I found this insightful:

Part of this involves challenging the ideological distinction between the personal and the political. On this view, things like what happens in parliaments and governments count as political, while things that especially privileged people don’t really want to think and talk about – like how house-work and child-rearing is organised, widespread racist practices and attitudes, and so on – are labelled merely ‘personal’. The familiar function of insisting that something is ‘personal’ rather than ‘political’ is to effectively exclude things from critical scrutiny, debate, and deliberate change. The effect of this is often to silence marginalised voices, like women speaking out against marital rape, because this is seen as something personal rather than something political that deserves critical scrutiny and deliberate change. It also ignores the ways in which states have already been intervening in the personal lives of oppressed people in many ways already, from the beginnings of European colonialism to slavery, police harassment, and much more. It’s also based on a deeply liberal and anti-socialist view that underestimates how interconnected humans are. We are profoundly shaped by our personal experiences, from how we grow up to our romantic relationships and how we treat each other day-to-day. And there’s no good reason to arbitrarily rule much of this out as things worth critically thinking about and changing if we find them lacking.

Whenever you find someone dismissing a matter as "not political", or claiming "I'm not political", you know there's ideology and assumed privilege at work. And that can be a problem on platforms like Lemmy which require you to decide whether a post goes to a politics community or somewhere else. By rejecting posts as "not politics" because they don't directly involve politicians, mods or users can be, often inadvertently, pushing a specific political agenda.