The Responsibility of Opinions
I don't understand why so many people think something being political is bad, or why they consider themselves apolitical. No one is apolitical. It's good to be political. Everything is political.
If I cry into a friend's shoulder because I'm having a really bad day, that is political. I would be a man expressing my emotions, allowing myself to cry, and there are many people who see that as wrong, that men shouldn't be open with their emotions like that and that boys shouldn't cry. My crying into my mate's shoulder is, whether I want it to be or not, a rejection of a part of toxic masculinity. It's a healthy mechanism and being accepted into doing so by my mate is a healthy choice and being seen doing so is healthy representation. That is inherently political, and that is fine.
There's a stigma about the words 'political' and 'politics', as if they're intrinsicly linked to the idea of people kicking up a fuss about nothing or committing war crimes. Politics aren't just elections or the system of government we live under, they're everything we consider normal or not normal. And even if they were about elections or the system of government we live under, that is still important to care about, that's literally the greatest force that influences the systems in which we live, that's important.
It is our moral duty to be responsible, right? We should stand for what we believe in. Actively standing against taking a stand on moral or political issues isn't the superior way, some people say that they're not biased because they're not taking a side or that they think they're better because they see both sides as bad because they're both angry about this, when being inactive is just letting the winning side win. And this comes in forms we see in 'apolitical' situations, a friend tells you you're a pussy for crying as a man then they're making a judgement, taking moral stance in favour of toxic masculinity, or if they buy a shirt from a company that uses slave labour in other countries then they're economically supporting that practice.
You see a opposition to being political come in the form of certain jokes. Most jokes are fine, you can be funny without being politically incorrect, those who say otherwise are just unfunny people who like making fun of marginalised people because they know that it won't annoy the majority of people since the majority of people aren't those marginalised people. But many jokes are just using hurtful stereotypes or outright bigotry to get a cheap laugh, and those using them defend themselves by saying its a joke, as if seeking laughter negates all real effects. If I say "Trump looks like an orange" and people laugh, it's probably because they agree, but Trump supporters might get pissed off, and that's because even though I'm having a laugh, my words have an impact. If I say "boy do I hate gay people" and people hysterically laugh and nod and cheer, those people are probably fucking psychopaths. If a friend is angry because another friend said a transphobic joke, that's not the first one just being 'political', that's the other friend making a choice to say hurtful things about marginalised people.
Raphael Bob-Waksberg, the creator of Bojack Horseman, said this about the responsibility of comedy; "Comedy is a normalising machine. It makes the outrageous normal, and it normalizes for good, like when you hear a joke that describes a feeling that you thought only you had, an observation that recontextualises how you see things, or an insight into a perspective you've never considered, but it also normalises for the bad. Comedy can normalise cruelty under an umbrella of wit. Sometimes we tell ourselves if what I say if funny enough, then it doesn't matter who it might hurt, if what I say is funny enough, then I am not responsible for whatever collateral damage it may cause. But that's only true if the only thing you care about is being funny. And if the only thing you care about is being funny. Then I'm sorry, but you are a boring person."
