I will not push back on soap-box issues because, unfortunately, too many folks have uttered the line, "x issue is life and death for me and cannot be debated". I get that feeling, because my groups issues are like that for me, however my groups issues aren't of such popularity that I don't have to witness people doing exactly that. It's quite a frustrating paradigm, especially when your political allegiances land you among folks who have quite rich opinions about people of said group and the institutions around them (at times.)
All in all, I don't miss the news or politics. I hear about important things and am still "informed" just by the virtue of having a pretty eclectic group of friends. For instance, I heard about the rocket attacks on Israel because part of my team is in Israel. That prompted me to read the entire wikipedia article on this topic, which was illuminating in giving me a fact-based understanding; however what I lack is an opinion. What I don't get is the every day reminders of issues x, y, or z while seeing my groups issues ignored or deprioritized and when friends do this (probably inadvertently) I'm able to tolerate it because I hear it less.
Yeah there's a wide range of currently contentious topics - pick either one of them.
It really is about whether people can tolerate hearing things - or even knowing they speak about them - that they don't agree with, without turning into (in the worst cases) a savage frenzy of bullies. The ability to discern nuance seems to be getting lost.
I've found the opposite. Most people have disagreements on fundamental viewpoints which means there's no point even discussing. For example I take the position that freedom of speech is almost sacred, which rules out the chance of any productive conversation with most people who prioritize things like preventing somebody from getting offended. Instead I choose to avoid topics where I know I disagree with the mainstream, unless it's with a close enough friend where I know our relationship won't be damaged by touching on a topic of disagreement.
I was raised to think that politics and religion are not appropriate subjects for polite company; and even that raising either topic outside narrow situations is impolite. I have since grown to think the sentiment is wrong and destructive. Assuming others in your cohort feel similarly, It leaves those discussions to only those people who are willing to breach decorum, or you simply don't have them. The results are that we tend to hear more often from zealots than we do more moderate people, we also leave ourselves ill-equipped to discuss contentious subjects and resolve conflict amicably, and worst of all we make important decisions on matters that affect everyone using poor information and without the benefit of the perspectives of our peers.
I'm ok with talking about things where we all agree, in that it can still deepen understanding and spur people to action. For example, most people here agree about the idiocy of TSA's security theater. But when I took a flight this week, I opted out of what I could partly because I know that some of my fellow nerds are doing the same.
I'm also ok with talking about things that don't seem to get resolved right away. A lot of major issues take decades to get sorted out. But I don't think they get resolved by ignoring them. Well, they often do, but I don't expect they'll get resolved in favor of my position that way.
Sounds like we could probably have a fascinating discussion. I get so tired of the same old tired name-calling and finger-pointing that most people count as political discussion. My Facebook is filled with posts from both sides which do nothing more than hurl insults at the other side.
Nobody actually wants to talk about issues. Bring up anything specific and everyone just goes silent. It's boring, and a bit offensive. People with so little imagination do us all a disservice by expressing it so strongly.
Maybe the quality of the political discussion is so crappy because we don't talk about it?
My experience is that one has to express their emotional relationship to problems and be aware of it before they can actually insightfully engage with problems; if people don't, they just introduce their emotional biases into their problem solving and pretend they're not.
The other thing is that certain topics will enrage anyone in any forum, no matter the social connections. This includes neighborly chats, TV talk shows, dinner parties, classrooms, offices, pretty much anywhere you have humans talking about issues that are important to them and affect them personally, you'll get all kinds of behavior and language.
Unless you have a dedicated moderator of a debate, one who everyone agrees is the moderator, the floodgates are open and the tone of the discussion can go in any direction. This is especially true when the consequences of the debate can mean a new pool is or isn't built at whatever cost down the road from where we live. "Friendship" among the participants won't stop someone speaking out against such things if they feel strongly about it.
There is also a shared understanding that you don't debate politics with family, which would also be a pretty big block of time for many. Perhaps the forum isn't the problem, its that a good deal of people feel uncomfortable with politics and choose to not engage. I guess what's pretty funny here is we all have a shared understanding that there are problems in politics and the cultural landscape, but also there's a lot of common sense that keeping your feelings bottled up isn't good for anyone.
Yes, it is bothersome. You mentioned race issues, but you could have easily mentioned climate change: “is it really so unreasonable that people want to talk about keeping the planet hospitable?” Or abortion “is it really so unreasonable women want to talk about having control of their own bodies?” Or the war in Ukraine: “is it really so unreasonable people want to talk about their own political self determination?”
There will always be important political considerations that affect groups in disproportionate ways. That doesn’t mean we need to talk about politics all the time or that there is something wrong with not wanting to talk about politics. And yes, if someone expresses a desire to avoid political discussion, I think it’s a dick move to violate that desire and subtly imply they don’t care about race issues.
Try replying to the points I raised. Responses like yours which essentially state "we can't discuss this issue as a group because of some social norm I don't like" really do scream out that someone doesn't want to bite into the meat of the issue.
If the latter, it does invite the question of why.
It's simply not worth the effort. Forget about the political topics you mention for a second. Changing minds in that realm through conversation is know to be hard. Look at something easier like conveying factual information about non-controversial topics.
Even in that case, if a topic is complicated enough that an early 20's newbie can't pick it up from a 1000-word medium essay, forget it. People who engage in trying to inform are fighting a constant uphill battle with no upside if they succeed.
Now pile the baggage back on of trying to disagree the "conventional wisdom" of a social bubble. A few try, most give up, and the spiteful join the jokers in trolling.
Terrorism may be a very rare cause of death, all things considered, but that's little comfort to the widow of a firefighter who died on 9/11. For the same reason, someone who just quit their job over sexual harassment by co-workers might not be too moved be talk about how much of a problem it is or is not overall.
The closest I can think of a non-partisan example is talking about how safe flying is as a mode of transport, to someone who had the incredibly bad luck to lose a loved one in a plane crash. Is there a name for this kind of thing?
I agree that at the organisation or nation level, you want to invest your time and money based on better evidence than media reports about sharks. But I also understand that at the individual level, you care more about issues in proportion to how they affect you or those close to you.
In my experience, the vast majority of people have triggers that shut down reasonable communication. For instance, economics is a touchy subject on this forum. It takes a great deal of patience to put up with people who may end up wasting a large amount of your time.
In reality, I think the understanding that people should avoid conflict can only exist in periods of increasing consumption to distract from an understanding that societal engagement depends on more than voting. This is why voting does not require an explanation, especially in online forums: to silence minority opinions without actually confronting contradicting ideals.
So in other words people should talk about social issues based on the facts (statistics) and not their opinions (lived experience), and being a part of the group in question is irrelevant?
I think the overwhelming majority simply can't help but jump in with their two cents in a discussion about politics or religion... which is exactly why, overall, I'd rather avoid such discussions entirely. The signal-to-noise ratio is rarely worth it.
This obviously works well when it comes to Alice and Bob's little dispute, assuming we don't have a personal connection to either.
This approach doesn't scale up to meet most of the world's difficult and interesting questions and problems. Issues of society, race, gender, economy, and so forth affect all of us.
How can there ever be a disinterested party when it comes to matters of national or societal importance?
That’s not really the problem. The problem is much rather that there isn’t any awareness when those people actually do talk about those topics (or feel the need to for some stupid reason or other).
I'm not referring to framing something ambiguous. I mean for example people openly discussing final solution to Jew problem. Are you suggesting basic civility and discussion about the issue with them?
All in all, I don't miss the news or politics. I hear about important things and am still "informed" just by the virtue of having a pretty eclectic group of friends. For instance, I heard about the rocket attacks on Israel because part of my team is in Israel. That prompted me to read the entire wikipedia article on this topic, which was illuminating in giving me a fact-based understanding; however what I lack is an opinion. What I don't get is the every day reminders of issues x, y, or z while seeing my groups issues ignored or deprioritized and when friends do this (probably inadvertently) I'm able to tolerate it because I hear it less.
reply