7 ms·
yep the purpose of the essay was to: 1) show the situations in which politics can't be discussed productively (dogmatic ideologies) 2) show how to avoid being
by shw1n 1y ago
yep the purpose of the essay was to:
1) show the situations in which politics can't be discussed productively (dogmatic ideologies)
2) show how to avoid being dogmatic yourself
I absolutely encourage people to discuss politics productively
- fergie 1y agoIt was a good essay- thanks for writing it :)
- shw1n 1y agoty!
- elliotec 1y agoNot the best title if that’s your message
- shw1n 1y agothe idea's that we're so tribal these days (maybe it's always been like this) that it's largely impossible but here's how we can change that, etc
- ghaff 1y agoWell, I know a lot of people in the US who simply don't want to discuss politics at social events these days.
- ta1243 1y agoWhich means the only input they get is ever polarised extreme feeds online, from social media algorithms and straight up paid adverts.
- lukan 1y agoNo, it can also mean they get too much extreme input from the people in reality. There are lot's of people who won't stop, when you push the wrong button (speaking a wrong word).
- HPsquared 1y agoPeople tend to moderate themselves and compromise a lot more in real conversations. It's like all those videos of dogs barking angrily at each other through a closed gate, then suddenly becoming quiet and peaceful, their whole body language changing, when the gate is opened.
- lukan 1y agoFor sure people are more restrained in real life, than online, but the consequences can also be more severe if extreme positions meet offline.
- barry-cotter 1y agoBetter than ruining real life relationships over politics. The only important impact most people have over politics is when they vote. Discussing politics has massive downsides and trivial benefits.
- HelloNurse 1y agoThere might be very little alignment of political opinions within one's circle of friends, and any discussion would turn into an unpleasant discussion with the risk of ending the group of friends forever. For most people, very few friendships form with an expectation of political agreement: activists met at a common protest or campaign, generic regulars of a popular political party or union, old style secret societies, and so on.
- frantathefranta 1y agoI think people can aim to meet politically aligned people at non-political events/places. I met most of my friends in venues that "members of the opposite tribe" just don't frequent. And I feel like it goes for both sides.
- ghaff 1y agoYeah. There are exceptions. People can also have multiple circles. And it's not as if political opinions within a group are really uniform. But there does tend to be a certain degree of uniformity within many groups of friends.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pharrington 1y agoAre you speaking from experience when you say discussing politics has massive downsides for your real life relationships? And if so, may I ask what happened?
- ghaff 1y agoI really don’t care. And honestly people I’ll tend to be socializing with are at least somewhat similar in political opinions. Just not interested in discussing political outrages at a social gathering. If you insist on talking politics when the host or other guests don’t want to you’re a rude idiot.
- spiderfarmer 1y agoYour country really needs more political parties.
- dudefeliciano 1y agothat's always been the case, politics and religion are taboo
- pixl97 1y agoOf course they are, people get angry when they have to rationalize why they want to genocide some group of people different from them in mixed company.
- cauch 1y agoFor me, "avoid being dogmatic yourself" is failing to bring home one very important point to avoid being dogmatic: understand that you are equally susceptible from the mistakes/misunderstandings that you blame others for. An example in this article is the following part > my angle ... becomes that of opposing their tribalism. Unfortunately ... most people just view me as the opposite of their own tribe But this part totally fails self-reflection: it talks about your "conservative friends" and your "liberal friends". They are labelled "conservative" or "liberal". How does the author know that the interlocutor did not act exactly like the author: the interlocutor brought a subject, from their point of view their position on it where pretty neutral and sensible, the author reacts by playing the devil's advocate. They therefore see the author as the "conservative" or "liberal" person, and if they follow the author's strategy, they will play the devil's advocate. And then, THE AUTHOR fails to realize they don't actually care about the conclusion. The lazy answer is: I'm smarter than them, I can tell when it's the case or not. Or: the subject I bring are not political, they are just common sense and sensible position, but they sometimes bring something I disagree with, and this is not common sense and sensible position. In both case, it's weak and does not acknowledge the possibilities that you may have done the same mistakes as them from time to time (either classifying a "moderate" as "far" just because they were doing the devil's advocate, or presenting opinions that are not "trivially moderate" from the eyes of your interlocutor). It's a detail, but because of that, I'm not sure the author is as "non dogmatic" as they think they are: they are saying what everybody is saying. The large majority of people don't say "I'm dogmatic and my opinions are crazy" (if they believe their opinions are crazy, then it means they don't believe in their opinions and it is not really their opinions).
- InfinityByTen 1y agoAbsolutely. While I am a person who would avoid politics in most contexts myself, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with this attitude in this write up. If you see others as being "insufficiently equipped" to handle nuance, "because it's hard" or "because they are too resistant" is a judgement I prefer not to pass on others. > "Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there" Who defines the truth? As much as I understand there is a need to draw a line somewhere, I also believe that everyone has a right to their truth. And that's my truth. I let everyone have their perspective and don't see a need to impose mine or look down upon them if they don't agree to mine, this included :)
- DeathArrow 1y agoI've sent you a line on LinkedIn.
- sevensor 1y agoI find the most productive political discussions are about history. Most people don’t know any history at all, so a willingness to discuss the reason we have the Third Amendment, or the lasting effects of King Leopold’s dominion in Africa, or the Peleponnesian War, makes for a good discussion, and the distance makes people less emotionally tied to their positions and more willing to accept nuance. If we find we disagree, this also gives us social cover to pretend the topic isn’t intensely relevant to the present day.
- DeathArrow 1y agoAlso, present day politics is in many cases determined by history.
- sevensor 1y agoExactly! What makes history relevant is that we are still living in it.
- niemandhier 1y agoMaybe the long peace within the US changed things, but in most countries and especially in Europe discussing history in a room with more than 2 nationalities is a good recipe to sow dissent.
- sevensor 1y agoGood point. I live in the US and I wouldn’t start with the American civil war. Talk about other people’s history. I’ll trade you the American Civil War for the Franco Prussian War.
- Spooky23 1y agoThe American Civil War is a great place to start. You can very quickly assess where somebody’s head is at and move on quickly.
- 1y ago
- cle 1y agoSome of the best convos I've had are with ideologues, it just requires authentic empathy and effort, which means letting go of moral presuppositions and being willing to really listen to them without injecting your own judgments & opinions. If people subconsciously think you're trying to do that, it'll trigger their defense mechanisms and the convo will instantly shut down (or devolve into chaos). People love to talk about what they think is important, but NOT when they think they're being setup or playing into someone else's hand.