that benefits anyone who isn’t part of their exclusive circle. And for the record, their circle does not include Trump supporters - the maga-hat wearing rubes are just the tools that Trump is using to monopolize wealth and power for his immediate friends and family.
When Trump has achieved what he wants, there will be no more politics in the USA. There will only be the Great Leader and those who exist to serve him.
It always seems odd to me that “politics” is often conflated with “nationalism” or just plain government. That’s not really what politics is, politics is power plays and public relations. It’s more marketing than it is governance.
Inclusion can be a part of politics, in the same way it’s part of companies advertising during pride month… but it’s not the foundation of it.
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. The word politics comes from polity, meaning a group of people who share an identity. When you say that politics is “power plays and public relations,” you are repeating propaganda that was designed to disenfranchise people. Politics is about working on a shared project: building a good society. Bad actors have infiltrated politics, but they don’t get to replace the basic meaning of the word.
That make sense for why the confusion is there. But… “bad actors” or not, the well is poisoned. You don’t keep drinking from a poisoned well just because you think it shouldn’t be. Especially when there are other wells that are readily available. If anything, being able to distinguish between the two is more helpful than trying to keep waters that are already irrevocably muddied just because archaically they were not.
Why would you consider it weird?
Conservatism is an exclusionary framework, it divides sharply ‘us’ vs ‘them’
When we say “Maybe poor people deserve medical care too”, they hear “I will have to work to pay the bills of someone I hate”
So, yes, inclusion is directly contrary to their core values, and they have learned that whenever they shout the word ‘Political!’ it gets people to back down, so they use it ALL the fucking time
It isn’t. Fascists claim that it is so they can suppress it. It’s as simple as that.