> Why do you automatically assume wanting to ignore politics translates to support of the status quo?

Because it's true?

> I've heard this argument before a lot, and it just seems like a massive assumption. You can't read peoples minds.

One doesn't need to. Some logical reasoning is sufficient. Also, they often spell it out -- just like you did here:

> There are several plausible reasons to ignore and not discuss politics:

And they (almost) all boil down to "not wanting to rock the boat", i.e. tacitly or explicitly supporting the status quo.

> - You don't want to argue

= You value not arguing over changing something even if it were better to change it.

> - You don't think it will change anything

= You value not bothering over even trying to change what should be changed.

> - You don't want to lose friends and acquaintances

= You value your friends and acquaintances over necessary change even when they are against it

> - You don't want to find out someone you respect is "one of them"

= You covet your acquaintances so much you don't even want to know if they're actually for all that is evil in the world? Wow, that's really small-minded.

> - If the aggregate political beliefs of your industry does not match your own, you don't want to "out" yourself

Finally one that is at least understandable. But, still boils down to turning a blind eye to everyone supporting the (potentially evil) status quo in favour of making a living.

> - You want to change the status quo, but not in the way other people want it changed

= That is a political reason, only the tactical one of probably not getting your particular politics through.

> - Your political beliefs are not strongly held

= Again, valuing the political status quo over the discomfort of advocating your weakly held convictions.

> - You don't feel knowledgeable enough (I wish this was more common and people would share their opinions less when they know close to nothing).

Another at least semi-valid one. One alternative would of course be to educate oneself about one's weakly held convictions, so one could either abandon them if they turn out to have been wrong, or represent them with some conviction if they were right. I mean, what's the use of having any opinions at all if one is apathetic about them?

> I personally don't want to discuss politics much even if people agree with me - it either turns into a weird intellectual circle jerk, or gripe session about how evil the "other" is. Neither of which I really enjoy.

OK, true. Not very applicable to Twitter as a whole, though, AFAICS: it's big enough that there's always some non-apathetic discussion going on about pretty much anything.

> In short there are a lot more reasons to try and avoid politics than there are to seek them out. Being happy with the status quo is one needle in a haystack of other reasons.

Nope, as shown above almost all those reasons boil down to being more OK with the status quo than with trying to change it, which is a political stance in favour of the status quo. It's a tree-sized "needle" in a small-to-medium haystack.

Not saying you personally are an absolute arsehole for this stance; I'm much the same myself (as are, I assume, most of us). Just thought you should at least know that this is actually what you're doing, in stead of deceiving yourself (and, with the comment above, abetting others in deceiving themselves).