3 ms·
It's an interesting problem because it's akin to going to a cocktail party and having idle chit chat and then someone brings up politics. Even if you agree with
by allenu 6y ago
It's an interesting problem because it's akin to going to a cocktail party and having idle chit chat and then someone brings up politics. Even if you agree with the politics of the person, by introducing it into the discussion, you have no choice but to "take a side" and agree with them on things (or not). All of a sudden, some nice banter has turned into a serious discussion. There's a time and place for those discussions, and the problem with twitter is that the discussions are ALWAYS going on, rendering it useless as a place for idle chat.
- draw_down 6y agoWell, unlike a cocktail party (most of them anyway), a lot of people go on there specifically to talk about politics. So you can't really do the move where you act like someone shit on the rug because they said something with political valence. Not to mention the ever-increasing scope of what is considered "political" such that this adds up to a narrowing of what people are allowed to say. (e.g. "There is currently a pandemic so I think wearing masks would be prudent" is tantamount to a political assertion now)
- mc32 6y agoIn person I think it’s easier to be oblique in your response so you don’t have to agree or disagree, or you can agree and disagree in degrees.
- allenu 6y agoThat's true. In person conversation is much more fluid and easier to wrangle back to a topic.
- mc32 6y agoIn the least you don’t usually have a column of people listening attentively ready to pounce at any perceived false step. Usually 1:1 to 1:3, though it can go up if your convo is “interesting”.