[bjterry]

Even if many people think that they "aren't very political" and are incorrect, there are some people that aren't very political and this is justified. For example, if you are a 5 year old and you believe you are not very political, you are probably correct. If you have been living in the woods for the last 30 years, don't know anything about modern politics, and believe that you are not very political, it would be weird for us to say "the thought you are not political is itself quite political" rather than "that sounds like a justified true belief."

So assuming it's possible in principle to be "not very political," the real question is how disengaged, uninformed, or lacking in understanding do you have to be for your statement to be true in itself, rather than a "quite political" statement. For myself, I think if someone is disengaged enough that they don't care who will become the next president, and there are no local political issues they will argue with someone about, they are "not very political."

[madeofpalk]

You don't think there's anything political about removing yourself from society for 30 years and living in the woods?

> I think if someone is disengaged enough that they don't care who will become the next president, and there are no local political issues they will argue with someone about

What this is saying is that they are happy with the status quo, and they see no room for improvement, or they're not bothered if things are improved one way or another. You can be not interested in politics, but I think doing that is just supporting the current politics.

For many people, just existing is pretty political, like when an entire country has a debate and a vote on whether you should be afforded basic human rights.

[bjterry]

> You don't think there's anything political about removing yourself from society for 30 years and living in the woods?

I think there's something political about it, but I also believe that it could be done for non-political reasons (spiritual reasons, practical reasons, mental health reasons). As a pure narrative, it would most likely be politically motivated, but in hypothetical-land it wouldn't necessarily be. Even if there is something "political" about it, it doesn't really map to what people mean when the use the term "political." It may map to opinions about how the state should be governed, the broadest definition of political, but it's much more frequently used to refer to a particular subset of debates which are at least minimally polarizing in some way.

> What this is saying is that they are happy with the status quo, and they see no room for improvement, or they're not bothered if things are improved one way or another.

All I'm trying to point out is that it's a legitimate spectrum. When I say "someone disengaged enough that they don't care who will become the next president" it's very easy for the reader to imagine someone in shoes very like theirs and making that choice somewhat actively to not be engaged.

But in the wide world, you can be simply unable (or unwilling) to devote any energy to understanding how the current political environment relates to your life, and thereby form no opinions one way or the other. Perhaps you work 16 hours a day to support your family, or you live in a country only temporarily and don't even understand the language. This would imply the fact that you lack the resources to form a political opinion is "supporting the status quo."

[bluehat]

Support doesn't have to be voluntary, and often isn't. If you are coerced into supporting the status quo, that doesn't mean you aren't supporting it, it just means you lack the freedom to make this decision.