| Bacteria absolutely care -- or at least we humans care about how it affects bacteria. Political policy determines how the FDA regulates (or doesn't regulate) drugs, including antibiotics. Political policy determines if taxpayer dollars are spent getting antibiotics to those who need them, or on missiles instead. Political policy determines whether doctors are incentivized to minimize antibiotic prescriptions (and prevent superbugs) or not. The idea that anything isn't political is unfortunately naive. It's like saying the air we breathe isn't important because we don't notice it. If we're talking about a company, everything from the regulations it follows, to the ways it negotiates with labor, to the taxes it pays, the liability it passes on to consumers (or doesn't)... it's all political, because it's all determined/constrained by political policy. Saying that workplaces should be non-political is a political statement, and by definition a conservative one because it embraces the status quo. You can't escape politics even if you'd like to, and if you're the citizen of a democratic country then one can easily argue it's your civic duty not to escape it, though of course you're free to neglect that duty. |
Seriously?
> Political policy determines how the FDA regulates...
That's exactly what I mean when I talk about a tendentious excuse for putting activism where it doesn't belong. A drug company might have a lobbying arm that has to care about policy (and that, for pragmatic purposes, talks to all sides!), but a researcher looking at chromosomal recombination isn't going to do a better job of examining the damn chromosomes after being subject to political screeds. If anything, politics in that venue will distract researchers and detract from the business's core. Is that cost worth it so that some people can feel self-righteous?
> Saying that workplaces should be non-political is a a political statement, and by definition a conservative one
So, according to "crazygringo", neutrality is "by definition" supporting the opposition. Much George Bush. Very "with us or against us". Wow.
Re "by definition": see https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...