Can we discuss the concept of "political" (without specific politics)

[Guest]

The 7 blind men and the elephant.

 

Even you don't have the whole picture.

 

Is it so important to change minds vs. be respected for having your own opinion? IMO everyone should vote their own conscience and I will vote mine.

Right, SKL, but the question the OP is asking is not about getting along with someone who is voting differently from me. It's not the vote or the party that is causing the problem; it's the core beleifs about what is right or wrong that is the difficulty.

 

If you live on a southern plantation in 1858 and I run a textile company in New York, it is no longer about whether I identify as Union and you Identify as Confederate. Now, we're having a hard time being friends because you have a different basic view about what is acceptable treatment of other human beings than I do, and also have a different opinion as to whether or not the feds can take away your profitable slave population. We're going to have a hard time staying friends because it doesn't make it okay to me, just because you say you are a benevolant slave master and don't even break up family groups.

[SKL]

Right, SKL, but the question the OP is asking is not about getting along with someone who is voting differently from me. It's not the vote or the party that is causing the problem; it's the core beleifs about what is right or wrong that is the difficulty.

 

If you live on a southern plantation in 1858 and I run a textile company in New York, it is no longer about whether I identify as Union and you Identify as Confederate. Now, we're having a hard time being friends because you have a different basic view about what is acceptable treatment of other human beings than I do, and also have a different opinion as to whether or not the feds can take away your profitable slave population. We're going to have a hard time staying friends because it doesn't make it okay to me, just because you say you are a benevolant slave master and don't even break up family groups.

 

I dunno, John Adams considered Thomas Jefferson a dear friend even though he disagreed with him on many things you & I don't even think are debatable.

 

I think that if we were born in that time, we could understand that that's what we were each born into, and maybe try to influence by example or gentle speech without ever expecting a full conversion.  And maybe we could each learn some things from each other, because the fact of being a slave owner or not is not the sum total of who a person is.

[8circles]

I have had similar thoughts, but I'm not sure what the right thing to do is.  To me keeping the peace has value too.  Even if that means I bite my tongue... a lot.

 

I don't see value in keeping peace with (for lack of a better word) evil. 

 

So, it's hard to explain this anecdote without getting too into partisan politics, but I'll try.

 

At our tiny co-op, one of the kids has been actively arguing that he feels certain political candidates and opinions are treated unfairly. Ds has argued he doesn't think it's unfair, that it's right to argue against ideas you think are really wrong and the people who hold them. They had the following conversation (more or less):

 

Kid: But if I believed that all people of a certain religion or race were bad, you wouldn't just stop being friends with me. It's just my opinion.

Ds (shocked): Yes I would! That would be offensive and racist!

Kid (super hurt and surprised): You would stop being my friend?

Ds: If you really thought that, yes. That's horrible.

 

And, honestly, I was like, Go, ds. Because do we really need friends who are overt racists?

 

So, do I have a litmus test for opinions about free trade? Nope. Limited vs. expanded government? Health care? Foreign policy? Political party? Death penalty? Education policy? Nope, nope... But there's got to be a line somewhere after which it's like, you know, it's not that we just don't agree, I actually think your views are offensive enough that maybe we shouldn't be friends.

Yes.  Perfect illustration.

 

I have been unfriended already by a relative that is apparently a white supremacists.  I have considered unfriending someone because of racist comments and I'm just not able to be open-minded about that.  I'm not doing it yet because she seems to be maybe listening to another friend of mine so for sake of connection.

 

Racism is definitely political.  Xenophobia is definitely politial.  homophobia is definitely political.  Sexism is definitely political.  Because people are wanting to govern from these viewpoints.

[Pawz4me]

Right, SKL, but the question the OP is asking is not about getting along with someone who is voting differently from me. It's not the vote or the party that is causing the problem; it's the core beleifs about what is right or wrong that is the difficulty.

 

If you live on a southern plantation in 1858 and I run a textile company in New York, it is no longer about whether I identify as Union and you Identify as Confederate. Now, we're having a hard time being friends because you have a different basic view about what is acceptable treatment of other human beings than I do, and also have a different opinion as to whether or not the feds can take away your profitable slave population. We're going to have a hard time staying friends because it doesn't make it okay to me, just because you say you are a benevolant slave master and don't even break up family groups.

 

Maybe not a good analogy.

 

Odds are good that you (the textile mill owner) are profiting from slave labor every bit as much as the slave owner is. The cotton you're using in your textile mill is probably coming from that plantation and others like it. I would see a breaking up of a friendship in this analogy as total hypocrisy on the part of the textile mill owner much more than a difference in core beliefs of right and wrong.

[FaithManor]

I agree with you.

Some differences in views, I can agree to disagree, and we can still remain friends. We can have discussions about issues on which we hold opposite opinions. We can be of different religions and be friends.

 

Certain opinions, however, will make me dislike the person who voices them openly. I see no common basis with people who consider certain subgroups of the population, based on their ethnicity, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, as humans of lesser value. I cannot be friends with people who are openly racist, condone violence, make fun of people with disabilities, say that all gays should be shot, just to name a few examples. Those things cross a line beyond which I cannot remain friends and have no wish to associate with this person. And yes, I do judge that person's character for it and find it wanting.

 

ETA: I come from a  culture where there is no taboo about discussing religion or politics. Those are fascinating, deep subjects, and a discussion can be intellectually stimulating and enriching for all involved. In fact, these subjects absolutely should be discussed!

I absolutely agree with you, Regentrude! 

 

Unfortunately, as more and more people IRL are unable to either disagree politely, or worse, seem to have become loudly, angrily, polarized on issues for me that are pretty much make or break, and discrimination based on race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation ranks right up at the top, I've been letting some once friends and relatives slide into the "merely an acquaintance with whom I exchange how's the weather type greetings and move on" category. 

 

As a matter of fact, this has in recent years reduced my IRL human contact considerably as I live in an area that is very, very discriminatory and voices their opinions loudly and constantly. I can get along with people who have the manners to not bring up these topics when they know they are just going to end up being angry and frustrated with me because I don't believe "their way". But manners is definitely not the name of the game locally. Can't wait to move!

[Guest]

Maybe not a good analogy.

 

Odds are good that you (the textile mill owner) are profiting from slave labor every bit as much as the slave owner is. The cotton you're using in your textile mill is probably coming from that plantation and others like it. I would see a breaking up of a friendship in this analogy as total hypocrisy on the part of the textile mill owner much more than a difference in core beliefs of right and wrong.

Well, sorry. I was trying to talk about an important difference of viewpoint in our history that actually led to war and has a lot of similarities to what I think are current problems.

 

When it came to a tension that every new state added to the United States would either have to be in favor of slavery or against it, which would then tip the balance either way, this is how it became untenable to just say, "Okay, we'll divide the country this way and you can keep slaves and we won't."

 

This is exactly how something that is in one sense a personal beleif (i.e., it is okay to keep humans as slaves vs. No it isn't) becomes a matter of governance. It was no longer *just* a personal belief because new states were being adopted into the US and both sides wanted the majority in their own favor.

 

ETA: fix usage

Edited July 21, 2016 by Quill

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't see value in keeping peace with (for lack of a better word) evil. 

 

 

 

I don't know which evil things you are referring to though.  If we are talking about say racism, there is a huge difference between someone who says they don't like various skin colors and I think I'm going to shoot my black neighbor.  I don't want to be friends with either of these people, but I probably would not be compelled to do much about the first type of person.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Yes.  Perfect illustration.

 

I have been unfriended already by a relative that is apparently a white supremacists.  I have considered unfriending someone because of racist comments and I'm just not able to be open-minded about that.  I'm not doing it yet because she seems to be maybe listening to another friend of mine so for sake of connection.

 

Racism is definitely political.  Xenophobia is definitely politial.  homophobia is definitely political.  Sexism is definitely political.  Because people are wanting to govern from these viewpoints.

 

It's a cut and dried illustration for me.  Someone who says point blank they hate X group.  Where it gets trickier is when it's nothing like that.  What if someone said, "I'm leery of X group because I don't understand what they are about, they make me nervous, I'm afraid of them because of the bad experiences I've had with them personally, I wonder if steps should be taken to protect people.  They might still be "ist" as hell, but then they might just be like a lot of us in that we are afraid of stuff we don't understand. 

[8circles]

I don't know which evil things you are referring to though.  If we are talking about say racism, there is a huge difference between someone who says they don't like various skin colors and I think I'm going to shoot my black neighbor.  I don't want to be friends with either of these people, but I probably would not be compelled to do much about the first type of person.

 

If people deny that racism exists and then also speak about some races being better than others, I think that's evil.  The bar is set a lot lower than shooting someone.  There isn't much I can actually do about someone who is a racist, but I can tell them that I think they are a racist and it's unacceptable to me.

[Jane in NC]

I absolutely agree with you, Regentrude!

 

Unfortunately, as more and more people IRL are unable to either disagree politely, or worse, seem to have become loudly, angrily, polarized on issues for me that are pretty much make or break, and discrimination based on race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation ranks right up at the top, I've been letting some once friends and relatives slide into the "merely an acquaintance with whom I exchange how's the weather type greetings and move on" category.

 

As a matter of fact, this has in recent years reduced my IRL human contact considerably as I live in an area that is very, very discriminatory and voices their opinions loudly and constantly. I can get along with people who have the manners to not bring up these topics when they know they are just going to end up being angry and frustrated with me because I don't believe "their way". But manners is definitely not the name of the game locally. Can't wait to move!

Most people I know IRL are polite--like-minded maybe? I find some of the stuff I see online to be shocking but I may be naive. I am concerned about some of the crude images that I have seen on t shirts in recent days. If I had a young child, I would hate to encounter and be forced to explain some of these items.

[FaithManor]

Joe sounds too far gone.  :lol:

 

And the news...mostly awful.  I don't believe a lot of it. 

I am surrounded in this area by a LOT of Joes!

 

:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

Once they discover that I don't agree with their political views, if I say the sky is blue, they will instantly say, "IS NOT!" Okay, not about the sky, but you get the idea. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

If people deny that racism exists and then also speak about some races being better than others, I think that's evil.  The bar is set a lot lower than shooting someone.  There isn't much I can actually do about someone who is a racist, but I can tell them that I think they are a racist and it's unacceptable to me.

 

Yeah I think that's fine, but then the way I see it is I have to live in a world filled with all kinds of people and I want to understand them....lousy views and all.  How do I know if my views are right? 

[FaithManor]

Most people I know IRL are polite--like-minded maybe? I find some of the stuff I see online to be shocking but I may be naive. I am concerned about some of the crude images that I have seen on t shirts in recent days. If I had a young child, I would hate to encounter and be forced to explain some of these items.

I think I will just go move by Jane!

 

:D

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am surrounded in this area by a LOT of Joes!

 

:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

Once they discover that I don't agree with their political views, if I say the sky is blue, they will instantly say, "IS NOT!" Okay, not about the sky, but you get the idea. 

 

 

Oh yeah.  My dad used to be like that.  And he never admitted to being wrong.  So fracking frustrating.

[8circles]

It's a cut and dried illustration for me.  Someone who says point blank they hate X group.  Where it gets trickier is when it's nothing like that.  What if someone said, "I'm leery of X group because I don't understand what they are about, they make me nervous, I'm afraid of them because of the bad experiences I've had with them personally, I wonder if steps should be taken to protect people.  They might still be "ist" as hell, but then they might just be like a lot of us in that we are afraid of stuff we don't understand. 

 

I have no tolerance for people who only think of themselves which is how I see your example.  If there is a group of people that you don't understand then it's on you to educate yourself about them, to try to find out what's at the root of the problem.  Especially in this day & age where it isn't hard to find answers.  The "you"s are general, not to you, Sparkly.

 

I think overlooking actual, provable oppression of a group of people because of their skin color (or country of origin or gender or...) in order to pander to your own hypothetical fears is the height of selfishness.  And also falls into the "evil" category.  

[hornblower]

 

 

I am bracing myself for the political questions when I visit Germany.  It happened to me during another election.  I don't have a lot to say about it.  I suspect I tend to side with the majority of Germans I'll encounter, but I still don't want to talk about it. 

 

Given that suddenly NATO is in question, I think there's a lot of trepidation in Europe so yeah, I'd expect lots of questions.  The world is watching all this very carefully. 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

If people deny that racism exists and then also speak about some races being better than others, I think that's evil.  The bar is set a lot lower than shooting someone.  There isn't much I can actually do about someone who is a racist, but I can tell them that I think they are a racist and it's unacceptable to me.

 

Thinking about this some more, racism would probably not exist if these were the most problematic people.  I think the bigger issues are the racist attitudes that run so deep most people wouldn't notice them. 

 

I don't think I'm racist, but there may be some things I believe that are racist even though I don't recognize it as such.  Anyone who just comes out and says "whites are superior" are probably pretty dumb in general. 

[Jane in NC]

I think I will just go move by Jane!

 

:D

Yeah! Two houses for sale on my street!

[Guest]

It's a cut and dried illustration for me. Someone who says point blank they hate X group. Where it gets trickier is when it's nothing like that. What if someone said, "I'm leery of X group because I don't understand what they are about, they make me nervous, I'm afraid of them because of the bad experiences I've had with them personally, I wonder if steps should be taken to protect people. They might still be "ist" as hell, but then they might just be like a lot of us in that we are afraid of stuff we don't understand.

Well, I haven't had such honestly-spoken things said to me. I see a lot of much more passionate fear than what you just typed here.

 

Have you heard of the "two poisoned grapes in a bowlful" analogy wrt allowing Syrian refugees into a country (or state)?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Given that suddenly NATO is in question, I think there's a lot of trepidation in Europe so yeah, I'd expect lots of questions.  The world is watching all this very carefully. 

 

 

 

Yep and I'm not discussing it with them.  :lol:

[SKL]

Well, sorry. I was trying to talk about an important difference of viewpoint in our history that actually led to war and has a lot of similarities to what I think are current problems.

 

When it came to a tension that every new state added to the United States would either have to be in favor of slavery or against it, which would then tip the balance either way, this is how it became untenable to just say, "Okay, we'll divide the country this way and you can keep slaves and we won't."

 

This is exactly how something that is in one sense a personal beleif (i.e., it is okay to keep humans as slaves vs. No it isn't) becomes a matter of governance. It was no longer *just* a personal belief because new states were being adopted into the US and both sides wanted the majority in their own favor.

 

ETA: fix usage

 

Actually it was more of an economic reality that people inherited, and the Civil War was also motivated more by economics than by differences re slavery.  The south was unhappy with industrial policies that favored northern industry, including the location of the railroads and other things.  We teach kids that it was all about slavery but it really wasn't.  I might also add that northern factory workers had their own issues to answer for; being a factory worker wasn't so great either.  Let's just be glad that neither of us has to go back to what things were like economically or in terms of human dignity 150+ years ago.  :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, I haven't had such honestly-spoken things said to me. I see a lot of much more passionate fear than what you just typed here.

 

Have you heard of the "two poisoned grapes in a bowlful" analogy wrt allowing Syrian refugees into a country (or state)?

 

I have not heard that.  Yikes.  I live in immigrant land so immigrants don't stand out.

 

Nobody is as awesome as the members of TWTM forums.  :laugh:

[hornblower]

Yep and I'm not discussing it with them.  :lol:

I confess I'd find a refusal to discuss this very baffling.

 

Mostly because as you said, discussion is one of the tools we use to try to understand. I think many people are genuinely curious because they're trying to figure out why certain viewpoints are popular, why they make sense to people.  Certainly most of my European friends are well informed about US politics, and to an extent Cdn politics too, mostly wrt to foreign affairs, NATO etc. and they frequently want to get more info from conversations with people who live there. 

[SKL]

I think we are so polarized and biased that we don't actually listen well.  We hear things nobody said or thought.

 

Here's an example.  Yesterday my 9yo was telling of a mini drama she witnessed (with some embellishments).  She said, "and R saw a black masked man ...." [like that was scary.]  I said, that sounds kind of racist.  She said, "I don't mean the man was black, I mean he was wearing a black mask."  How many people would give her a chance to even explain her meaning?

[Guest]

Actually it was more of an economic reality that people inherited, and the Civil War was also motivated more by economics than by differences re slavery. The south was unhappy with industrial policies that favored northern industry, including the location of the railroads and other things. We teach kids that it was all about slavery but it really wasn't. I might also add that northern factory workers had their own issues to answer for; being a factory worker wasn't so great either. Let's just be glad that neither of us has to go back to what things were like economically or in terms of human dignity 150+ years ago. :)

I feel like you're missing the point of the analogy.

 

I'm not really trying to discuss the Civil War, KWIM? I'm attempting (obviously failing badly) to say that not all things stay neatly into the realm of non-partisan, non-political. I imagine there were similar problems before the Civil Wat began, only it was different because information traveled slowly and people were a lot less aware of what other people in a different region were thinking.

[SKL]

I confess I'd find a refusal to discuss this very baffling.

 

Mostly because as you said, discussion is one of the tools we use to try to understand. I think many people are genuinely curious because they're trying to figure out why certain viewpoints are popular, why they make sense to people.  Certainly most of my European friends are well informed about US politics, and to an extent Cdn politics too, mostly wrt to foreign affairs, NATO etc. and they frequently want to get more info from conversations with people who live there. 

 

I can understand not wanting to go there.  How can any one person be the ambassador of US political thought in a foreign country?  So many misconceptions to clear up, so many ifs and buts and qualifiers.  And then not knowing for sure if they have any hot buttons we might tread upon.

 

I do have political discussions sometimes in foreign countries, but I tread very lightly and mostly listen.  It would be very rare for me to make it about my personal opinion.

 

[regentrude]

I confess I'd find a refusal to discuss this very baffling.

 

Mostly because as you said, discussion is one of the tools we use to try to understand. I think many people are genuinely curious because they're trying to figure out why certain viewpoints are popular, why they make sense to people.  Certainly most of my European friends are well informed about US politics, and to an extent Cdn politics too, mostly wrt to foreign affairs, NATO etc. and they frequently want to get more info from conversations with people who live there. 

 

I can see her point. At some point, I am thoroughly sick of explaining something that I, honestly, am hard pressed to explain because I myself don't understand how certain things can be possible. OK, I have an idea how it happened, but I cannot deep within me sympathize or find any rational logical explanation for certain things. (Won't elaborate here because... politics)

My German friends and family share my political views in certain important respects. They share my opinion about the current situation. They are far better informed about US politics than the average person in the US about European affairs.

We can commiserate, we can mutually express our hope for things - but at some point, I am fatigued and disgusted and do not wish to hear certain names mentioned one.more.time.

 

Sparkly, I get it. From what you wrote, I have a hunch we might have similar opinions.

Edited July 21, 2016 by regentrude

[hornblower]

I can see her point. At some point, I am thoroughly sick of explaining something that I, honestly, am hard pressed to explain because I myself don't understand how certain things can be possible. Some things do not have any rational logical explanation.

My German friends and family share my political views in certain important respects. They share my opinion about the current situation. They are far better informed about US politics than the average person in the US about European affairs.

We can commiserate, we can mutually express our hope for things - but at some point, I am fatigued and disgusted and do not wish to hear certain names mentioned one.more.time.

 

Sparkly, I get it. From what you wrote, I have a hunch we might have similar opinions.

 

oh I totally get how the fatigue can set in - esp when you're on vacation & just want to relax. My parents just came back from several weeks travelling with friends in Europe and yeah, they got tired of it. If it wasn't US politics it was Brexit, EU, Russia and refugees. 

[8circles]

I confess I'd find a refusal to discuss this very baffling.

 

Mostly because as you said, discussion is one of the tools we use to try to understand. I think many people are genuinely curious because they're trying to figure out why certain viewpoints are popular, why they make sense to people.  Certainly most of my European friends are well informed about US politics, and to an extent Cdn politics too, mostly wrt to foreign affairs, NATO etc. and they frequently want to get more info from conversations with people who live there. 

 

I think it depends on the situation.  I can (& have) discuss US politics with people who are actually trying to understand, but it can become offensive really fast with some people.  Like if I try to explain the POV of a certain group of people, even if I don't agree with it, I've been treated as if it were my view and insulted & treated badly.  I've also been in situations where someone is *so* sure that they are right, but they don't even know what they're talking about & when I fill them in on what actually happened they say "well, how do you expect me to know about your politics?"  I'm like, I don't.  You expressed a really strong opinion on an event for which you don't know any facts.  Maybe tone it down a bit.

 

So in theory I'm happy to discuss but in reality it's often difficult.  & my political views are very much the kind that would be closer to my European friends.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I confess I'd find a refusal to discuss this very baffling.

 

Mostly because as you said, discussion is one of the tools we use to try to understand. I think many people are genuinely curious because they're trying to figure out why certain viewpoints are popular, why they make sense to people.  Certainly most of my European friends are well informed about US politics, and to an extent Cdn politics too, mostly wrt to foreign affairs, NATO etc. and they frequently want to get more info from conversations with people who live there. 

 

There are a variety of factors.  First, with strangers I figure I'll never see these people again so pah.  Usually this is a matter of someone overhearing that I speak English.  They usually then come over and want to know where I'm from.  Totally understandable because I'm interested in people from other places too.  Most can't tell Americans from Brits from Canadians...  So then they lean in with "so who do you think will win".  Uh.  I have no idea.  I can tell you who I hope wins, but I can't tell you who will win.  Then I deal with the language barrier.  Someone with mediocre English with someone who has ok translation skills with someone who has terrible German skills (me).  Stuff gets lost in translation, misunderstood, is strained, is slow going, is not very interesting and conducive to real conversation.  One time I was surrounded by a bunch of people asking me question after question.  OMG.  That's just too much. 

 

Then with my in-laws, none of them speak any English.  My BIL speaks a little, but very very slowly. 

 

My husband though, he'll talk politics. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think it depends on the situation.  I can (& have) discuss US politics with people who are actually trying to understand, but it can become offensive really fast with some people.  Like if I try to explain the POV of a certain group of people, even if I don't agree with it, I've been treated as if it were my view and insulted & treated badly.  I've also been in situations where someone is *so* sure that they are right, but they don't even know what they're talking about & when I fill them in on what actually happened they say "well, how do you expect me to know about your politics?"  I'm like, I don't.  You expressed a really strong opinion on an event for which you don't know any facts.  Maybe tone it down a bit.

 

So in theory I'm happy to discuss but in reality it's often difficult.  & my political views are very much the kind that would be closer to my European friends.

 

Oh yeah and since I am not certain I'll be understood, I do not want to create some sort of chaotic situation.  No thank you. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I had one boisterous buzzed guy make me promise that Obama would win.  I said I can't promise that.  He went on and on about it.  If only I had that kind of power!!

 

 

[TravelingChris]

I have facebook friends from very different political points.  I am disheartened this year.  Some of my college friends post political posts I don't agree with.  I ignore them.  I don;t get racist posts on facebook. I tend not to talk politics much though I do follow it closely though somewhat less so this year and last than others because I find it more depressing now.

[hornblower]

I had one boisterous buzzed guy make me promise that Obama would win.  I said I can't promise that.  He went on and on about it.  If only I had that kind of power!!

 

but you did it!!  :lol:

[SparklyUnicorn]

but you did it!!  :lol:

 

LOL

 

I was surprised that I did it!

[Guest]

I don't know which evil things you are referring to though. If we are talking about say racism, there is a huge difference between someone who says they don't like various skin colors and I think I'm going to shoot my black neighbor. I don't want to be friends with either of these people, but I probably would not be compelled to do much about the first type of person.

The person has a right to voice his opinion, but everyone else has a right not to listen. The trouble comes when out in public, and the opinion is used to create a hostile environment, so the targeted individual will vacate. I dont want to work in a hostile environment, but usually one only has the option to leave. Its only recently that, for example, that there are consequences to managers who denigrate based on gender, race, college attended, etc. Imagine going to the office everyday and hearing those remarks..and I mean hearing, not overhearing. Point blank directed at you, with an audience. The right to a being to have respect sure isnt in there.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[SparklyUnicorn]

The person has a right to voice his opinion, but everyone else has a right not to listen. The trouble comes when out in public, and the opinion is used to create a hostile environment, so the targeted individual will vacate. I dont want to work in a hostile environment, but usually one only has the option to leave. Its only recently that, for example, that there are consequences to managers who denigrate based on gender, race, college attended, etc. Imagine going to the office everyday and hearing those remarks..and I mean hearing, not overhearing. Point blank directed at you, with an audience. The right to a being to have respect sure isnt in there.

 

Absolutely!

[FaithManor]

Yeah! Two houses for sale on my street!

Sweet! Now if I can just legally adopt all of the members of the new rocket team and being them with me!

[Lady Florida.]

Actually it was more of an economic reality that people inherited, and the Civil War was also motivated more by economics than by differences re slavery.  The south was unhappy with industrial policies that favored northern industry, including the location of the railroads and other things.  We teach kids that it was all about slavery but it really wasn't.  I might also add that northern factory workers had their own issues to answer for; being a factory worker wasn't so great either.  Let's just be glad that neither of us has to go back to what things were like economically or in terms of human dignity 150+ years ago.  :)

 

Since we've already gone down a rabbit trail on this thread -

 

We have been down this road before on the board. Have you actually read the secession documents? It was more about slavery than anything. And all of those so-called economic reasons were directly tied to slavery.

 

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/

[Valley Girl]

 People are adopting a belief based on fear of others. It's just really tough to know where exactly to draw the line.

 

Not trying to pick on you, Farrar. It's just that what you said here stuck a chord with me. I think there are many issues that could fall under a description of beliefs based on fear of others. Pick any one of them. That's how the particular belief is described by those who DON'T share it. It comes across--whether intended or not--as dismissive of the genuine issues and policy concerns at the root of it. (I'm not trying to point fingers. Both sides do this.) I think that's where people and relationships get into trouble. Instead of focusing on the specific concerns and how to solve them, both sides feel as though they're not being heard, don't want to "lose" by acknowledging that the other side has a point, and things escalate from there.

 

And when people on either side start broad-brushing the other, it makes it hard to get beyond the sound bites. That makes it very hard to have genuine friendships with people of other political stripes.

 

I've learned a tremendous amount about the "other side" of issues by actually listening to what people on this board whose background and opinions differ from mine say. (At least I have when the conversation has been respectful. I have no time or interest in listening to people who only want to lecture and disparage others.) I might still disagree in the end although not always. But I can honestly say the conversations have broadened my thinking. That's a good thing. I still like the people with whom I disagree. We have far more in common overall. If respectful conversation can do that on a message board, I think you can have real friendships in real life with people of good will who have very different political positions.

 

But both sides have to be willing to tamp down the rhetoric and the knee-jerk responses in order to do that. And I don't see a lot of effort being made to do that during this election cycle.

 

Anyway, not sure what my point was anymore.

[ktgrok]

 

So, do I have a litmus test for opinions about free trade? Nope. Limited vs. expanded government? Health care? Foreign policy? Political party? Death penalty? Education policy? Nope, nope... But there's got to be a line somewhere after which it's like, you know, it's not that we just don't agree, I actually think your views are offensive enough that maybe we shouldn't be friends.

 

And that's why I wouldn't choose friends based on political party, but yes, if the motives behind such choices are abhorrent to me, I will unfriend you. 

 

for instance, we could both believe that the poor need help, and deserve to live and have dignity, but disagree over wether that should be via government programs or private programs. Okay, fine. I will disagree, and think I have logical reasons, but we can be friends. 

 

But if we don't just disagree on HOW to help the poor, but on IF we should help the poor, that is probably a deal breaker. My moral compass and my religion state all humans are made in the image of God and have dignity, and if you are continually disparaging other humans as lesser creatures than you, well we can't be friends. Is that political, or moral? Probably both. 

[SKL]

Yeah, I used to work with a woman whose political positions were generally the opposite of mine, and she was not quiet about it.  However, we used to go to lunch together very often and blab nonstop for an hour at a time.  There are so many other things to talk about besides politics.  Usually she was on a rant about her boss or her sister or her kid's Polish-speaking church people ....   Politics would come up very briefly maybe one out of every 10 lunches, and we respectfully made our points and moved on.

 

Some of my friends (from pre-kid days when I had time for that) used to ask me out of honest curiosity, not only what I thought but why.  And I would lay it out as objectively as I could - no obligation to agree with any of it.  My friends would nod and we'd move on to other topics.

 

"Well this is what I think and why" is always welcome.  What makes me walk away is "well this is why you're wrong."  First I will try to change the subject, but failing that, I'm out of there.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not trying to pick on you, Farrar. It's just that what you said here stuck a chord with me. I think there are many issues that could fall under a description of beliefs based on fear of others. Pick any one of them. That's how the particular belief is described by those who DON'T share it. It comes across--whether intended or not--as dismissive of the genuine issues and policy concerns at the root of it. (I'm not trying to point fingers. Both sides do this.) I think that's where people and relationships get into trouble. Instead of focusing on the specific concerns and how to solve them, both sides feel as though they're not being heard, don't want to "lose" by acknowledging that the other side has a point, and things escalate from there.

 

And when people on either side start broad-brushing the other, it makes it hard to get beyond the sound bites. That makes it very hard to have genuine friendships with people of other political stripes.

 

I've learned a tremendous amount about the "other side" of issues by actually listening to what people on this board whose background and opinions differ from mine say. (At least I have when the conversation has been respectful. I have no time or interest in listening to people who only want to lecture and disparage others.) I might still disagree in the end although not always. But I can honestly say the conversations have broadened my thinking. That's a good thing. I still like the people with whom I disagree. We have far more in common overall. If respectful conversation can do that on a message board, I think you can have real friendships in real life with people of good will who have very different political positions.

 

But both sides have to be willing to tamp down the rhetoric and the knee-jerk responses in order to do that. And I don't see a lot of effort being made to do that during this election cycle.

 

Anyway, not sure what my point was anymore.

 

This is how I see it too.  It's extremely difficult to explain this without getting into examples that are too specific and the sorts of things that upset people, but certain topics come up and some people just broadly dismiss the other side without really hearing them out.  And they need to give it a chance I think.  It isn't all going to come out perfectly in one sentence or paragraph or hell maybe not even in one novel.  But really listen to people. 

 

Sometimes people say stuff that instantly makes me bristle, but I have gotten to know where that view comes from and I don't think they are as monstrous as some people claim they are. 

[Anacharsis]

I've been thinking a lot about people (actual people and others who may share the same sentiment) who are doing the whole "I won't unfriend people for having different political views" thing, and wondering how "different political views" is interpreted.

 

Obviously I don't want to bring actual political views into this discussion, so there's no way I'm touching the concept of "I'm voting for X."  But people do share their opinions on matters that politicians and lawmakers address.  It seems to me that these matters then get labeled "political", thereby becoming a point that can no longer be considered something that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not you like someone and want them in your life.

 

It's one thing to be able to continue to respect a person who wants to raise taxes while you want to lower them, but don't most stances come from a person's morals, values, and ethics?  The things that define who they are?  If we aren't supposed to build or end relationships based on those factors, what else is there?

 

I'm not trying to say it's impossible to appreciate someone with a few contrary views.  I just don't understand why it's expected.  If I were to say, "I don't like my neighbor because he talks over me in every conversation," people would get that.  If I stop visiting a friend because her face is always in her phone, few people would blame me.  If I avoid people who are constantly trying to sell me something, EVERYONE (but them) understands that.  But then, if I don't want to associate with someone who denounces something that is a part of my heart, of my core beliefs, of ME, I'm some unreasonable political beast.

 

I know many people still believe politics and religion should be taboo conversations, but I'm feeling more and more strongly that that's a big part of how we've gotten here.  But I've only had 1 cup of coffee this morning.

 

The old reason is a belief in Enlightenment principles; the idea that if someone holds a belief that is wrong, it cannot hurt you if you know the truth, and that if you hold a belief that is wrong, it will be banished away through exposure to the truth -- so encountering the widest number of ideas possible can only be a good.

 

As post-modern thinking has developed, people have started to resign themselves to the fact that this view is not entirely accurate. There are many ideas that are as virulent or even more virulent than the truth, and knowing the truth is not a vaccine -- many virulent ideas focus on worldview, the lens that allows our dim eyes to see the truth in the first place. :) As power in the human sphere is often based on people's reactions to the facts rather than the facts themselves, a lot more effort has gone into that aspect of conversation rather than a simple uncovering of facts.

 

The modern reason for exposure to other ideas is avoiding "monoculture". The person who decided that in English the word for a system of human attitudes and what happens when bacteria finds a food source should be the same word had a very insightful mind. While worldviews are often resistant to a wide variety of influences, every so often a fatal weakness is found -- if there are no symbiotic worldviews that are resistant to the attacker, this can lead to a catastrophic culture shift.

 

Some have argued that this was a problem faced by the classic Great Books curriculum in the face of the World Wars. A philosophy that teaches that you cannot control that you will die but you can control how you will live is one that does not fear war -- in a world of mustard gas and gatling guns, that was a very dangerous view. In a world of atomic weapons and computerized weapons systems, that is a world-ending view. If it wasn't for symbiotic worldviews, the curriculum would not have survived.

 

The balance is in finding worldviews that are different from your own, but which can form a symbiotic relationship that will not have one attacking and overwhelming the other.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Anacharsis

[SparklyUnicorn]

Damn that's good Anacharsis. 

[Pam in CT]

I'm about to run out of "likes," ladies.  100 per 24 hours, not enough to carry me through the important subjects... and these are the most important subjects.

 

 

Nonetheless I find myself unable to string two coherent sentences.

 

 

Part of my difficulty is an uneasy sense that certain words -- politics and religion as the thread started out, certainly, but also others (racism, hatred, freedom, rights... and more) -- can carry quite different meanings to different people, so even when people of reasonable good will and reasonably good manners TRY to communicate across differences there's an awful lot of scope for miscues and missed signaling.

 

Since (whether we like it or not, or are ready or not) racial tension IS a problem currently tearing our nation and spilling over (arguably driving) our politics at the moment, I will with considerable trepidation plunge in there... even though given my own background I have no particular standing or insight.

 

So, for example, one possible definition of "racism" is the unapologetic and fully visible hatred of Bull Connor.

 

 

Sixty-plus years later, it's easy -- and comfortable -- to think, well, we don't see THAT kind of racism anymore, ergo, we're done!  ... and, as a kind of corollary, if incidents occur in which THAT particular form of racism ISN'T easily evident, then it's not racism.

 

Yet sixty-plus years later, we have very large numbers of people *in a position to know* who are affirming that racism *isn't* done yet.  That on a daily basis, storekeepers follow them and not others around; that unoccupied taxis slow down / see their skins / speed up and depart; that their children are sorted into tracked classes without assessment; that professors do not call on them in class; that employers consider them differentially for promotion opportunities.  That law enforcement treats them differently.  That judiciary structures treat them differently.

 

I'm white.  Such things do not happen to me.  And so: they are  not easily visible to me.  

 

So when I hear others talk about such things, I have choices.  I can categorize each report of each incident as a "one-off" event, and compartmentalize it accordingly.  I can try to delve into the details of each report of each incident and look for or speculate about possible mitigating circumstances (maybe the storekeeper randomly follows the tenth customer who walks in the door; maybe the taxi driver forgot to change the light; maybe the kids are sorted by neighborhood, we just don't know).  I can dismiss the Reports from the Black Field as unreliable, stemming from anger or entitlement.  I can listen, and trust that the best subject matter experts on the experience of living black lives are black people.  I can actively seek to find more information about possible patterns of race-based differences.

 

The idea of race-based patterns as reflection, and manifestation, and enforcement, of racism is a different definition of racism than the old Bull Connor definition -- harder (for whites!) to see, harder to define in a tweet-sized bite, and easier to ignore or deny.  That difference -- seeing race-related incidents as part of a larger pattern of racism, vs. seeing each one as a isolated one-off -- seems to me to be a very significant difference in how our polarized parts are seeing current events... and why that disconnect is spilling over and dominating our politics.

 

Over the last couple of years, my own understanding about race (as well as other forms of Other, but for the moment, race) has evolved from a definition rooted in individual "hatred" (Bull Connor-style) to one rooted in indifference.  

 

 

 

Oy.  Again, too long and too mashed up....

[Guest]

So well said, Pam. Your experience matches my own.

[heartlikealion]

I've been thinking a lot about people (actual people and others who may share the same sentiment) who are doing the whole "I won't unfriend people for having different political views" thing, and wondering how "different political views" is interpreted.

 

Obviously I don't want to bring actual political views into this discussion, so there's no way I'm touching the concept of "I'm voting for X."  But people do share their opinions on matters that politicians and lawmakers address.  It seems to me that these matters then get labeled "political", thereby becoming a point that can no longer be considered something that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not you like someone and want them in your life.

 

It's one thing to be able to continue to respect a person who wants to raise taxes while you want to lower them, but don't most stances come from a person's morals, values, and ethics?  The things that define who they are?  If we aren't supposed to build or end relationships based on those factors, what else is there?

 

I'm not trying to say it's impossible to appreciate someone with a few contrary views.  I just don't understand why it's expected.  If I were to say, "I don't like my neighbor because he talks over me in every conversation," people would get that.  If I stop visiting a friend because her face is always in her phone, few people would blame me.  If I avoid people who are constantly trying to sell me something, EVERYONE (but them) understands that.  But then, if I don't want to associate with someone who denounces something that is a part of my heart, of my core beliefs, of ME, I'm some unreasonable political beast.

 

I know many people still believe politics and religion should be taboo conversations, but I'm feeling more and more strongly that that's a big part of how we've gotten here.  But I've only had 1 cup of coffee this morning.

 

I don't see why you can't build relationships based on those things? Why not? I think it's just that it's discouraged to be friends and then suddenly burn a bridge over some disagreement on facebook. That type of thing. It's not just disagreeing, it's how you interact. Do they actually discuss topics or start dropping insults? Do delete posts by people that disagree with them? I think you'd have to consider all that.

 

I was defriended on Facebook this week for laughing at what I thought was a funny sign mocking people that play Pokemon Go and asking them to get off the sign holder's property. I don't care if people play it. Dh even downloaded it. I was laughing at the sign because the man was obviously bitter and the note was silly (something to the effect of, "I think Pokemon Go is more ridiculous than Hammer Pants, The Macarana" etc. I basically said I thought the sign was funny and if I saw it in real life I'd laugh and brush it off. This received a very negative reaction and I was defriended/blocked from both their personal page and one of their side pages.

 

There's a guy I know in real life. He says very offensive things in regards to religion. I know if I ran into him in person we'd probably just say hi and ask about each other's kids or something. I just hid him from my feed (months back). I lean toward "hide them" as the solution most of the time.

 

I don't even know if it's expected. But I would say it's enlightening to be friends with someone and see where they are coming from. I don't agree with a medical practice that a friend of mine was involved with. She got very defensive when we ended up discussing it and I got to hear where she was coming from. Her reasoning made sense. Not for me, but her intentions were good. It actually made me feel bad for never having her thought process occur to me.

 

The term "friend" is too generous for a majority of my facebook connections. Acquaintances would be more appropriate. If someone is close enough to consider a friend then maybe you can just avoid certain topics and focus on the parts of the relationship that are more in sync.

[MotherGoose]

I generally do not discuss politics or religion unless I'm pretty sure the other person agrees with me. If we are talking about unfriending someone on FB, I usually let obnoxiousness rule that one. Whether I agree or not with the stance, if they are obnoxious about it, I will at least hide them. I just don't want the drama. I've already made up my mind to NOT vote for X candidate, and I'm not going to change my mind.

[Carrie12345]

 

The term "friend" is too generous for a majority of my facebook connections. Acquaintances would be more appropriate. If someone is close enough to consider a friend then maybe you can just avoid certain topics and focus on the parts of the relationship that are more in sync.

 

And, see, 90% of my 160-ish FB friends are either family members, friends, or more than acquaintances if not quite friends.  10% may be a mixed bag of former schoolmates and internet acquaintances.  I clean house regularly for the more "acceptable" reasons, and the outright gross ones.

 

I've tried to skirt specific issues in this thread, but the reality is that I DON'T want to be friends with someone who doesn't believe Black Lives Matter, or who think evil is caused by secularism, or that poor people are lazy, or that they need to protect their kids from "the gay agenda".  It makes me feel sick and dirty.  But I'm the jackass if I can't just shut up and pretend their stance is peachy keen while we sip iced tea.