Why do people fear talking about politics?

I understand, but I think you're missing some interesting and important content. The Debate Room here at its worst is relatively tame, and some vital issues are discussed. Not all the posts in the Biden thread are Hate Biden/Love Biden. Same for Trump.

I posted something in my blog here this morning that could be seen as political. I was going to start a thread in the Debate Room with it, but so many here don't enter that area, and I think my pearls of wisdom should reach as large an audience as possible. Of course, I don't know that many here peruse the blogs, either.

 

I read your blog prior to this post.

It's going to sound silly but I was literally looking for the debate thread just right now. I can't seem to find it. That's the only reason I've not popped my head in.

 

I could understand not being interested on replying, but why the disinterest in reading?

Not trying to offend, just trying to understand the disinterest in politics.

 

It sucks you've had that experience. There are times I've felt alienated in my political views and was getting gang attacked by a bunch of rich tossers. It really put me in a state of hyper vigilance and embarrassment and feeling like I was getting attacked.

But in the moment, I realised that it was their fear in what I said that they felt the need to dismiss me. I'm not much of an orator, but in that moment I was confident in expressing my world views and I was able to speak rather eloquently. I wasn't defending my ego- where your hackles rise and you are escalating. I was just sharing a POV.

I'm not saying you have to go around fighting everyone. There are definitely people that would crazy on you for expressing your views. But being confident to express your views as well as confidence to ignore people is lost by a lot of people I have found.

I've learnt a lot by listening to people who I disagreed with. But the opportunity to discuss with people unlike myself is so rare these days. People have become very polarised now.

 

I'll dip into the Debate Room from time to time, but there are many, many venues for political discussion (both in person and online) so I'm not overly motivated to do a lot of it here.

 

One day I'm gonna become known around here as just "the guy who only posts old XKCD comics" but by God, I'm gonna make the most of it:

 

I used to be like this not going to lie, haha. Nowadays I just want a discussion and educate myself over proving im-so-smart.

 

I, on the other hand, think that would be a grand idea. Each gets a weapon of their own choice, only two in the room at any given time, a que of one ilk at each of two doors, and participation tickets sold online.

(Must jot that down as a story idea )

 

I fear talking about politics because people might realise how stupid and simple I am.

 

An honest man, bless you. Let's go have coffee and talk about the weather.

 

He has a point though. If Trump can be elected then what Homes says must be true. After all it takes a majority. Politics in no longer about people, about public services, about representation. It’s about extreme points of view, it’s about anger and scapegoats, it’s about personalities. In fact politics is now just theatre orchestrated to distract the people, while power is brokered, grabbed and abused. There is no middle ground anymore.

 

I commented on a local community Facebook group the other day. Someone was complaining that the local council do nothing about the potholes in the roads. I commented that we may have got better services if we had not elected a Tory council, who are noted for their lack of spending. I was instantly slated for bringing ‘politics’ into to it, and called a libtard lefty. I should add I live in a rural village In the UK.

 

I am willing to talk with anyone who has an informed opinion, they do not need to agree with me, but have the ability to argue their stance, logic, history or personal experience. To me the real test of stupidity comes from having no opinion or calling yourself someone who is 'undecided' I have lots of respect for anyone who is passionate and informed on any issue. Please spare me your feelings, those are always subjective.

 

"Undecided" is the legitimate state of a person who is studying and weighing issues in the process of developing an informed opinion. Some undecided people may attempt to enter dialogs with passionate and informed people in order to learn more themselves. Unfortunately, some of the very people from whom the undecided seek to learn regard anyone less informed than themselves as stupid and therefore not worth talking to.

 

I don't think that is the case. I think most people fall into categories of extreme opinions/political views or neutral/undecided views and have done so for years.

Most of the people with extreme views tend to not want to talk to anyone that disagrees with them. Radical left doesn't want to engage with radical right, they mostly want to fight each other for having their respective views. They are mostly insulated to their own self reinforcing ideas within their own environment (family, friends, geographical indicators).

But i think they'd be happy to talk to people to sway them into their ideology. Which is part of the problem, they aren't willing to listen but are mostly there to speak.

However, I think some of the undecided never want to leave the comfort of ignorance or are in a state of perpetual indecision or they are genuinely apathetic. They hide under the umbrella that they are undecided to not have to face their decision or indecision. They don't want to learn which views or thinking aligns with themselves.

They don't want to decide because decision is hard to uphold. It may put you into uncomfortable situations where you'd have to call people out for views that you don't agree with. They just don't care about politics and they live every life as they come. Detached from the decisions that affect their future, or their children's futures.

They don't want to talk at all. Either it's too hard or they don't care.

I think the rarest are individuals that don't align with political camps and are undecided momentarily. They see the individual merits of each argument as they come and are reflective of those ideas. They'd be the most receptive to listening to every POV and making decisions based of that. They don't always decide, but they are willing to study so that a decision can slowly form.

But it's the hardest position to be in. To care enough to not be apathetic, to want to challenge but not radicalise, to speak but listen as well. Which is why most people seem to not want to bother with politics in the first place. It's a tiring endeavour and for most, it probably has not enough bearing on their lives.

 

Yeah, I've engaged in some fairly lengthy debates with forum members in there (mostly to my disadvantage, haha) and I don't think it's affected my interactions with any of them. It's a friendly place, more or less, which is a truly delightful and surprising part of the life of this forum. That's probably thanks to the excellent moderation. Moose and Selbbin and Mingo, this is for you guys

 

Like all generalities, none are without exception. I spent time in the ministry, I dealt with and continue deal with people who completely disagree with me or have a faith that is very different than mine. That is something that you learn to deal with and become comfortable with or you never last or mentally survive. I used to do a lot of counseling, it was a young man's ministry with a handful of women that were involved. Young adrenaline junkies for the most part, learning to deal with getting older. I dealt with a lot of marriage counseling, sexual issues, drug, work, stress you name it type of things that seem to mess up all of us at one time or another while getting older. What I will say is that just about all of mans problems come from trying to live in a gray area because of comfort rather than commitment. It is easy for me at this stage of life to be able to say, I know where most roads end up. After awhile. You hear the same stories, the same circumstances, like reading a cheap romance novel and knowing how it is going to end, you might not see every twist, but the number of times you are surprised gets to be few and far in between. I can say with all honesty, the common denominator is that when someone gets to a cross road in life and they have no idea which way to go, or why there is turmoil. God bless the person who has a goal, has values and knows where they are going and what they want, I guess I am weary of those who are just spinning in circles un-willing to invest in what is important to them and why

 

sometimes what appears as unwilling is in fact unable.

 

Unable implies impossible. If a monk can fast for hours at an end and meditate all day, I don't see how it's impossible to develope some level of self control. Its not easy and I think most people are too comfortable to try (me included), but everyone is able.

 

Not so. If one’s ankles are tied together you are unable to hop, however, hopping in not impossible, it just requires untying. An addict for example, is unable to stop using. It is not impossible for them to stop, they just need the right intervention.

 

So are you equating moderate views with neutral/undecided views?

 

Someone's either passionate + raical or undecided / dispassionate - at least that's how I understood it. And I completely agree with it; after mass media barraged both sides with propaganda unshackled, uncontrolled and unpunished for more than three decades politics has gotten so polarized that any opinion will be regarded as "radical" by the opposite side.

On another note, what irks me when discussing politics + what can trigger me personally is when people quote or refer to false data, theories that have been proven false or half-truths. Not the "technology must serve mankind not enthrall it" kind of arguments, but the "X economic action leads to Y consequence" In these cases, highlighting the falsity is taken as an "argument" by the other - but because they argue in favour of something objectively false, they are unable to do anything but go on the assault.

Example in spoiler, as I don't want to divert the discussion to the argument / contra-argument of the example - merely wanting to bring up a point.

Spoiler: Example

I've had this argument over and over with political Marxists, where they stick to pre-20th-century historiography and ideals - despite the socialist calculations debate & the discoveries of the 20th century. The repeated "Capitalism is a modern invention" trope underlined by the "Capitalism started when commercial gains were re-invested en-masse" is always brought up, to which I tend to calmly answer that Marx and his contemporaries had no knowledge of capitalism, investments, commerce and market regulations already present in ancient India and Babylon - since those discoveries were not yet made at the time Marxist historiography was conceived. The first thing someone does to protect their argument is hit up the relevant wikipedia page - and notice that the very introduction where their argument is presented has 7 issue marks, along with the page itself. I would gladly continue a discussion about post-calculations-debate marxism / collectivism because it's genuinely fascinating - but the discussion always devolves into the other side scraping together arguments as to why reality, history and academic consensus is in fact wrong and their (even within their own ideological group) outdated views are true.

 

I never thought of it like that, good point.