This line of argument is utterly insane. As a reductio ad absurdum: Inasmuch as the intent of war is effecting political change (as Clausewitz put it, "the continuation of politics by other means"), your argument applies just as well. By your logic, antiwar activists would be nothing more than status quo fans who want to be comfortable. This would obviously be ludicrous: it's possible to object to the means of war without comment on whether its claimed aims are worthwhile.
Being "sick of politics" in this case easily describes many people I know, people who have been far more serious about the issues you raise for far longer than many of the loudest advocates today are. The aversion isn't to change per se, but to methods that have become fashionable that are seen as both counterproductive to their aims and detrimental to civic society.
That is just name calling, and doesn't really improve the quality of the discussion.
> Inasmuch as the intent of war is effecting political change (as Clausewitz put it, "the continuation of politics by other means"), your argument applies just as well. By your logic, antiwar activists would be nothing more than status quo fans who want to be comfortable. This would obviously be ludicrous: it's possible to object to the means of war without comment on whether its claimed aims are worthwhile.
Antiwar activists are, by definition, actively participating in politics. The same is true of people who promote war. So, no. Nothing that you write holds "by my logic". If you are "sick of politics", then you are in favor of maintaining the status quo, whatever it is. There is really no way around it.
> Being "sick of politics" in this case easily describes many people I know, people who have been far more serious about the issues you raise for far longer than most of the loudest advocates today are.
How do you know any of that? Sorry, but I won't just take your word for it. And, in any case, it is besides the point. I was not even arguing in favor of the activists, I was instead claiming that wanting people to stop doing politics is politics.
> The aversion isn't to change per se, but to methods that have become fashionable that are seen as both counterproductive to their aims and detrimental to civic society.
Again, how do you know that? Are you a mind reader?
Or rather, you can, but then it is unwise to be surprised when society changes in a way you didn't anticipate or condone because a long conversation happened you chose not to be a part of.
