The inability of your friends to have non-political conversations can be a big part of isolation. I follow the “no politics, no religion” rule when I go out and it’s served me well.
You can have political/religious conversations with people who disagree but often it feels like walking in a mine field.
On one hand, I always want to keep an open mind about religion and politics, and I'm always interested in hearing what others are passionate about, even if it's in those topics. That's how I've learned so much of what I have.
If everyone followed the rule of avoiding these topics, I wonder how many people would never hear an opposing opinion, maybe even a more beneficial one, to the one they've grown up with. I think these topics should be encouraged.
That said, the moment you disagree with someone on one of these topics, some people will definitely fly into a small rage, or instantly cut off contact with you, or even slander you to others, or some mix of these.
Ultimately, I think that's fine. For one thing, you have just learned that this is someone you probably don't want in your life anyway, because they can't handle disagreement in a civil way.
And you learned it fairly quickly and at a small cost. Even if they slander you, people whose opinions you'd actually care about will generously take their word with a large dose of salt, especially based on their character, since such a character usually has other tells too.
So my current stance is to just be open to these topics.
Just yesterday, while I was sitting here at the library, someone approached me and asked me to watch his phone while he used the restroom, in case ICE came in and took it. He was joking, but we went into a slight conversation about politics in general, in which we found out that we disagree on certain topics, and he almost took offense at me disagreeing. I was friendly and open to him the whole time, and he was friendly when he left to use the restroom. But when he came back and sat back down, and later left the whole library, he left without even so much as a goodbye or wave. It seems like he just didn't like me anymore because of my disagreement. And that's fine with me. Both would have been fine.
> That said, the moment you disagree with someone on one of these topics, some people will definitely fly into a small rage, or instantly cut off contact with you, or even slander you to others, or some mix of these.
I think this is what changed. I remember being a kid in the 80s, and when my parents had friends over, someone would inevitably bring up Reagan or something, but the discussion would always be polite and graceful, and then people would move on to something else. So many people seem to be incapable of this today. Politics comes up and suddenly the friend group is cut in half and daughters don't talk to fathers anymore. It's wild.
Huh, that's neat. I've suspected that our political fervor is one of those things that we take to be uniquely NOW, of the present moment, but has actually been a staple. (Like how every generation believes its successors to be dumber, less respectful, ...) But, maybe that's not so!
First, I didn't express an evil or hateful opinion, or any which could reasonably incite indignation or justified anger.
Second, I was willing to dive into a discussion, he wasn't. He seemed more closed minded, which to me seems to be a sign of emotional immaturity.
Third, we did (implicitly) agree to disagree, which I think is the right, peaceful, mature, and civil course of action when at an impasse.
Fourth, we weren't even at a genuine impasse, but an artificial one he created by simply ending the conversation after finding out that I didn't agree with him. Maybe if he heard my reasons, he might find something he agrees with, or something that tempers his emotinonal reaction?
I must have explained it wrong. He was the one who brought up politics, and also asked for my opinion about it during that interaction. He was clearly not in a rush, having come over to my table to ask the favor, and lingered here while mainly sustaining the conversation by himself, while I merely gave short answers to everything he said, partly to let him exit at any time to use the restroom, and partly because I neither expected or particularly desired a conversation, though I was okay with it as long as he wanted to have it.
Another thing that worked well for me is to keep discussions very low and quick on topics like personal relationships, work, career and hot button topics like AI, weather, traffic, climate change, house prices, etc. Basically avoid anything that a newspaper would think is worthwhile for frontpage or editorial column.
I go heavy on food, travel, culture, rumors, art, movies, music, design, festivals, holidays, games. You could talk hours on stuff here, just pick an artsy cultural magazine or subreddit and keep up.
Side note, inviting views from both sexes makes for some very interesting short conversations. Both have very very different takes on the same things and therefore won't talk too long. Both being interested in very different things (think dress belts, hair supplements, birth control vs fishing, bourbon and soccer) brings some newness into the conversation.
Cutting people off because you disagree politically is new. I remember having friends in different political parties when I was younger. (20 years ago)
I had the same experience, but the difference these days seems to be that so many people can't NOT talk about politics. There are certain folk who just find a way to shoehorn it into any conversation. It is really draining.
Yea, it's possible to be very politically enthusiastic and active, but also NOT bring up your favorite (or hated) politician in every damn discussion. We all have that uncle that can't let everyone else enjoy Thanksgiving dinner anymore because he has to make it about Trump or something.
Bugs are going to happen in any software project. I’m more concerned that their QA missed the issue. Seems like they should’ve had some inkling given how easy it is to test blood glucose.
I'm not sure what standards you're talking about, but if you can't afford a home where you live you should move to a cheaper area. If the decision is being homeless vs moving, you should move.
Cheaper options almost always mean less jobs. I know lots of cheap places to live - in the middle of nowhere. Small towns that can't even support a gas station: the locals drive half an hour to get groceries. (they are close to their job on the farm, or at least some job that needs to be out there because the farm is there)
These places were great places for the poor. They are close to lots of people and that implies some of those people will be willing to hire you for a something cheap. It isn't a great life, but if you have very limited abilities you likely prefer to make your own choices in life vs whatever the shelters force on you. (some shelters/institutions have been very abusive in the past)
> Starbucks’ February layoffs of 1,100 corporate employees hit the IT team particularly hard, a source familiar with the matter said Thursday. They said an outside contractor named Tata Consultancy Services, based in India, has been given an increasing role in Starbucks IT division.
You can have political/religious conversations with people who disagree but often it feels like walking in a mine field.
reply