I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US. Many intelligent people just wont talk about leaving mostly the close minded life long party members to be the only voices. Personally I think this is why the political landscape is so awful in the US.
Hi, I'm an intelligent American who occasionally tries talking about politics.
Many otherwise intelligent Americans are monomaniacal nutjobs or partisan hacks when it comes to politics. Of course, many Americans who are not otherwise intelligent are just as bad. People get indoctrinated in a certain political viewpoint and don't have the ability to take on good faith anyone who disagrees with them. As a result of this, it's so difficult to find someone capable of intelligently and thoughtfully discussing political issues that it's rarely worth it.
Even if you do happen to get two people in a conversation who disagree politically and are capable of thoughtfully and intelligently discussing political issues, it's so much effort to do so that it's usually not a fun conversation unless you're already good friends with the person in question. Discussing politics with people you've just met, or people with whom you're only vaguely acquainted, is a recipe for disaster.
Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who think they're all in political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre academic, this happens surprisingly often.) They're saying something which you not only disagree with, but which is factually false in some detail. Do you speak up and risk alienating everybody, or bite your tongue and suffer through it? (Or do you pretend you need to go to the bathroom and hope the subject has changed when you come back? That's what I tend to do...)
Worst of all is when you're in a group of people who think they're all in political agreement, but you disagree with all of them. (As a right-of-centre academic, this happens surprisingly often.)
I can't abide that, and usually speak up just to break the illusion that everyone agrees. Of course, frank discussions of real politics are probably a career-limiting move in faculty politics....
If they really are as intelligent as you/they think then try pointing out to them their close mindedness [1]. I used to be firmly on the American right wing (i.e. didn't think other ideologies had much merit, if any) until I came to Europe and realized my views simply could not be reconciled with countries like e.g. Sweden doing just fine.
You can't discount something that works. As a programmer, I know that "works" doesn't mean that something is the best way or is even good at all, but it at least can't be discounted out of hand.
I wish there were a way to e.g. make pg's "how to disagree" required reading for anyone wishing to participate in political discussions (and vote for that matter).
[1] "Close minded" is often used as a kind of weapon by people unable to argue their point, but I use it to mean "unwilling to reconsider their position even when it's demonstrated to be untrue or at least incomplete".
Have you tried that? I have, and people don't respond right away. Maybe it sinks in and they get it weeks or months or years later, but so far no one has come back to thank me.
Whenever someone makes an identity-shattering or worldview-shattering argument to me, I violently resist it for weeks before it sinks in. Maybe that's what happens to other people, but it's still rather unsatisfying.
I have in fact. I try to take it slow, get agreement on the importance of using logic for discussion as opposed to emotion and then when they say something that's obviously wrong I basically point out a counter example and ask them why they think the counter example violates their belief (softly, not aggressively like happens on the internet).
> I don't get why "talking politics" is something to so desperately avoid in the US.
It's because there isn't a single party where you can't find crazy people who have no contact with reality who also hate anyone who disagrees with them. Oh, and the blogs/online news comments are filled with paid political hacks during election season. During the election, I noticed things like how the same guy got first post with the same username to every news story with comments on every paper at the top of Google News. He vanished immediately after the election. I think someone even paid their supporters openly.
Worse, feelings and identity have become much more important than facts (you don't vote for your political party, you are a Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Pirate/Socialist/Communist/Independent/I'm sorry if I left your party out) and it's simply not possible to discuss the issues in any depth without getting someone really mad.
Even if you can absolutely prove that X is untrue, you'll get a "But $other_party is just as bad! They did $bad_stuff (and that might even be true). Why did you fail to mention that? Why don't you hate them for that, too!? You're not one of us, you're one of them!"
In short, rational debate has become impossible because there are strong feelings everywhere and it's just not worth it to anyone but strong partisans to jump into the fray (most people don't like being hated), so moderate voices are excluded and the US vs. THEM dynamic gets intensified.
Alas, this is infecting more than just politics. I don't even want to touch the tech flamewars.
I agree with what you said, I just think it can't be allowed to continue. It causes more and more damage all the time.
Maybe someone could make a TV show where you have guests and talk politics, but if one of the participants commits a logical fallacy (e.g. you're "but they're just as bad!" example) they have their mic turned off for 2 minutes, get kicked off the show or something. There must be some way to begin associating arguing from emotion with being "uncool".
This question has made me think. I mean, I really do seem to be a better, happier person with more (and more diverse) friends when I avoid political discussions. I think a really big part of this is that I really enjoy being around people who are different from me. People who are good at different things; people who come from different backgrounds. (I mean, with some exceptions. I have prejudices, like everyone else. I'm working on it.) And these people, usually, have very different political and religious ideas than I do.
I mean, for example, I think having religion and going to church, in general, is no better (or worse) than, uh, religiously attending your favourite animé convention, and participating in con politics. I mean, both seem a little weird in my mind, but I have many friends who are deeply and genuinely religious, and many friends who regularly attend animé conventions. (really, I have little more than "Boy, that's... different" curiosity when it comes to religion or animé conventions.) I'd really rather keep both sets of friends. And you know what? If I keep bringing this up to my religious friends, they probably aren't going to want to be around me (just like if they kept trying to convert me, I probably wouldn't want to be around them.) I mean, I don't hide my non-belief, but I try to largely avoid the subject, and when it does come up, I try to be respectful, and ask they do the same for me.
Really, there are many areas of politics that are, if not directly religious in nature, are still taken on 'faith' -
For example, some people feel that society has a responsibility to take care of all of the less fortunate. Nobody should starve in the street or lack for basic medical care, regardless of what poor choices they made. Others feel that if society gives everyone a fair shake, their responsibility is met. Those who chose well should not be forced to support those who chose poorly.
Now, most people believe something between those two viewpoints... but it's fundamentally an emotional choice. Sure, you can argue the merits of a particular policy on logical grounds, but that is a mere implementation. the base question I gave as the example can really only be answered on an emotional level.
I avoid it because I know too many people who normally are very interesting and intelligent; people I enjoy talking with, most of the time, who seem to turn into raving lunatics whenever their pet political topic is brought up.
now, it's quite possible that I'm the politically crazy one here... but that's not my point. My point is that political conversations, at least for me, simply aren't productive or interesting. this is a realm governed by unpleasant emotions and group identity.
