I would go further and claim that anyone who sees themselves as "apolitical" just basically thinks their own opinion is the only true way to see things "rationally" (and as such "fact" and not an opinion; nothing to be "political" about), and everyone else is just plain wrong/mistaken. Since they're not ready to admit this to themselves and others, they hide behind the "apolitical" label. Otherwise they would see that their own opinion is a "political statement" on equal basis as others. It doesn't even make a difference if you voice it or not.
This strategy works poorly to avoid conflict and friction (life), since one just shifts conflict to reappear elsewhere. Hence the often claimed need to self-isolate "for mental health" to avoid getting in contact with... positions such as one's own, and half-suppressed anger at all those that just don't see what is RIGHT.
Hint: It doesn't work.
This closely matches the way a few of my "apolitical" friends behave.
They mostly think their opinion is the right one, and others are just flailing around not understanding the real "objective" "truth". But they never spent more than a minute thinking things through and re-evaluating their biases and "objective reality"...
They then spend quite some time ranting about things that are obviously political, but on the same breath say they are proud not to vote...
One can recognize the importance of defining processes for how decisions pertaining to a soceity are being made, and adhering to those, while, at the same time, trying not to judge views other than yours, or simply trying not to engage too much in debates pertaining to that process. In other words, you can choose not to let politics seep to much into your identify.
I am a hacker, a baker of breads, a father, a debater, a thinker. Period. Not libertarian or whatever. My ideas sometimes are more like a democrat, sometimes more republican. I often like Bernie Sanders, and Schwarzenegger would be a nice, good, kind republican president imho. I don't like being seen as a part of any of these groups. I enjoy discussing reasons for "the 2 party" (but not really 2 party-) system much more than discussing which is morally superior.
This, to me, is a valid stance. For some it is the way to stay sane.
Some views deserve to be judged. I've met people who genuinely believe there is nothing wrong with killing millions of people just because they aren't like you. Most people are horrified by that idea, but he isn't, he finds it quite normal, as normal as taking an umbrella because it's raining. I think it's okay to judge that.
I agree. I just want to tell you that those people are an exceedingly small minority.
To deny another human being the rights you enjoy is imho the same as denying yourself those rights (because I, as a 3rd person, see both people as equal, and otherwise there is a paradox). This is the basis of our justice system, we "put people away" in cages, and in some places even kill them, because they believed their right to swing their fist does not end at someone else's nose. But presumably they would not enjoy a fist to the nose themselves.
But does it mean "100% open borders"? (notice the 100%) Should those rights pertain to (higher) animals? (notice the "higher")
There is nuance to explore, there are many ways to be a humanist. I.e., dumping mosquito nets in a mosquito rich area may be seen as helping, but not to local mosquito net makers (and thus you are not helping anyone in the long term, because the mosquito net makers are all bankrupt).
There is always nuance. And there are always exceptions, and your statements generalize exceptions to much larger groups, demanding action on a scale that is unwarranted, imho. Both sides are responding vividly to exceptions, to lack of nuance, to 160 character statements in all caps.
I've met an exceedingly small number of people who state the worldview outright, but I've met a much larger number of people whose actions are only consistent with that internal worldview.
That is thus all solely your interpretation. I think it is very dangerous to make assumptions about people's internal worldview and judging people on that assumption. In fact I think you have just expressed quite well what I object against, precisely.
Is it ever appropriate to model another human's internal processes?
Imo we do this all the time :) But, perhaps it is important to recognize that those models are simplifications. It's easy, probably tempting, to project a group of humans onto one axis. But it's wrong, you don't know someone until you know someone. A good rule to live by (and imo a correct assumption) is that, by far, most people are kind.
You say most. If someone consistently acts in ways that are not compatible with kindness, but are compatible with bloodthirstiness, may we model them as bloodthirsty?
I'm ok with that for sure. But how many people are we talking?