Something I hear commonly when talking to people, is the dreaded phrase “I’m non-political”. Usually said to mean that they either don’t know, care, or understand politics. It’s likely true that a lot of these people don’t understand or know about the intricacies of politics in the UK, but it’s usually a complete lie that they don’t care. These ‘non-political’ people are often more political than they realise, or care to admit. Let’s dive into this for a little while.
Note – I authored this piece, all constructive criticism and discussion is welcomed, thanks!
For me it is a lie, I do care about politics, but I don’t discuss it with friends or family. Feigning ignorance is the easiest way out. I’ve been the third wheel in a ‘discussion’ where two people argue politics and it’s not a nice position.
Appreciate you providing your perspective on this, and I tend to agree in some cases, having been the third wheel in a situation like that too.
I love the topic, and the passion, but if you’re looking for constructive criticism I personally feel that this piece could benefit greatly from a few academic sources and a little reorganization.
On the whole the article is focusing on voter apathy, of which the statement “I’m non-political” is a symptom. Try to focus more on the subject of voter apathy and less on the particular statement. The statement is fine for a headline and an intro but as another commenter has already noted there are other reasons individuals might attest to apolitical feelings. If you reference a study on voter apathy in your introductory paragraph you can pick out the leading causes or use a few of the findings of the study to structure the rest of your article. Focus each section on one cause or finding with references back to the original source and another work or two that are focused more specifically on that subject. This will lengthen the article and lend it more true substance.
Consider combining the what can be done and where to look sections into your summation. As the purpose of this piece is to examine a social ill it is ideally suited to a “call to action” summary and these are the perfect sections for it.
Lastly, you would do well to cut down on “I” statements. They rarely engage the reader and can feel out of place when writing about a subject as universal and academic as voter apathy. For your opener think about something along the lines of “How many times has this happened to you: You’re discussing the events of the day with a friend or acquaintance only to get into the meat of the discussion and suddenly be met with the phrase ‘I’m not political’…” It directly engages the reader by asking them to participate in the thought exercise and makes the anecdote personal instead of second-hand.
I hope any of this helps. I think you’ve got a good start here and I look forward to what it could be with a little more meat on its bones.
Lastly, you would do well to cut down on “I” statements. They rarely engage the reader and can feel out of place when writing about a subject as universal and academic as voter apathy.
It also just sounds more authoritative if you state things as fact rather than as opinions that are subject to disagreement, or that perhaps suggest the author doesn’t have the full information and is simply interpreting the information that’s available to them. And if you write things confidently, too. For instance, if I began this paragraph with “I also think it tends to sound more authoritative…” then it sounds a lot more like I’m chiming into a conversation where I’m not trying to be too domineering. Starting it in a more assertive way (like I did) makes it sound like it’s something that’s universally acknowledged, like you know what you’re talking about, and will change the way people perceive your writing.
First let me say, thanks for taking the time to write this out, hugely appreciate you for that.
Will definitely look to introduce more studies that I can then pick apart, can see how that would help with length and substance. I’ve been trying to walk the line between being too academic and too, well, not. I always had the thought that a vast majority of people would likely turn off if they start seeing academic studies references and the likes. That being said, I don’t actually have the data on if that would be true for my readership, so it’s worth a shot.
Combining these is a great idea, I’m going to go ahead and do that now, thanks!
Have huge problems with removing “I” statements from my work, so it’s always great to have another set of eyes on an article, thanks for pointing this out. I think I need to start reading over my articles more as just an interested reader than as the author, once I’ve finished up and decide to publish something, practice makes perfect I suppose.
Thanks for everything here.
Hmmm, interesting choice of topic considering you are posting on substack.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/09/substack-nazi-content-policies-controversy/
I’ll be honest, I’m unsure how these things are related. That being said, I’m all for platform scrutiny, and I’m aware of this controversy.
Substack have since reversed their decision on this and have taken action against a number of Nazi sources, though I would absolutely agree that more could and should be done.
For what it’s worth, have you had a look at the deep dark areas of Lemmy lately? Many a Nazi and god knows what else over here too, unfortunately.
