• Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    EVERY food meets that same criteria. So of course the bar is not high under that categorization.

    The problem is that calling a physical object “political” just because it can be placed in a political framework makes no sense, because then everything is “political” at that point, thus making the term pretty meaningless.

    It would be like saying “potatos are emotional” just because it’s possible for someone somewhere to get emotional about a potato.

    What’s political are human opinions, intentions and actions. Not a chunk of metal, nor the root of a plant.

    • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would you seriously say that food is NOT political? With famines being a major driver of social unrest and mass death? With government power being highly linked from ancient times to the distribution and taxation of grain crops? With its impacts on public health and chronic diseases? With the many land reforms throughout history? With the freaking Food and Drug Administration and the Farm Bill and the US Department of Agriculture and the presidential candidates at the Iowa State Fair eating corn dogs as rustically as they can muster? With the existence of the vegan movement? I could easily go on but I think it’s pretty clear that you at the very least picked a bad example of something that’s not political.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol. There is no example that isn’t political by your criteria. Can you give me one?

          • Ferk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not in food and not anywhere. Can you give me one or can you not?

            And you seem to assume that something is more political when it causes unrest… as if the lack of unrest was making things less political. Are you confusing “political” with “cause of human conflict”?

            Even rocks have political repercusions, not only historically (I wonder if humans would even exist without Earth being a rocky planet), but also being necessary today for the survival of people across all social classes since we continue to rely on it for a lot of our structure, creation of tools in tribes and processes in our industries. And it’s not without conflict between classes either, with quarries being worked on by the lower classes for the benefit of the rich.

            • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean at this point you’re just making my argument for me. my point in the first place was that most things are political and you’re asking me to give a counterexample. if you believe that most things aren’t political come up with the counterexample yourself.

              • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No. My point is that either EVERYTHING is political (using your criteria) or no physical thing is political (using mine).

                Do you agree? (not asking if you agree with my criteria… but whether that’s what we are discussing)

                The fact that there’s no example of something that can be non-political in your criteria is actually true to what I was exactly saying.

                Now…

                Under your criteria: the word “political” becomes meaningless, since you can always apply it to everything.

                Under my criteria: only actions / events / purposes / opinions can be political. So a potato or a rock or a mathematical algorithm aren’t things that are “per se” political. Though the actions that led to them, or the intention / purpose of their existance might be. As can be all the actions humans might take when pursuing food or any other item of value. Even when that item of value is not political on itself.

                • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I just don’t see the issue with a lot of things being political. I don’t think it diminishes the meaning of the word and it matches the way the word is commonly used.

                  • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    “lot’s of things” != “everything”.

                    Is there one thing that isn’t political using your criteria? Or did you use “lots of things” because you do think there might actually be an issue if “everything” was political?

                    Imho, it diminishes the value of things when definitions are applied so liberally. It distracts. It suddently makes things now be about the root of a plant, instead of being about specific human actions.

                    Also: I just don’t see the issue with not flagging physical things as “political”. It’s still possible to discuss human behavior, or discuss about food distribution, it’s possible to talk about politics (the ideas and acts) without attributing human traits to a potato.