6 ms·

I surely enjoy wild associations as much as the next guy, but I meant more pedestrian topics such as: - are you eating meat or are you vegetarian? - do you ta

I surely enjoy wild associations as much as the next guy, but I meant more pedestrian topics such as: - are you eating meat or are you vegetarian? - do you take a car to work or ride a bike or take public transportation? - do you drink tap water or bottled water? - do you send your kids to private or public school? Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics".

stcredzero 7y ago
I would generally find all of the above somewhat too pedestrian as topics, if they come up too often. Also, I've discussed all of the above at work with coworkers recently, and when things do veer into the political, they don't go too deep (though at my current job, we're free to be quite acerbic) and the conversation veers away to something else. I guess we treat the avoiding taboo topics more like not driving on the lines, and less like driving over a minefield. We generally avoid for safety's sake, and don't expect things to blow up immediately if there is a bit of driving over the line. (Hell, we even talk about guns and gun control!)
tidepod12 7y ago
I'm trying to say this as politely as possible, but... are you serious? If you seriously cannot have conversations at this level without them turning into political discussions, you really need to reflect on your conversational habits. It is absolutely not normal or healthy if you can't talk about drinking water without it turning political. My SO is a vegetarian. It comes up a lot, both with my friends (who are all meat eaters) and newly met people alike, but I seriously cannot think of one single time it has turned into a political issue. If these topics are frequently turning political for you, it's on you.
- ci5er 7y ago
  It's usually the vegetarian (vegan) that starts it, so if it doesn't turn into an issue, your SO has the non-escalation skills, not all of your meat-eating normies.
- einhverfr 7y ago
  Can you discuss with your SO why the vegetarianism without getting into political questions like: 1. What are our obligations to organisms we eat? 2. What are our obligations to each other? 3. Is vegetarianism an obligation? Why or why not? I don't see how those are not political issues.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    There is a confusion here. These are certainly ethical issues, that may be discussed at the level of the particular personal ethics practiced by particular people. Immediately jumping to the political is a particular (and particularly unpleasant) way of answering these questions, but not the only way. I would never eat chimpanzee, but I would consider eating horse. My friend would never eat horse, but would consider eating veal. We can discuss this from an ethical perspective. We don't have to lower the discussion to politics.
    - einhverfr 7y ago
      What do you mean by political then? How is it separate from ethical?
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        It's a good question; I may not have a satisfactory answer. There is something uncontrollable about the political. It always stands in relation to the rest of humanity, and we can't control or necessarily even predict what they will decide. Whereas, even if I take inspiration from other humans whom I treat as ethical exemplars, my sense of ethics comes ultimately from myself. Whether one sees a distinction between these two concepts may align with one's position on the spectrum between individualist and authoritarian. Or maybe not, I really don't know...
        einhverfr 7y ago
        > Whether one sees a distinction between these two concepts may align with one's position on the spectrum between individualist and authoritarian. Or maybe not, I really don't know... If so, then we would assume that people who see a distinction there would also see nothing wrong with different countries having different political orders, for example stronger gender roles, procreation being tied to marriage, and marriage being tied to household business? We might assume that authoritarians would want to stamp out such variations and individualists would assume that different cultures can organize things like marriage and business differently? But that doesn't match our observations I think, so it has to be something different. Either that or everyone is secretly an authoritarian when it comes to disagreements regarding social order and ethics of relationships or when we decide to be because it is "really important."
- anoncake 7y ago
  Vegetarianism is a political issue (except when it is a medical one). Animal rights are a political issue and so is ecological policy.
- malandrew 7y ago
  I'm curious if you live in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Portland or any "woke" city. The point you're replying to is palpable as someone that has lived in two of these places, but I agree that it would sound absurd based on my experience living in places that aren't highly woke.
  - tidepod12 7y ago
    I live in Texas, so I suppose not. That said, my SO and I travel frequently (and due to the nature of our work, our friend group is very varied in terms of where they come from, with several of them being ex-SFers/ex-NYCers, etc). I honestly can't think of any increased politicization when talking with non-Texan friends versus Texan friends.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      Many of the ex-SFers/ex-NYCers are the ones trying to escape the madness in these woke cities. Texas is a far more sane place than these cities.
- eldavido 7y ago
  This is a Bay Area thing (I live here). In places where there's more political diversity, people aren't so uptight. They know there are others who aren't like them, that's OK, and we all sort of get on with our lives. I grew up in Illinois and it feels this way. Whereas in northern California, the "muscle" of respectful tolerance doesn't get as much exercise. People are a lot more alike and if you stand out, it seems weird. Which is kind of ironic for a place that's supposedly bought into "diversity" or "tolerance".
cco 7y ago
These are all very easy to discuss at work without politics. You ask, "Do you have any dietary restrictions? If so you should make sure to read the menu closely, it'll tell you what the dish contains." There, now I know as much as I need to about my coworker's diet. We're here to work and if you're going to be a member of a _diverse_ community with a shared goal you're going to need to accept that other people live their lives differently than yours and that's ok. I don't need to know the reason my coworker is a vegetarian I just need to let them know if my cookies that I brought to work contain animal products. If you refuse to get along the result will be internal strife and the shared goal, a successful company, a working community, etc. will fail.
- einhverfr 7y ago
  But you can't go into depth very far on any of these without reaching political topics, can you?
  - greedo 7y ago
    Sure you can. You can have an attitude of tolerance, of acceptance, and embrace different opinions/stances. Judge a little less, worry a little less about what others do. Our culture has become a toxic stew caused by everyone forgetting to mind their own business; partially because people think that because politics does have a part of everything people do (hence the etymology of the term), that it gives them the right to control others. Fascism is the end result.
    - einhverfr 7y ago
      >Sure you can. You can have an attitude of tolerance, of acceptance, and embrace different opinions/stances. Judge a little less, worry a little less about what others do. Completely agreed on that point. In fact that's how politics should be discussed. But if we consider politics to be "what should we do as a society?" then you can't avoid political discussions in those topics still, right? You can only seek to discuss such topics tolerantly and maturely, I think.
einhverfr 7y ago
I will admit to having avoided arguing with one of my colleagues about whether it is irresponsible to have more than one child in the current state of the world (he thinks it is, and I have three kids).
kyleblarson 7y ago
So you basically give them a West Coast virtue signaling strength test?
losvedir 7y ago
> Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics". The whole point is you don't have to discuss any of those in depth.

stcredzero 7y ago

I would generally find all of the above somewhat too pedestrian as topics, if they come up too often. Also, I've discussed all of the above at work with coworkers recently, and when things do veer into the political, they don't go too deep (though at my current job, we're free to be quite acerbic) and the conversation veers away to something else. I guess we treat the avoiding taboo topics more like not driving on the lines, and less like driving over a minefield. We generally avoid for safety's sake, and don't expect things to blow up immediately if there is a bit of driving over the line. (Hell, we even talk about guns and gun control!)

tidepod12 7y ago

I'm trying to say this as politely as possible, but... are you serious? If you seriously cannot have conversations at this level without them turning into political discussions, you really need to reflect on your conversational habits. It is absolutely not normal or healthy if you can't talk about drinking water without it turning political. My SO is a vegetarian. It comes up a lot, both with my friends (who are all meat eaters) and newly met people alike, but I seriously cannot think of one single time it has turned into a political issue. If these topics are frequently turning political for you, it's on you.

ci5er 7y ago
It's usually the vegetarian (vegan) that starts it, so if it doesn't turn into an issue, your SO has the non-escalation skills, not all of your meat-eating normies.
einhverfr 7y ago
Can you discuss with your SO why the vegetarianism without getting into political questions like: 1. What are our obligations to organisms we eat? 2. What are our obligations to each other? 3. Is vegetarianism an obligation? Why or why not? I don't see how those are not political issues.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There is a confusion here. These are certainly ethical issues, that may be discussed at the level of the particular personal ethics practiced by particular people. Immediately jumping to the political is a particular (and particularly unpleasant) way of answering these questions, but not the only way. I would never eat chimpanzee, but I would consider eating horse. My friend would never eat horse, but would consider eating veal. We can discuss this from an ethical perspective. We don't have to lower the discussion to politics.
  - einhverfr 7y ago
    What do you mean by political then? How is it separate from ethical?
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      It's a good question; I may not have a satisfactory answer. There is something uncontrollable about the political. It always stands in relation to the rest of humanity, and we can't control or necessarily even predict what they will decide. Whereas, even if I take inspiration from other humans whom I treat as ethical exemplars, my sense of ethics comes ultimately from myself. Whether one sees a distinction between these two concepts may align with one's position on the spectrum between individualist and authoritarian. Or maybe not, I really don't know...
      - einhverfr 7y ago
        > Whether one sees a distinction between these two concepts may align with one's position on the spectrum between individualist and authoritarian. Or maybe not, I really don't know... If so, then we would assume that people who see a distinction there would also see nothing wrong with different countries having different political orders, for example stronger gender roles, procreation being tied to marriage, and marriage being tied to household business? We might assume that authoritarians would want to stamp out such variations and individualists would assume that different cultures can organize things like marriage and business differently? But that doesn't match our observations I think, so it has to be something different. Either that or everyone is secretly an authoritarian when it comes to disagreements regarding social order and ethics of relationships or when we decide to be because it is "really important."
anoncake 7y ago
Vegetarianism is a political issue (except when it is a medical one). Animal rights are a political issue and so is ecological policy.
malandrew 7y ago
I'm curious if you live in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Portland or any "woke" city. The point you're replying to is palpable as someone that has lived in two of these places, but I agree that it would sound absurd based on my experience living in places that aren't highly woke.
- tidepod12 7y ago
  I live in Texas, so I suppose not. That said, my SO and I travel frequently (and due to the nature of our work, our friend group is very varied in terms of where they come from, with several of them being ex-SFers/ex-NYCers, etc). I honestly can't think of any increased politicization when talking with non-Texan friends versus Texan friends.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Many of the ex-SFers/ex-NYCers are the ones trying to escape the madness in these woke cities. Texas is a far more sane place than these cities.
eldavido 7y ago
This is a Bay Area thing (I live here). In places where there's more political diversity, people aren't so uptight. They know there are others who aren't like them, that's OK, and we all sort of get on with our lives. I grew up in Illinois and it feels this way. Whereas in northern California, the "muscle" of respectful tolerance doesn't get as much exercise. People are a lot more alike and if you stand out, it seems weird. Which is kind of ironic for a place that's supposedly bought into "diversity" or "tolerance".

cco 7y ago

These are all very easy to discuss at work without politics. You ask, "Do you have any dietary restrictions? If so you should make sure to read the menu closely, it'll tell you what the dish contains." There, now I know as much as I need to about my coworker's diet. We're here to work and if you're going to be a member of a _diverse_ community with a shared goal you're going to need to accept that other people live their lives differently than yours and that's ok. I don't need to know the reason my coworker is a vegetarian I just need to let them know if my cookies that I brought to work contain animal products. If you refuse to get along the result will be internal strife and the shared goal, a successful company, a working community, etc. will fail.

einhverfr 7y ago
But you can't go into depth very far on any of these without reaching political topics, can you?
- greedo 7y ago
  Sure you can. You can have an attitude of tolerance, of acceptance, and embrace different opinions/stances. Judge a little less, worry a little less about what others do. Our culture has become a toxic stew caused by everyone forgetting to mind their own business; partially because people think that because politics does have a part of everything people do (hence the etymology of the term), that it gives them the right to control others. Fascism is the end result.
  - einhverfr 7y ago
    >Sure you can. You can have an attitude of tolerance, of acceptance, and embrace different opinions/stances. Judge a little less, worry a little less about what others do. Completely agreed on that point. In fact that's how politics should be discussed. But if we consider politics to be "what should we do as a society?" then you can't avoid political discussions in those topics still, right? You can only seek to discuss such topics tolerantly and maturely, I think.

einhverfr 7y ago

I will admit to having avoided arguing with one of my colleagues about whether it is irresponsible to have more than one child in the current state of the world (he thinks it is, and I have three kids).

kyleblarson 7y ago

So you basically give them a West Coast virtue signaling strength test?

losvedir 7y ago

> Now try discussing any of these in depth "without politics". The whole point is you don't have to discuss any of those in depth.