Since I object to his definitions, the only options he lays out is that I'm either ignorant or willfully dishonest. I guess that disqualifies an assertion that he actually don't explain _why_ circumstance automatically is politics, but starts out assuming his stance in correct.
-
-
-
I'm actually inclined to say that he fails to understand what "political" means even before he goes into explicit/implicit. The fact that many circumstances deserves to have politics imposed on them, don't turn the circumstance into _being_ political.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.