There is a common complaint drifting through the culture these days: Why did you have to bring politics into things? Can’t she or he just sing/dance/dribble/write/paint? I was a fan until you said ___________.
First off, how fragile are your views that you can’t handle someone articulating different ones? Second, how fragile is your support that you only like people who agree with you? And third, what makes you think you get to tell other people what they can and can’t say or think?
None of those stances are Stoic. In fact, they are the opposite of Stoicism.
The fundamental distinction between the Stoics and other schools of their time (like the Epicureans) was that the Stoics believed a philosopher was obligated to participate in politics. Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Cato—each of them spent the balance of their adult lives, and had their most profound impact, in politics.
To be apolitical is to be unphilosophical. Of course, each person should be thoughtful, inclusive, and civil in all their discussions, particularly ones about government and social issues. We should not needlessly seek out argument or contention. We should be ready to change our minds (in fact, that’s why we should talk politics). But the idea that we should take whole topics off the table so as not to offend? C’mon now.
Our job as citizens is to participate in the polis. To cast our votes. To contribute to the common good. To take stands when we feel they matter. This will occasionally bother snowflakes on either end of the political spectrum, but that’s to be expected. What it cannot be is accepted, as the way we will engage with ideas, with each other, with the world.
