If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case.
I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to make friends” statement).
The reason we can’t discuss politics is because we don’t practice. The widespread saying “don’t discuss politics or religion [in X context]” means that we have fewer places to discuss it, so we get less practice to do it. We are less practiced so it is brittle. If we practiced more, we would be more resilient.
Discussions about politics and religion are rife with conflation of opinion with fact, true fact with false fact, claim with evidence.
Most good faith differences on politics boil down to differing values and priorities. Having a discussion about those directly, rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system is usually more productive in avoiding the screaming / emotions.
Then again, you could argue that the premise is flawed and we talk about politics too much…
Two issues that are probably rare but not worth the risk
1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk.
2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more violent. I ain't risking that just to make some small talk in public. Most people are far from good faith and a few have enough short fuses that I'd rather not take that risk.
> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system
This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament.
Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country.
In practice this means that when you're discussing politics with friends, you don't bifurcate into right/wrong, you discuss differences on specific causes. You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. You are more alike than you are different and that makes debating your differences easier.
Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.
Additionally americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote. People actually treat whom they vote for as a part of their identity. That always felt weird to me. It means any discussion of politics becomes a triggering assault on your ego.
edit to share an example:
In college I signed a thing to support The Pirate Party. The most they've ever achieved is like 1 or 2 seats in parliament. But this means that every law that gets discussed has a voice or two talking about its impact on copyleft, opensource, net neutrality, etc. This is great! And it doesn't mean anyone has to abandon the bigger more important issues to get this representation.
> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.
I'm European. The most influential topic in voting behaviour is immigration, as any study (or recent European election result) would tell you. In the wealthier countries, climate policy is also in the top 5. If I want to vote for progressive climate policy and being tough on immigration, there isn't a single party that I can vote for. And there hasn't been, for decades.
Agree, the forced two-party system is very limiting and the identity tied to politics is emblematic of modern US. In EU, as I believe in India from the anecdotes in the article, a lot of the identity is tied to the place you are from and the social strata the family occupies. Those are somewhat immutable things (where you were born and what family you are from), so deciding to break off communication with that community is “expensive” socially because there is no other community that will readily accept you as their own. Whereas in US, it’s quite normal to change social circles at will. Density/proximity makes it much more obvious, but the semi-fixed social circles I believe have a lot to do with it. Many US expats report loneliness when moving abroad for similar reasons - it’s hard to find a new inner circle in societies built around other identities.
> americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote
As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird.
In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd.
In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...
> Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country.
Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mostly behind the scenes with some influence from the primary process. In the other case, it happens after the election when the parties are figure out how to form a majority after the representatives have been selected. One advantage to the former is that at least you know who what other policies your special interest are going to align you with ahead of time, rather than finding out after the fact that your vote brought along more baggage than you bargained for.
> You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues.
But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real, have a right to exist, deserve health care, etc. then it doesn't matter if they agree on 9/10 other issues. Same with abortion. If one person in a discussion believes in the value of rational evidence based decision making, and the other believes in woke 5g space lasers, there's simply no foundation on which to build a shared understanding upon which to base a conversation.
Many of the central arguments that are causing polarization in politics today are due to fundamental incompatibilities in values- the kind that no amount of agreement on other matters of policy
> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.
There absolutely is. There's no perfect candidate, but there's still going to be a better choice. You pick what matters most to you, and how many things you are willing to compromise for those things, make the best choice available, and work to push the discussion of one party or the other closer toward your views in the areas you don't like.
That last part is called "identity politics". It's partly due to different politicians and parties trying to directly pander to specific demographics. It doesn't always work - like Trump saying you can't be Jewish and vote for Harris is laughable. But in rural areas it's hard to be a Democrat and be out and proud about it; in urban areas, it's hard to be a Republican in the sea of Democrats. And much of that has to do with how heated politics has gotten around issues like abortion, trans rights, DEI, immigration. Politicians on both sides have leaned into the "culture war" - Democrats arguing the rich should pay their fair share, Republicans with their "stop woke".
It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.
I think lack of good practice is a big part of it, and I also would add that a lot of the "practice" input our brains get comes from online debate culture and/or watching politicians and surrogates acting in bad faith. That means there's a lot of baggage and bad habits lying around that folks can easily and reflexively fall back, on and it really increases the burden on someone trying to have a good discussion.
Yeah, this reminds me that “politics” is easily confused with tribalism.
Politics at its core is about the organization of who/what gets the government’s attention and resources. It has completely enveloped tribalism, becoming something much closer to a sport/entertainment, especially when people passively consume it rather than actively investigate.
> it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case
I live in both! It’s easy to discuss if you’re respectful. Even with someone who will take offence to any opinion but their own. You can label them zealots. But they’re also passionate about something, and even if the what is banal the why is usually incredibly beautiful.
> If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming.
This assumes that the effects of population density are continuously distributed, but what if the national discourse is affected by population density in a way that shows up across the entire country?
Psychological safety is also a necessary part of intimacy in your closest personal relationships and is incredibly valuable for a company to provide their employees. It isn’t exclusively tied to anonymous trolling.
Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important.
But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare".
I understand why, even with practice, some political positions are simply intolerable for them. (And to me, this feels different than, say, "I have opinions about which rate I should be taxed" though I admit tax rates could be life or death for some people.)
And this is precisely why people, not just Americans, can't disagree about politics over time. Politics always turns into someone having the perspective "civil disagreement cannot be tolerated because the stakes are too high for my side" which is anethema to reason and concord regardless of whether it's actually true or not.
Catastrophizing is always incentivized in the immediate term because it forces any interlocutor(a) to address it at the expense of any other topic and then the catastrophizer can accuse them of apathy and marginialization if they don't show the requisite enthusiasm and deference.
It's a no-win situation for anyone attempting to deescalate and many just check-out rather than deal with the litany of accusations, which I guess is another kind of victory for the catastrophizers.
> being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important
Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.
I think a lot of people genuinely believe that transwomen are grooming and raping children en masse, or at least trying to get into women's sport so they can win medals. The fact that this is both wrong and stupid and has no real non-circumstantial evidence does not stop them.
At some point people have to talk to each other, right? And that's where you have a discussion about how you don't think kids should go to the Folsom Street Fair either, but that you also don't think it's fair for a 39 year old transwoman not to be allowed onto the division F basketball team with her friends, and maybe you and your interlocutor both discover that the other side is a little more tolerable than you thought.
Edit: I didn't really explain that very well. What I mean is that neither extreme finds the opinions of the other extreme tolerable, and that this is the result of paying too much attention to the long tail extremes instead of the middle of the bell curve.
> And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important.
'Agree to disagree' is just an opt out. At that point there usually isn't any agreement upon what is disagreed upon in the first place. It is a debate evasion.
It is usually more honest to say 'I don't want you to convince me or the audiance otherwise'.
But ye there is some endurance limit the discussion need to respect. My point is that 'agree to disagree' is way overused.
There is no party that will make “every waking moment a nightmare" for the LGBTQIAP+. That’s the same thing we heard in 2016, and nothing came of it then. And in fact between 2020 and 2024 there is definitely an argument that can be made that even under the “preferred” party things got worse. Ironically, that exact rhetoric has led to multiple terror attacks on innocent people.
> But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community.
This is just hyperbole intended to stop debate and discussion. It’s not life and death to stop biological men from competing in women’s sports for example.
Many years ago my then girlfriend now wife and I were finishing the trip through France. We wound up in the port city of Rouen up north, with the plan to drop off the car near train station, rent a room for a night and take the train to Paris. Unbeknown to us there was some sort of student strike and ALL hotel rooms everywhere were sold out. We found some sort of skanky hostel in a really iffy part of town, not at all the place where we'd usually stay. After dinner near lovely Rouen cathedral memorialized by Monet we got lost on the way back to that iffy area of town. We hailed a young woman walking right ahead of us who was first a bit startled but then helped us find a way in excellent english. We complimented her on her language skills and she said she learned it in America, she was quite proud of it. We asked - where did she go in America? She says - Wyoming! - with a large beaming smile. Why Wyoming of all things we asked (a reasonable question, mind you, considering other more exciting places we have in USA). Her response - "NO PEOPLE!" - and gestured around, alluding that in Europe you are surrounded by people or places the people have been for millenia. She spent a year working on a dude ranch herding cattle there. Definitely if you don't want people you shall find it somewhere in Wyoming.
For a lot of people in the US, politics has become very personal. I believe that some policy decisions have become a direct threat to my health and I can try to discuss those policies calmly but I'm not good at covering my aggravation.
I'd say that everyone has gotten increasingly disdainful of the 'other side'. I know I have - I'm not proud of it but I'm also not a good actor. I was in a message group recently and someone said something that (in my opinion) was so stupid and ill-informed that it was all I could do to sit on my fingers. If we'd been speaking in person, I'm not sure what I would have done but I certainly wouldn't have managed a polite response.
Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care.
Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges.
This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country.
So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm flabbergasted that I know parents of daughters who support these policies.
I wish we could disagree about policies. Instead we literally have elected leaders screaming that the one party is controlling the weather to destroy another party.
How do you engage and have any kind of civil discourse with that?
Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams.
In America we haven't quite lost hope yet.
edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' political actions.
I think Americans have lost hope as well. I think in America it isn't hope for a better tomorrow that is driving politics anymore, it is fear for a worse tomorrow.
I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).
> And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).
You cannot grow up in India without realizing there are many opinions you cannot voice at just any random person without inciting a riot. As much as Americans are polarized, they will not burn down cities, houses, etc. over what people said. Even the Indian government has started bulldozing entire homes and even gullies to try to punish people who riot because it's such a problem (and yes it's an idiotic solution to an idiotic problem).
I don't feel as if politics is a low stakes discussion in India, especially the religious end of political discussion. There are so many incidents of full blown riots and violence and killings over what people say about this and that religion or how you portray or don't portray this and that figure.
That’s because it’s an identity thing. And it’s not just religion, it’s also different groups (right?) who have different opinions about what territory belongs to those groups. Is that something which frequently comes up as a subject of debate at table stakes political discussions? I don’t know how common it is for those conflicting parties to interact, but something tells me they don’t discuss politics about it calmly together.
I’m an immigrant from Eastern Europe who moved to the US decades ago. Eastern Europeans are direct - you speak your mind, so there are no assumptions or miss-understandings. Families live close to where they were born in sparser areas and relationships matter, but there is also forgiveness.
I have friends who come from Welsh and Swiss backgrounds and would have layers of internal inhibition before saying something out of fear of embarrassment or multitude of other concerns. A lot of time that leads to them assuming and assumptions can be wrong. They do a lot less verbal or video contact with family members, almost intentionally so, but would still get together in person (broader context i suspect). A lot of relationships on that side degrade quickly when contact is not made for a while - assumptions upon assumptions of offense or who knows what seems to erode the relationship. So when you meet again it’s almost like you have to earn the friendship again.
Politics in this country involves those two mixes of people and waaaay more. The cultural spread, the political spectrum spread, forms a matrix too big to navigate in 99.9 % of conversations The in-person interactions are not long enough to peel all layers of the political onion and the relationship trust onion before you get to the core that you both agree on. Instead there are often unsaid assumptions, experiences, trauma that won’t fit in a tweet and if they do, nobody has time to read it. The more complicated things get and the lower the attention span, the harder it is to invest time and get a favorable relationship outcome if you discuss politics, so you’re better off not even trying.
It's enough to think for a couple of seconds to realize it has nothing to do with population density, otherwise you could freely discuss politics in less populated areas of the States.
The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world.
It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning, it's about freedom for women to decide about their own body, about respect towards minorities and people coming from other countries, just to name a few. For right-leaning, it's about protecting families, cultivating the tradition, prosperity of the country, the right to defend oneself etc. Politics became almost a new religion.
Pretty sure Europe is mostly multi-party systems where coalitions are the norm, so including North America the only two western countries where dual-party is the norm is the United Kingdom and United States (both use first-past-the-post which encourages dual-party systems).
That said, I agree on two party systems promoting toxicity, the Brexit debate in the UK which was a near-perfect 50/50 split was an extremely toxic period in UK politics and heavily influenced the 2019 election. It has got somewhat better in the last couple of years though.
Brexit wasn't a party issue, it was a referendum, so citing it as an example of two-party politics is a bit odd. Other European countries have also had referendums on aspects of the EU that were extremely bitter, often because the pro-EU side lost and then simply ignored the results/asked again.
It wasn't a near-perfect 50/50 split either. It was 52/48, which yielded a large margin of ~1.8M more votes to leave. Referendums in societies that only have them rarely will always be somewhere around the middle point, of course, as if there was already a clear majority in favour of one direction then it'd have been implemented already without the need for a referendum.
The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the case and virtually no original families remain. Other research implies that the regions with most social capital highly correlate to sparsely populated metros and regions, but not all sparsely populated regions. Rat research indicates that increased population density leads to dysfunctional social behavior.
My personal observation is twofold. First, spontaneous political discussion in the West is considered to be impolite in conversation for valid reasons. The first is the fact that social reactions are unpredictable and, in a casual social situation, rightly the emphasis should be on maintenance of the situation for everyone. To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. Group harmony as well as the individual's right to peace in public are prioritized.
Second, lifelong exposure to propaganda has trained individuals to have highly emotional reactions to those who disagree with them. The political environment in the West is not psychologically designed for casual public political conversation. Everyone knows multiple individuals who simply cannot abide, at least for long, anyone on the other side of the isle. Propaganda's long time goal has been to encourage mental illness to be viral, and it has widely succeeded.
An acceptable public political conversation looks more like one over methods to reach a pre-agreed upon goal. These still happen, however often low value. But many people who need to have a political conversation want the other type: a cross-isle argument over objectives. Which are even more low value, and much more likely to end poorly.
>To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over.
How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional conversations? Not rocking the boat has a place in professional settings, but I don't think people have a right, in general, to not see emotion.
I agree that, to a certain extent, it can be socially unpleasant. But saying it's a right is too much.
This is in regard to widely and long time held social rules ingrained in the spoken and unspoken system of in-person manners / etiquette in the West. It has nothing to do with online forum communication: nor is that latter format some kind of proof for the former.
If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish, be anyone's guest. Just don't complain when you don't get your expected result. As that's how etiquette works. Its enforced through social punishment, and often without saying a word.
There are good reasons for most basic rules of etiquette, especially in public conversation. Protecting those reasons is a strong incentive to enforce the etiquette.
You're over-simplifying what I said when you state that people don't have a right not to see emotion. This is specifically in regard to politics, and the greater consequences of spontaneous political conversations including but also beyond being uncomfortable. What I was implying is that said emotion, in regard to politics, too often frequently leads to group tumult. Which is one aspect of why the etiquette exists.
I'm sure you can find people who will go out of there way to argue with you. But to expect random common people in their few precious leisure hours to not avoid you is asking too much, should your preferred topic of conversation be politics.
Not just the US though. It is also true in the UK (maybe not as bad - yet) but we have the polarisation. The hatred of the other side is more on-sided here - its more a characteristic of the "left": you hear "I hate Tories" rather than "I hate Labour voters" or even "I hate socialists" (nor did you even before socialism died). It seems to be the same in other Anglophone countries.
There has also been a shift in the focus of politics away from economic policy and the running of government services (as was very much the case in the UK up to the 1980s) to social issues as a result of a centrist consensus on what were important issues - disagreement about them is now purely theoretical and off the table in terms of what might actually change.
It think the problem has also been inadvertently illustrated by people in the comments discussing specific American culture war issues with a great deal of anger.
An aspect of this is the lack of willingness to compromise. Take abortion. It is much less of an issue in most of Europe because it is allowed, but with short term limits. It means many of the arguments for it are not relevant, but it also undermines many of the arguments against it because of lack of functioning brain tissue, or the state of development comparable to a premature baby. Anglophone countries are much more all or nothing - long term limits or not allow at all.
We also do not (even in the UK) have the American alignment of party politics with social issues. Can you imagine the Republicans being the party that allowed same sex marriage?
I think the moving of discussion online has primed people to be more aggressive about their views in general. I was thinking the other day about the people I know IRL who have blocked me on FB: my ex, a friend of hers, one of my ex's sisters (emigrated to the US and is a stereotype Trump supporter, stolen election theory etc.), a creationist (also my ex's sister, a nice person who keeps in touch with me, but does not like my comments on her FB posts), and a remainer/rejoiner.
“In my hometown in India, everyone talks about politics all the time. And most of us don’t agree with one another. But that’s okay. I can even tease other people about our political disagreements and it doesn’t get in the way of friendships. Why isn’t that the case here in the US?”
Because when you're in a homogenous in-group you can discuss politics and get annoyed, or heated, and shake hands and go home.
When you're not in an in-group, one side is discussing non-ideal solutions, and the other side wants to destroy you. And then you have to figure out how to convince a friend that their political ideology might kill you.
Read the rest of the post. Indian politics are not somehow lower stakes than ours, the Indian subcontinent is not less diverse, and the author's friend included a specific example of people getting literally killed over their politics.
I'm still puzzled over the article frankly. In India there's political violence and people are getting killed - but they still are happy to discuss politics with their friends and neighbors? There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting. Why are they talking to everyone about their political views if it might get them killed?
There’s literally no way the nation of India is more diverse than the United States- we have the biggest spread of racial, and religious diversity on the planet, by far.
The conclusion of this viewpoint is that you either turn everyone into the in-group or one group comes out on top of the others. Either way, diversity won't survive long under that.
Diversity has historically been used to keep populations divided allowing a smaller group to rule over them. Plenty of historical examples (Italy, Ottoman Empire, etc) as well as literature. I think this is described in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”.
And both current US candidates are pushing for immigration/diversity (albeit from different groups, but the end result is the same). The real reason we can’t discuss politics is because our elites want us divided, and they have the means to accomplish that.
Readit News
I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to make friends” statement).
The reason we can’t discuss politics is because we don’t practice. The widespread saying “don’t discuss politics or religion [in X context]” means that we have fewer places to discuss it, so we get less practice to do it. We are less practiced so it is brittle. If we practiced more, we would be more resilient.
Discussions about politics and religion are rife with conflation of opinion with fact, true fact with false fact, claim with evidence.
Most good faith differences on politics boil down to differing values and priorities. Having a discussion about those directly, rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system is usually more productive in avoiding the screaming / emotions.
Then again, you could argue that the premise is flawed and we talk about politics too much…
1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk.
2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more violent. I ain't risking that just to make some small talk in public. Most people are far from good faith and a few have enough short fuses that I'd rather not take that risk.
This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament.
Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country.
In practice this means that when you're discussing politics with friends, you don't bifurcate into right/wrong, you discuss differences on specific causes. You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. You are more alike than you are different and that makes debating your differences easier.
Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.
Additionally americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote. People actually treat whom they vote for as a part of their identity. That always felt weird to me. It means any discussion of politics becomes a triggering assault on your ego.
edit to share an example:
In college I signed a thing to support The Pirate Party. The most they've ever achieved is like 1 or 2 seats in parliament. But this means that every law that gets discussed has a voice or two talking about its impact on copyleft, opensource, net neutrality, etc. This is great! And it doesn't mean anyone has to abandon the bigger more important issues to get this representation.
I'm European. The most influential topic in voting behaviour is immigration, as any study (or recent European election result) would tell you. In the wealthier countries, climate policy is also in the top 5. If I want to vote for progressive climate policy and being tough on immigration, there isn't a single party that I can vote for. And there hasn't been, for decades.
It's hardly better in Europe.
As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird.
In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd.
In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...
Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mostly behind the scenes with some influence from the primary process. In the other case, it happens after the election when the parties are figure out how to form a majority after the representatives have been selected. One advantage to the former is that at least you know who what other policies your special interest are going to align you with ahead of time, rather than finding out after the fact that your vote brought along more baggage than you bargained for.
> You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues.
But if one the people in that discussion is trans, and the other person doesn't believe that trans people are real, have a right to exist, deserve health care, etc. then it doesn't matter if they agree on 9/10 other issues. Same with abortion. If one person in a discussion believes in the value of rational evidence based decision making, and the other believes in woke 5g space lasers, there's simply no foundation on which to build a shared understanding upon which to base a conversation.
Many of the central arguments that are causing polarization in politics today are due to fundamental incompatibilities in values- the kind that no amount of agreement on other matters of policy
> Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote.
There absolutely is. There's no perfect candidate, but there's still going to be a better choice. You pick what matters most to you, and how many things you are willing to compromise for those things, make the best choice available, and work to push the discussion of one party or the other closer toward your views in the areas you don't like.
It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.
Politics at its core is about the organization of who/what gets the government’s attention and resources. It has completely enveloped tribalism, becoming something much closer to a sport/entertainment, especially when people passively consume it rather than actively investigate.
I live in both! It’s easy to discuss if you’re respectful. Even with someone who will take offence to any opinion but their own. You can label them zealots. But they’re also passionate about something, and even if the what is banal the why is usually incredibly beautiful.
This assumes that the effects of population density are continuously distributed, but what if the national discourse is affected by population density in a way that shows up across the entire country?
But I was pointing out that the article/title is easily refuted. It’s not as simple as that heuristic.
People say things they shouldn't when they believe they are anonymous. It's to our detriment.
But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare".
I understand why, even with practice, some political positions are simply intolerable for them. (And to me, this feels different than, say, "I have opinions about which rate I should be taxed" though I admit tax rates could be life or death for some people.)
Catastrophizing is always incentivized in the immediate term because it forces any interlocutor(a) to address it at the expense of any other topic and then the catastrophizer can accuse them of apathy and marginialization if they don't show the requisite enthusiasm and deference.
It's a no-win situation for anyone attempting to deescalate and many just check-out rather than deal with the litany of accusations, which I guess is another kind of victory for the catastrophizers.
Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.
At some point people have to talk to each other, right? And that's where you have a discussion about how you don't think kids should go to the Folsom Street Fair either, but that you also don't think it's fair for a 39 year old transwoman not to be allowed onto the division F basketball team with her friends, and maybe you and your interlocutor both discover that the other side is a little more tolerable than you thought.
Edit: I didn't really explain that very well. What I mean is that neither extreme finds the opinions of the other extreme tolerable, and that this is the result of paying too much attention to the long tail extremes instead of the middle of the bell curve.
'Agree to disagree' is just an opt out. At that point there usually isn't any agreement upon what is disagreed upon in the first place. It is a debate evasion.
It is usually more honest to say 'I don't want you to convince me or the audiance otherwise'.
But ye there is some endurance limit the discussion need to respect. My point is that 'agree to disagree' is way overused.
This is just hyperbole intended to stop debate and discussion. It’s not life and death to stop biological men from competing in women’s sports for example.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I'd say that everyone has gotten increasingly disdainful of the 'other side'. I know I have - I'm not proud of it but I'm also not a good actor. I was in a message group recently and someone said something that (in my opinion) was so stupid and ill-informed that it was all I could do to sit on my fingers. If we'd been speaking in person, I'm not sure what I would have done but I certainly wouldn't have managed a polite response.
Deleted Comment
Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges.
This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country.
So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm flabbergasted that I know parents of daughters who support these policies.
How do you engage and have any kind of civil discourse with that?
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
In America we haven't quite lost hope yet.
edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' political actions.
I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).
You cannot grow up in India without realizing there are many opinions you cannot voice at just any random person without inciting a riot. As much as Americans are polarized, they will not burn down cities, houses, etc. over what people said. Even the Indian government has started bulldozing entire homes and even gullies to try to punish people who riot because it's such a problem (and yes it's an idiotic solution to an idiotic problem).
Instead, they're both entirely geared up to get "their base out to vote" which you do by riling them up in all possible ways.
I have friends who come from Welsh and Swiss backgrounds and would have layers of internal inhibition before saying something out of fear of embarrassment or multitude of other concerns. A lot of time that leads to them assuming and assumptions can be wrong. They do a lot less verbal or video contact with family members, almost intentionally so, but would still get together in person (broader context i suspect). A lot of relationships on that side degrade quickly when contact is not made for a while - assumptions upon assumptions of offense or who knows what seems to erode the relationship. So when you meet again it’s almost like you have to earn the friendship again.
Politics in this country involves those two mixes of people and waaaay more. The cultural spread, the political spectrum spread, forms a matrix too big to navigate in 99.9 % of conversations The in-person interactions are not long enough to peel all layers of the political onion and the relationship trust onion before you get to the core that you both agree on. Instead there are often unsaid assumptions, experiences, trauma that won’t fit in a tweet and if they do, nobody has time to read it. The more complicated things get and the lower the attention span, the harder it is to invest time and get a favorable relationship outcome if you discuss politics, so you’re better off not even trying.
The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world.
It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning, it's about freedom for women to decide about their own body, about respect towards minorities and people coming from other countries, just to name a few. For right-leaning, it's about protecting families, cultivating the tradition, prosperity of the country, the right to defend oneself etc. Politics became almost a new religion.
Pretty sure Europe is mostly multi-party systems where coalitions are the norm, so including North America the only two western countries where dual-party is the norm is the United Kingdom and United States (both use first-past-the-post which encourages dual-party systems).
That said, I agree on two party systems promoting toxicity, the Brexit debate in the UK which was a near-perfect 50/50 split was an extremely toxic period in UK politics and heavily influenced the 2019 election. It has got somewhat better in the last couple of years though.
It wasn't a near-perfect 50/50 split either. It was 52/48, which yielded a large margin of ~1.8M more votes to leave. Referendums in societies that only have them rarely will always be somewhere around the middle point, of course, as if there was already a clear majority in favour of one direction then it'd have been implemented already without the need for a referendum.
Do you use a different definition of two party system than I do, when I say 2 party system I mean "first past the post"-systems, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
and for which countries use that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/me...
My personal observation is twofold. First, spontaneous political discussion in the West is considered to be impolite in conversation for valid reasons. The first is the fact that social reactions are unpredictable and, in a casual social situation, rightly the emphasis should be on maintenance of the situation for everyone. To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. Group harmony as well as the individual's right to peace in public are prioritized.
Second, lifelong exposure to propaganda has trained individuals to have highly emotional reactions to those who disagree with them. The political environment in the West is not psychologically designed for casual public political conversation. Everyone knows multiple individuals who simply cannot abide, at least for long, anyone on the other side of the isle. Propaganda's long time goal has been to encourage mental illness to be viral, and it has widely succeeded.
An acceptable public political conversation looks more like one over methods to reach a pre-agreed upon goal. These still happen, however often low value. But many people who need to have a political conversation want the other type: a cross-isle argument over objectives. Which are even more low value, and much more likely to end poorly.
How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional conversations? Not rocking the boat has a place in professional settings, but I don't think people have a right, in general, to not see emotion.
I agree that, to a certain extent, it can be socially unpleasant. But saying it's a right is too much.
If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish, be anyone's guest. Just don't complain when you don't get your expected result. As that's how etiquette works. Its enforced through social punishment, and often without saying a word.
There are good reasons for most basic rules of etiquette, especially in public conversation. Protecting those reasons is a strong incentive to enforce the etiquette.
You're over-simplifying what I said when you state that people don't have a right not to see emotion. This is specifically in regard to politics, and the greater consequences of spontaneous political conversations including but also beyond being uncomfortable. What I was implying is that said emotion, in regard to politics, too often frequently leads to group tumult. Which is one aspect of why the etiquette exists.
I'm sure you can find people who will go out of there way to argue with you. But to expect random common people in their few precious leisure hours to not avoid you is asking too much, should your preferred topic of conversation be politics.
Deleted Comment
There has also been a shift in the focus of politics away from economic policy and the running of government services (as was very much the case in the UK up to the 1980s) to social issues as a result of a centrist consensus on what were important issues - disagreement about them is now purely theoretical and off the table in terms of what might actually change.
It think the problem has also been inadvertently illustrated by people in the comments discussing specific American culture war issues with a great deal of anger.
An aspect of this is the lack of willingness to compromise. Take abortion. It is much less of an issue in most of Europe because it is allowed, but with short term limits. It means many of the arguments for it are not relevant, but it also undermines many of the arguments against it because of lack of functioning brain tissue, or the state of development comparable to a premature baby. Anglophone countries are much more all or nothing - long term limits or not allow at all.
We also do not (even in the UK) have the American alignment of party politics with social issues. Can you imagine the Republicans being the party that allowed same sex marriage?
I think the moving of discussion online has primed people to be more aggressive about their views in general. I was thinking the other day about the people I know IRL who have blocked me on FB: my ex, a friend of hers, one of my ex's sisters (emigrated to the US and is a stereotype Trump supporter, stolen election theory etc.), a creationist (also my ex's sister, a nice person who keeps in touch with me, but does not like my comments on her FB posts), and a remainer/rejoiner.
“In my hometown in India, everyone talks about politics all the time. And most of us don’t agree with one another. But that’s okay. I can even tease other people about our political disagreements and it doesn’t get in the way of friendships. Why isn’t that the case here in the US?”
Because when you're in a homogenous in-group you can discuss politics and get annoyed, or heated, and shake hands and go home.
When you're not in an in-group, one side is discussing non-ideal solutions, and the other side wants to destroy you. And then you have to figure out how to convince a friend that their political ideology might kill you.
Diversity has historically been used to keep populations divided allowing a smaller group to rule over them. Plenty of historical examples (Italy, Ottoman Empire, etc) as well as literature. I think this is described in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”.
And both current US candidates are pushing for immigration/diversity (albeit from different groups, but the end result is the same). The real reason we can’t discuss politics is because our elites want us divided, and they have the means to accomplish that.