You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable, or because you just don't know what's going on.

Separately, not opposing the status quo is more like accepting it than supporting it, and these are all different.

Your lack of nuance rather proves the point of the great grandparent post.

> or because you just don't know what's going on.

Exactly. Anybody who earnestly tries to be informed will realize that there are limits to what they know and subjects for which they are not [yet] informed. There needs to be room for people to say "I'm not informed on that issue, so I don't have an opinion."

I told a person who was collecting signatures to get a proposition on Nov's ballot, almost word for word your italics.

Their response was "I get paid per signature, will you sign it so I can make more money?"

My response, "That's an even worse reason, are you telling me someone buying this prop its way into the ballot?" He left at this point.

Well ironically, the great grandparent also lacks nuance. I think your comment is the one the brings it forward, and is more valuable than the great grandparent for that reason.

> You could also be apolitical because you find all available options to be unacceptable

Is this apolitical, or is it having a politics that is not well represented? It seems more like the latter to me.

People who feel unrepresented often lapse into apathy; you can only struggle against an uncaring world for so long before you tire or go insane.

Apathy towards issues of policy is a political position. You know the political positions, but you became apathetic about the political system.

Being apolitical is implying that you think that it's good enough as it is to not care.

> having a politics that is not well represented

I think being apolitical is more about having an objective view and judging opinions based on merit rather than the political spectrum they originated from. Could also mean you're either are against all political views, or have none, but this last one seems less likely to happen in practice. People tend to have an opinion, more or less informed or objective as it may be.

As I like to say; why would we have a word 'apolitical' if we can't imagine a thing that is accepted as apolitical? It would be a rather useless adjective.

It is completely reasonable for someone to say they don't like the status quo but also are uncertain about whether a policy improves on the status quo due to their limited knowledge. If that isn't being apolitical we may as well strike the word from the dictionary. It is technically a political stance, but it is not forceful enough to be called support of anything.

I keep to myself because I don't trust people to take my slight differences of opinion with appropriate calm. I've been burned one too many times by "you don't agree with my concept/idea/candidate you're a literal fucking monster." No thanks, I could have been your ally but I'll just stay home.

I should add, this goes in both directions and I see it from both sides of the political spectrum. I consider myself an independent. I try to judge all issues individually and fall into different camps depending on what we're talking about, but political dialogue has become so toxic that I've gotten to the point where I just cast my vote and move on.

It is most certainly a coded message for “you have to believe in what I believe.” Being apolitical is not a political stance.

By this reasoning my dog supports the status quo.

If your dog had the mental capacity to understand the basics of the two main sides in US politics and chose to support neither, then sure.

There aren’t “two main sides” in US politics. There are two parties and choosing either comes with a metric fuck-ton of positions. Generally supporting Democrats just because they support one position you agree with is dumber than not supporting either side.

I think not voting at all is the dumbest possible position.

Your ability to draw reason out of text is flawed, then. Your dog has no ability to influence human politics whatsoever; you do.

Fair enough. I read it as condemning apolitical folks for lack of engagement but I see your larger point.