It doesn't seem to usually devolve into arguments (heated exchanges), but it does tend to include debates. Just because not everyone agrees with you (or even each other) doesn't mean the topic isn't worth discussing, or that the comments are uncivil.
Not at all. Actually, observing how it works for realities or the gossipverse, you can spot the same patterns in politics: multiple (in USA "both") sides on some topic cluster their statements around some event, like passing of some act or relevant news.
Setting the conversation agenda is specially useful to hide inconvenient topics from public scrutiny. Sex regulation, religion and other "social" controversial discussions are very effective to create noise and put in the background the economic problems, that have often more direct and severe consequences for most people.
It's always interesting to see a light-grey thread at the bottom of a page that's full of lucid, not-overly-aggressive political discussion.
In one sense it's a shame when thoughtful, evidence-based discussion is discouraged for being off-topic. But I suspect that's ultimately what makes those discussions possible; they're happening between relatively small numbers of discussants, in a space that doesn't draw in people looking for political debates.
For sure they can't—but discussions don't need to degenerate into predictable partisan sniping. That stuff is always the same, so though it may be intense and exciting (to some), it's not intellectually interesting.
Given the state of politics at the moment, the answer is probably “no”. Like religion, politics is more a belief system than a decided position and trying to discuss it yields people talking past each other or an echo chamber. Can try to keep it civil, but even that has degraded over the last 5-10 years. Throw in the trolls getting their jollies and it’s probably a waste of electrons to try.
Ah, I see. I have lots of discussions that are fun, light hearted and meaningless. They just are rarely based on speculation on fundamental facts that could be googled.
There seems to be a lot of reaction to "talking politics". Maybe my perspective is coloured by being Canadian and living where the politics aren't so polarized and gamed?
Thats not the discussion. The discussion is if opposing views are allowed to exist or whether you get shamed for thinking and proposing something that is as politically valid (human flourishing).
It definitely can be discussed. The key is that you had to temper your assertion that the discussion was only 'somewhat' in good faith.
Usually the discussions around these things aren't in good faith. Sometimes they're actually in poor faith from BOTH sides. Interpret this as 'people are fallible and bad at discoursing respectfully' rather than 'people don't want to discuss these sensitive topics'
We all have plenty of opposing views on non-political matters, many of them quite polarizing, so I don't see why discussing opposing political views would be inherently more problematic or difficult.
Only from the perspective of one of the two sides in the debate.
The other side thinks that it's perfectly good and proper to not have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible topics, and would rather the first side not pull them into it.
reply