>politically neutral
What does politically neutral mean?
What does politically neutral mean?
More seriously, when someone says "politically neutral", they typically mean "agrees with me". It's otherwise meaningless for basically anything which engages with the real world.
This is an empirical statement. What experience underlies it?
My experience (working across many sectors, including tech, government, and not for profits), is quite different.
I think it is better to say this… There are various possible meanings for ‘politically neutral’: A person or organization that
(a) is not tied to political organizations (for some definition of political);
(b) doesn’t take a position on political matters;
(c) does work that is both unaffected by politics and does not attempt to influence politics (IMO, impossible practically, but could be interpreted as a matter of degree)
To clarify: endorsing the status quo is a political position. Not saying something is not identical to that. It of course can have probabilistic implications. In other words, silence doesn’t necessarily mean an entity (a person or org) is content with the status quo. It can be a strategic decision.
― Desmond Tutu
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." - Abraham Lincoln
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." - Elie Wiesel
“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy
Generally: For almost every piece of advice there are useful contrasts. More than useful, actually: necessary. Ideas that seem reasonable (even wise) in isolation often don’t ‘survive contact’ with broader thinking. In other words, an isolated idea may not prove applicable for a particular context.
Here are more quotes that can help weigh your choice to speak:
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - Howard W. Newton (not Isaac Newton)
“What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Specifically: The early and outspoken critics sometimes get their heads cut off. Sometimes this galvanizes change. Sometimes this just helps the decapitator find his enemies more efficiently. Sometimes it is wiser — and more ethical — to quietly (even secretly) organize and act when you have a critical mass.
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down." - Japanese Proverb
“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle." - Japanese Proverb
I think that sums up US politics pretty well since 2016
'Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.' Hillary Clinton 2001-09-13
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...
Your solution on how to cover a topic in a neutral fashion when there are more than 2 political parties is to move to a country where there are more than 2 political parties?
That doesn't seem like a productive comment.
I guess I didn't include enough elaboration in my comment...
There are 3 major federal parties (Liberals, Conservatives, NDP), who received 33%, 33%, and 18% of the popular vote respectively.
There are two minor federal parties (Greens and the People’s party) who together took around 7% of the popular vote, and
Finally there is the Bloc Québécois. It is a federal party but it exists only in one province. It grabbed around 8% last time.
Of course those percentages aren’t entirely representative, because seats are won in a first-past-the-post style in each riding.
There is no reason to make long-term decisions based on the current short-term circumstances of a two party dominance.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_elec...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_elec...
It's also very hard to change because both major parties benefit from the existing system and are protective of it, knowing full well that proportional representation would cost them a lot of votes. Republicans usually trot out the old "but small states!" canard, while Democrats are getting creative and claiming that IRV and RCV are racist because e.g. "majority voting may seem innocuous, but if the vote is racially polarized, “runoffs discriminate against Blacks because they are a minority of the voters.”"
Given that Congress has the final say on how federal elections are run, I find it rather unlikely that this is going to change anytime soon - at least, not as long as federal politics is consumed almost entirely by polarization and voting against rather than for.
Really, since America had a meaningful national government with the Constitution rather than being a loose federation of states under the AoC.
The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans both were establisged, as was their duopoly, by 1792.
But speaking to your point, there is no reason at all why a two party system is required to have a rule of thumb that if everyone thinks you're biased you're on the right track...
From a (BBC) radio sitcom from the 80s:
> [interviewer to Director General of BBC] Director General, everyone seems to hate you. How would you respond?
> [DG] Well, I think that shows we have the balance about right.
It's normal for news organizations to be accused of bias in the conflict, as you say, if both parties think that, that's normal.
But BBC has the lovely distinction of also being accused of anti-Semitism, which is a badge of honor that most news organizations have not received.
In the words of the New York Times, "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality" - https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...
[1] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. [..] Its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, corporate directors and CEOs, and senior media figures. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations