Recent discourse shows there is unease around politics. But there isn't a consensus of what politics are.
Let's say that typically politics is "the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed" and the discussion of this is political discussion. The problem is that this doesn't cover everything that's been referred to as politics. Let's then say, working with the separation of the internet from the real world, that political discussion is the discussion of the current state of events in the real world, how the world should be and the ideas behind both. Things are considered political if they tie or lead into these.
That sounds way too broad and unhealthily rulefaggoty, doesn't it?
Well, it is. Let's put a clause in there: something is considered depoliticized, so not political, if in a community its presence does not lead to political discussion. This can be because it's taken as a joke, because nobody cares enough to spark the fire, because everyone agrees and it's common sense, or some other reason. With that clause, even though everything has a certain worldview, a certain ideology behind it, you can differentiate between conflictive and peaceful content. Calling someone a fag or a nigger, even though it's linked to RL conflict, is not political because it doesn't generate political discussion. If one day it did generate it, then it would be political. Things can likewise stop being political if the reasons for something causing political discussion go away.
But that's still too harsh, isn't it? Maybe. What about realism.
Certain threads invite comments about the state of the real world, whether because it's directly or tangentially related to the state of a medium or because of some other bullshit I can't think of. This can easily derail the thread into politics (or just kill fun without introducing politics), and it ends up being kinda shit. To elude such an end, the thread ought to be approached with a suspension of disbelief, unlike for example the mistake I made in >>>/qa/40946 where following >>/qa/40936 instead could've lead to more fun (the conclusion of the former is a barren earth, the latter's is alternate history scenarios), reign in the realistic 'tism to facilitate enjoyment. One must also be conscious of posting or replying to controversial ideas, else a spiral of butthurt be started. With that in consideration, thingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.