18 ms·

Is population density the reason Americans can't discuss politics?

75 points by gsaines 2y ago

thephyber 2y ago
If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to make friends” statement). The reason we can’t discuss politics is because we don’t practice. The widespread saying “don’t discuss politics or religion [in X context]” means that we have fewer places to discuss it, so we get less practice to do it. We are less practiced so it is brittle. If we practiced more, we would be more resilient. Discussions about politics and religion are rife with conflation of opinion with fact, true fact with false fact, claim with evidence. Most good faith differences on politics boil down to differing values and priorities. Having a discussion about those directly, rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system is usually more productive in avoiding the screaming / emotions. Then again, you could argue that the premise is flawed and we talk about politics too much…
- Swizec 2y ago
  > rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament. Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. In practice this means that when you're discussing politics with friends, you don't bifurcate into right/wrong, you discuss differences on specific causes. You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. You are more alike than you are different and that makes debating your differences easier. Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. Additionally americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote. People actually treat whom they vote for as a part of their identity. That always felt weird to me. It means any discussion of politics becomes a triggering assault on your ego. edit to share an example: In college I signed a thing to support The Pirate Party. The most they've ever achieved is like 1 or 2 seats in parliament. But this means that every law that gets discussed has a voice or two talking about its impact on copyleft, opensource, net neutrality, etc. This is great! And it doesn't mean anyone has to abandon the bigger more important issues to get this representation.
  - sologoub 2y ago
    Agree, the forced two-party system is very limiting and the identity tied to politics is emblematic of modern US. In EU, as I believe in India from the anecdotes in the article, a lot of the identity is tied to the place you are from and the social strata the family occupies. Those are somewhat immutable things (where you were born and what family you are from), so deciding to break off communication with that community is “expensive” socially because there is no other community that will readily accept you as their own. Whereas in US, it’s quite normal to change social circles at will. Density/proximity makes it much more obvious, but the semi-fixed social circles I believe have a lot to do with it. Many US expats report loneliness when moving abroad for similar reasons - it’s hard to find a new inner circle in societies built around other identities.
  - dgoldstein0 2y ago
    That last part is called "identity politics". It's partly due to different politicians and parties trying to directly pander to specific demographics. It doesn't always work - like Trump saying you can't be Jewish and vote for Harris is laughable. But in rural areas it's hard to be a Democrat and be out and proud about it; in urban areas, it's hard to be a Republican in the sea of Democrats. And much of that has to do with how heated politics has gotten around issues like abortion, trans rights, DEI, immigration. Politicians on both sides have leaned into the "culture war" - Democrats arguing the rich should pay their fair share, Republicans with their "stop woke". It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    > americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird. In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...
- tdeck 2y ago
  I think lack of good practice is a big part of it, and I also would add that a lot of the "practice" input our brains get comes from online debate culture and/or watching politicians and surrogates acting in bad faith. That means there's a lot of baggage and bad habits lying around that folks can easily and reflexively fall back, on and it really increases the burden on someone trying to have a good discussion.
  - thephyber 2y ago
    Yeah, this reminds me that “politics” is easily confused with tribalism. Politics at its core is about the organization of who/what gets the government’s attention and resources. It has completely enveloped tribalism, becoming something much closer to a sport/entertainment, especially when people passively consume it rather than actively investigate.
- whaaaaat 2y ago
  Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I understand why, even with practice, some political positions are simply intolerable for them. (And to me, this feels different than, say, "I have opinions about which rate I should be taxed" though I admit tax rates could be life or death for some people.)
  - Hutrio 2y ago
    [dead]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.
    - ungamedplayer 2y ago
      Challenge response has a higher cost than challenging. For example, would you debate with every flat earther you see? It's simply not worth the time spent. Maybe they fall into the idiot category though.
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      I think this is however kind of lopsided. For example, trans people are a hotly debated subject but are only 1% of the population or whatever. An individual trans person might have to engage in this debate daily, but a non-trans person might only engage online voluntarily because they have never met a trans person IRL and the concept of one is a fun thought experiment. In that sense being able to say "discussing this topic further won't change my mind" may be an important part of simply letting politicized minorities go about living life.
- blast 2y ago
  > If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. This assumes that the effects of population density are continuously distributed, but what if the national discourse is affected by population density in a way that shows up across the entire country?
  - thephyber 2y ago
    It turns out that population density is highly correlated with Democrat / Republican voting behavior. But I was pointing out that the article/title is easily refuted. It’s not as simple as that heuristic.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case I live in both! It’s easy to discuss if you’re respectful. Even with someone who will take offence to any opinion but their own. You can label them zealots. But they’re also passionate about something, and even if the what is banal the why is usually incredibly beautiful.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Two issues that are probably rare but not worth the risk 1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk. 2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more violent. I ain't risking that just to make some small talk in public. Most people are far from good faith and a few have enough short fuses that I'd rather not take that risk.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Don't forget that a lot of the crazies are carrying guns, thanks to America's obsession with "gun freedom".
    - LinuxBender 2y ago
      For what it's worth I am in the most gun toting state and we do talk politics. I do not claim to be one of theirs and do not always say nice things about their guy. I try to focus on areas that I know we have common ground and that I think they will find interesting. It usually works out to be a fun conversation. In fairness I would not try this in a bar where peoples inhibitions are taking a break but I do not drink so that's fine. I think my saving grace is that I distrust all politicians equally and I know some bits of the deep state they were unaware of so they get something out of it. At the end of the day we are all still part of a community and still help each other out.
- RickJWagner 2y ago
  Psychological safety is another way of saying 'anonymous, cowardly trolls'. People say things they shouldn't when they believe they are anonymous. It's to our detriment.
  - thephyber 2y ago
    Psychological safety is also a necessary part of intimacy in your closest personal relationships and is incredibly valuable for a company to provide their employees. It isn’t exclusively tied to anonymous trolling.
pstrateman 2y ago
I think this guy misses something pretty significant. Many Americans have professional business relationships with people whom they vehemently oppose politically. Politics is simply bad for business.
- anonCoffee 2y ago
  [flagged]
zero-sharp 2y ago
Disagreements can be healthy. But everything you say somehow ends up getting used against you in a formal way. Somebody at work can misinterpret what you say and it can cost you your job. You have a political idea that some nutty Republican shares? Well you're basically Hitler now. Good luck with your career. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it's related to our political discourse in society at large. Open up reddit, read some of the political commentary, and try not to vomit in your mouth. People don't engage with ideas, or each other. I can't tell you how often I see people respond with things they assume the other person thinks instead of just talking about what was said. People in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to untangle beliefs, assumptions, etc and that's true. No, politics isn't about ideas, it's about group identity. A consequence of this is that the conversation can quickly become reactive and emotional. It's easy to get othered (and this can have severe consequences) and we're apparently very aware of how the other necessarily impacts our life in a negative way (via social media and the major news outlets). Part of the problem is that we've normalized this degree of sensitivity. I also wouldn't be surprised if our news feeds were incentivized to spread divisive beliefs.
malfist 2y ago
I don't discuss politics with coworkers because I have to work with them and I want to be friendly. I can't be friends with someone that questions the basic human rights of my existence as a gay person, so I'd rather not know.
danielodievich 2y ago
Many years ago my then girlfriend now wife and I were finishing the trip through France. We wound up in the port city of Rouen up north, with the plan to drop off the car near train station, rent a room for a night and take the train to Paris. Unbeknown to us there was some sort of student strike and ALL hotel rooms everywhere were sold out. We found some sort of skanky hostel in a really iffy part of town, not at all the place where we'd usually stay. After dinner near lovely Rouen cathedral memorialized by Monet we got lost on the way back to that iffy area of town. We hailed a young woman walking right ahead of us who was first a bit startled but then helped us find a way in excellent english. We complimented her on her language skills and she said she learned it in America, she was quite proud of it. We asked - where did she go in America? She says - Wyoming! - with a large beaming smile. Why Wyoming of all things we asked (a reasonable question, mind you, considering other more exciting places we have in USA). Her response - "NO PEOPLE!" - and gestured around, alluding that in Europe you are surrounded by people or places the people have been for millenia. She spent a year working on a dude ranch herding cattle there. Definitely if you don't want people you shall find it somewhere in Wyoming.
Justsignedup 2y ago
This is silly: “In my hometown in India, everyone talks about politics all the time. And most of us don’t agree with one another. But that’s okay. I can even tease other people about our political disagreements and it doesn’t get in the way of friendships. Why isn’t that the case here in the US?” Because when you're in a homogenous in-group you can discuss politics and get annoyed, or heated, and shake hands and go home. When you're not in an in-group, one side is discussing non-ideal solutions, and the other side wants to destroy you. And then you have to figure out how to convince a friend that their political ideology might kill you.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Read the rest of the post. Indian politics are not somehow lower stakes than ours, the Indian subcontinent is not less diverse, and the author's friend included a specific example of people getting literally killed over their politics.
  - nineplay 2y ago
    I'm still puzzled over the article frankly. In India there's political violence and people are getting killed - but they still are happy to discuss politics with their friends and neighbors? There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting. Why are they talking to everyone about their political views if it might get them killed?
    - lolinder 2y ago
      That's the question that the Indian person is asking. Here in the US we'll refuse to interact with someone if we find out that they're part of the wrong tribe, but our political violence is pretty low on the scale of what's possible. There, they have a lot of political violence and from what I understand quite divisive political issues that put people's lives and livelihoods at stake, but apparently they don't have the culture of avoiding talking about it altogether that we do and they don't attempt to avoid associating with anyone who disagrees with them.
nineplay 2y ago
For a lot of people in the US, politics has become very personal. I believe that some policy decisions have become a direct threat to my health and I can try to discuss those policies calmly but I'm not good at covering my aggravation. I'd say that everyone has gotten increasingly disdainful of the 'other side'. I know I have - I'm not proud of it but I'm also not a good actor. I was in a message group recently and someone said something that (in my opinion) was so stupid and ill-informed that it was all I could do to sit on my fingers. If we'd been speaking in person, I'm not sure what I would have done but I certainly wouldn't have managed a polite response.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nineplay 2y ago
    That's the problem though right? I think that there are people who are so completely and utterly wrong that I don't know what to do with them. They also think that I am so completely and utterly wrong that they don't know what to do with me. So we don't talk about it.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Exactly. To one side, the other side includes (or defends) people who were "trying to dismantle democracy [over] unsubstantiated claims of fraud". To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. In a nutshell, the two sides simply can't even agree on basic reality. If you can't agree on the basic facts of something, it is not possible to have a fruitful discussion about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any kind of workable solution to this issue.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. I assume anyone claiming this is lying.
xyst 2y ago
I think it’s part of the reason, but not the sole or main reason. I blame American exceptionalism, and the idea of hyper individualism and excessive consumerism. Insulting any part of that “individualism” (ie, guns, housing, transportation, clothing choices, and even the car you drive) and suddenly you are persona non grata to that person.
bbor 2y ago
I. This is a well written, engaging article, thanks for sharing. I absolutely agree that the thesis is true to an extent, though I would phrase it more broadly (perhaps "American culture is unusually individualistic" or "American local social communities are being replaced by online parasocial ones"). I don't see any reason to suspect that politics is taboo in Mongolia, or frequently debated in China! II. A huge part of this is just "the instigator is discussing relationships largely not based in work". You can't be fired from your apartment building or your family for being a little rude, but you can and will be fired from your job for causing even slight unrest. Applies to work friends across the world, I would imagine, and I'm guessing a recent immigrant has a higher ratio of those in his new home than his old one. III. The belief that politics are "abstract" is, itself, a controversial political stance. Imagine for the sake of argument that a small group of people start controlling huge portions of the economy and using it to knowingly and intentionally harm others for fleeting personal gains. Perhaps you could think of the villains in Don't Look Up letting the apocalypse happen over pride, or, for the conservatives among us, the villains in Atlas Shrugged who cultivate poverty and inequity as a lever for maintaining their power. Hopefully we can all agree that those situations wouldn't be ones of polite disagreement? To make it even more stark, imagine what you would say if one of your friends or family came out as an open Nazi -- it would be immoral to laugh off engagement in literal genocide as a personality quirk, IMO. IV. "In which a parent pretends he has time to write" is downright adorable and extremely relatable, even for someone who will likely never have children. Godspeed George, may you have many only-slightly-stilted team dinners in Austin ahead of you
- pdonis 2y ago
  > The belief that politics are "abstract" Is obviously daft in a country where, by the person's own admission, people get killed for their political views.
worstspotgain 2y ago
[flagged]
- mjevans 2y ago
  Difficult to read even though you mentioned Broken Democracy with capitols. Was not typing it out again twice really more effective communication? The overhead for replacing two other uses in a single context didn't warrant the creation of a new acronym, let alone one so short.
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    The acronym was about focus, not about overhead. There's always been foreign influence, and sweeping it under the rug is standard practice. Democracy broke when we went from "influenced" to "pwned." Unbreaking it will require more than just wishing the problem away.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  You should specify if you mean Israel, China or Russia. It is impossible to tell which you alure to.
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    My post was intentionally generalized to stay on point. The "wise" know which. Some readers might truly (not disingenuously) not know, but then the argument would degenerate into a blind political flamewar - which is the key system in the weaponized trolling arsenal that made this all possible. The only way to have this argument is on general terms - does a foreign adversary have an "effective right" to win elections by subverting the democratic process.
RiverCrochet 2y ago
I don't often discuss politics with my niece; we've actually had physical altercations before. But I mustered some courage and brought this up to her, and she had the following to say: "The two party system forces people who advocate for issue X to also have to advocate for Y and Z, when they may really only care about X. Another factor; the decay of respect of and audiences for traiditional mass media, and the rise of personal "bubble" media such as social media has also forced mass communications to be more personal if one wants to reach people, and various political forces are adapting to the new landscape." I'm not sure if population density has any effect on political discussions more than discussions in general.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  i think your niece is on to something. I'd like to develop it further. I think the problem is that when you talk politics, the subject or your position are irrelevant. You can even extend that to what the parties themselves do and say (the american uniparty has been a common complaint for many voters). Why ? At the core, the issue are the ideas that each party represents, and how those ideas label you immediately with your peers, regardless of what you actually advocate, or what the party line is on a given subject. Take a statue. The republican position is to not build it. The democrat is to build it. Just having a conversation about the merits of the statue automatically puts you on a spectrum. If you are against the statue, you must be an uncaring republican. If you are for the statue, you must love doing charity with other people's money. And so on. This is in spite of direct evidence that both parties don't seem to care about americans, and the unrestrained use of their tax dollars. Politics in the USA earns you a label, for free, that is not even accurate or deserved.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    I've found that a way to side-step this is to NOT talk about solutions; because solutions are always political; but to talk about problems - and not even the causes of the problems, but the problems themselves. Discuss the problems, and "what would you do" kind of hypotheticals, and you can find common ground with almost anyone.
dzink 2y ago
I’m an immigrant from Eastern Europe who moved to the US decades ago. Eastern Europeans are direct - you speak your mind, so there are no assumptions or miss-understandings. Families live close to where they were born in sparser areas and relationships matter, but there is also forgiveness. I have friends who come from Welsh and Swiss backgrounds and would have layers of internal inhibition before saying something out of fear of embarrassment or multitude of other concerns. A lot of time that leads to them assuming and assumptions can be wrong. They do a lot less verbal or video contact with family members, almost intentionally so, but would still get together in person (broader context i suspect). A lot of relationships on that side degrade quickly when contact is not made for a while - assumptions upon assumptions of offense or who knows what seems to erode the relationship. So when you meet again it’s almost like you have to earn the friendship again. Politics in this country involves those two mixes of people and waaaay more. The cultural spread, the political spectrum spread, forms a matrix too big to navigate in 99.9 % of conversations The in-person interactions are not long enough to peel all layers of the political onion and the relationship trust onion before you get to the core that you both agree on. Instead there are often unsaid assumptions, experiences, trauma that won’t fit in a tweet and if they do, nobody has time to read it. The more complicated things get and the lower the attention span, the harder it is to invest time and get a favorable relationship outcome if you discuss politics, so you’re better off not even trying.
sunshowers 2y ago
Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams. In America we haven't quite lost hope yet. edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' political actions.
- joshdavham 2y ago
  That sounds plausible.
- bombcar 2y ago
  Part of it is that all political parties in the USA have given up "conversion/conversation" or trying to get this "hypothetical middle" to budge. Instead, they're both entirely geared up to get "their base out to vote" which you do by riling them up in all possible ways.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    That’s clearly not true, just look at both T and H backpedaling on their policies to move them towards the center.
- DirkH 2y ago
  I think Americans have lost hope as well. I think in America it isn't hope for a better tomorrow that is driving politics anymore, it is fear for a worse tomorrow. I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    There is also an element of vindictiveness and revenge. e.g. you harmed me, so I am willing to suffer costs to inflict harm an you.
jackcosgrove 2y ago
I think it's wealth and well-being. The easier your life becomes, the more you live in the world of ideas and abstractions. When you and most people around you need to toil daily to stay afloat, it puts things in perspective. There's also a shared bond of work and survival which can smooth things over. Politics being prominent in your life is a luxury. Even if the stakes are high for you personally, most people worldwide don't have the time and energy to dwell on that.
- bombcar 2y ago
  This is it - watch people in a disaster; suddenly what needs to be done in the next minute, hour, day is clear, and politics doesn't matter. It's like what they say about the fights in academia - they're so vicious because the stakes are so small. Of course, nobody wants to admit this about politics (but look at the vast amount of what happens year in and year out that doesn't change at all).
thefaux 2y ago
Population density may be a factor but I don't think it's dominant. Right now, as I see it, the biggest problem in American politics is that the American right has been taken over by a personality cult. This has in turn sparked a broader anti-cult movement that is left dominant but open to everyone. Somehow these two forces have almost equal valence within our electoral system but it feels almost impossible to talk across the divide. Unfortunately I think the anti-cult movement almost paradoxically strengthens the cult and the result is both sides digging deeper and deeper in. The undecideds generally don't pay much attention and think that both sides are a little nutty and that elections should be about policy. They are frustrated that they are being forced to choose between two seemingly bad options. They also know that they will be harshly criticized for their choice by many no matter which they make. This is an extremely toxic dynamic and it is leading to increased radicalization on both sides but the scale of radicalization is significantly higher on the right. Like any cult, the crazier the claims made by the leader, the stronger the hold they have on its members who have already sacrificed intellectual autonomy to the movement. To admit that they've been duped is psychologically devastating and could lead to the loss of community that they've made through the movement. So they get defensive and closed off to reason. And, of course, as a defense mechanism they must project their experience onto their opponents whom they assume must also be delusional. This is exacerbated by the fact that any large group of people will contain the full range of character types: crazy and sane, cruel and kind, smart and dumb, etc. But once you have a strong bias (which is encouraged by the cult leader), you will start seeing all the negative things almost exclusively in the other side and all the positive things in your camp. It is almost impossible to reason with someone who is not open to an opposing viewpoint (even if they are otherwise intelligent) and it can be dangerous if there is a reasonable probability that the discussion can turn hostile. So many if not most people avoid those challenging conversations out of a reasonable sense of self-preservation. I would certainly not try and talk politics with anyone with a "FUCK $DEMOCRATIC_POLITICIAN" flag flying in their yard and, honestly, it's not really that hard to tell from a few minutes conversation if they might lean that way. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that I am immune to cult like thinking. I certainly have been indoctrinated into problematic belief systems and still have some erroneously biased thought patterns. People are complicated and they can be quite rational in one domain and irrational in another. Unfortunately, we seem far past the point of rationality in our political system. Nevertheless I have hope that we can get through this difficult period with a minimum of damage but that hope is irrational on my part.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 2y ago
In the US at least, parties started sorting their policies on certain issues in the 1960s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Ezra Klein goes into the (US) history of this in his book: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized It also has a few chapters on how humans seem to have built-in tribe/clan mechanism (us/them, in/out-group).
motohagiography 2y ago
"mimetic violence," explains it. an ironic result of the success of the melting pot, whereby in a culture where people were sufficiently different and their identities distant, one's success didn't come at the expense of another's. there is no resolution to that today. the conflict is so fierce because the stakes are so small, and it's because we've been told we are the same, homogenous and undifferentiated, with nothing left but a power struggle. we don't discuss politics because there isn't much left to discuss. I take some responsibility for it because I thought being tolerant of (and silent about) views i disagreed with was part of a social contract around respect for boundaries and reciprocity, but that worldview isn't equipped to deal with people who are actuated by malice and malevolence. Now, I listen to some people talk politics, but mainly I'm just finding some enjoyment in what we will look back on as "the good old days," appreciating some peace where i can find it, and hoping it all goes another way before we're all drawn-in to the terrible work being set out for us.
fromMars 2y ago
For me it's been fear of impacting friendships. I have some friends who have very different political views than myself, although I consider myself a centrist. Some of my friends are no longer on speaking terms with each other because there identity is not just wrapped up in their political beliefs but also in opposition of the other side. It's a sad state of affairs and a fairly recent one, in my opinion. I don't remember political disagreements being such a big deal before the rise of Trump. During the Trump Clinton election he changed the game and politics became more about insulting and denigrating your opposition.
throwawa14223 2y ago
I know I have superiors that I know disagree with me politically. Nothing good can come from them knowing that I disagree with them on fundamental assumptions about the universe.
adsharma 2y ago
Fragility of human relationships, not population density.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jmyeet 2y ago
No. Kurt Lewin is viewed by many as the father of social psychology [1], who made a name for himself particularly with studying the social dynamics that allowed the HOlocaust to happen, the psychology of obedience. What allowed otherwise ordinary people to go along with such horrors has been studied ever since. I believe MAGA will be studied in similar terms for similar reasons for decades to come as researchers will seek to understand the mass psychosis and cognitive dissonance that made this possible. What we have now goes beyond simple politics. We have a significant group in our society who is openly calling for inflicting violence on millions of people, be they immigrants, trans people, Muslims or whoever. I don't say this as hyperbole or as an intended political rant. These statements are objectively factual. If, say, you want to deport millions of people, that's a massive act of state violence, one where the logistics should be discussed but aren't. Why? Because it would involve internment camps (concentration camps, if you will) for millions of people. Is that not ringing any alarm bells for anyone? The Holocaust isn't the only example where legitimate grievances were directed at a minority with horrific consequences. Even in the last century we've had the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Rape of Nanjing, Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Aremenia, Yemen and even the Cultural Revolution, to name just a few. There is no compromise position when it comes to industrialized violence against millions of people. We're not discussing how healthcare should be provided or how shchools should be funded or how we pay for the roads and bridges. Those things you should be able to discuss, But we're so far beyond that now. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4B9rmwvZwQN45rckdzQKxp2/how-the-holocaust-created-a-new-field-of-science-the-science-of-evil https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4B9rmwvZwQN45rckdz...
- cherrycherry98 2y ago
  You are trying to draw a parallel between mass deportation and genocide that I do find valid. Rounding up people for deportation may be considered a violent act but not nearly to the degree of intentional mass murder. Also alluding that migrant internment camps (which would be temporary holding facilities for deportees) would be like something akin to Auschwitz (an actual industrialized mass murder facility) feels like more of a smear than a realistic argument. The law defines the process for legal immigration and many people have broken the law. Either intentionally or through incompetence the government has failed to effectively enforce immigration law. If the people of the USA wanted open borders then they should consent to it via the democratic process. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It strains local resources to accommodate the influx of people. Housing costs are driven up and labor costs down for the most vulnerable in society. Unvetted criminals or gang members entering pose a threat to public safety. That being said I don't feel good about the mass deportation and the pain and suffering it would surely cause people who mostly mean no harm to anyone and are looking for a better life.
mrangle 2y ago
The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the case and virtually no original families remain. Other research implies that the regions with most social capital highly correlate to sparsely populated metros and regions, but not all sparsely populated regions. Rat research indicates that increased population density leads to dysfunctional social behavior. My personal observation is twofold. First, spontaneous political discussion in the West is considered to be impolite in conversation for valid reasons. The first is the fact that social reactions are unpredictable and, in a casual social situation, rightly the emphasis should be on maintenance of the situation for everyone. To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. Group harmony as well as the individual's right to peace in public are prioritized. Second, lifelong exposure to propaganda has trained individuals to have highly emotional reactions to those who disagree with them. The political environment in the West is not psychologically designed for casual public political conversation. Everyone knows multiple individuals who simply cannot abide, at least for long, anyone on the other side of the isle. Propaganda's long time goal has been to encourage mental illness to be viral, and it has widely succeeded. An acceptable public political conversation looks more like one over methods to reach a pre-agreed upon goal. These still happen, however often low value. But many people who need to have a political conversation want the other type: a cross-isle argument over objectives. Which are even more low value, and much more likely to end poorly.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  >To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional conversations? Not rocking the boat has a place in professional settings, but I don't think people have a right, in general, to not see emotion. I agree that, to a certain extent, it can be socially unpleasant. But saying it's a right is too much.
greenthrow 2y ago
No, it's because most Americans know nothing about actual issues and treat politics as a team sport. So there's as much point in talking about it with other people as there is talking about the Mets vs the Yankees or whatever.
DirkH 2y ago
Isn't this better explained by the US's atrocious two-party system that has over the years hyper-polarized politics (multiplied 10x further by social media?)? I can remember 10 years ago it was much easier to discuss controversial politics with a stranger in person that you disagreed with. What I am saying is the situation right now in India insofar as discussing politics with anyone comfortably used to exist in America a decade ago. India doesn't have a 2 party system (I don't think?). If you look at the seats in parliament there is much more of a rainbow which suggests it is more democratic than the US. Maybe it will eventually evolve into a 2 party equilibrium as more people vote only for bigger parties they think stand a chance, rather than for ones they actually believe in (practically mathematically guaranteed to happen if India's political system has no defence against the spoiler effect). But that shift will take time. If I am right India will eventually be hyper-polarized like the US after it "2-party-crystallizes." If there were only 2 viable political parties in India right now where votes were split near 50-50 each election cycle and each party viewed the other as a huge threat and amplified how terrible the other is on social media 24/7 I think we'd see cultural norms shift in India and people would start to become more quiet on politics. Population density I don't think would be that key a factor. Likewise, if the US had multiple political parties all represented in parliament and there just wouldn't be as much political hyper-polarization and without 2 parties tribalistically fighting winner-takes-all style it is much easier to have cultural norms that you can talk controversial political stuff
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Betteridge’s law of headlines
MichaelRo 2y ago
It doesn't seem to me that people can't, rather they won't. One invoked reason is they want to avoid conflict but what about "not caring"?. Yeah yeah, politics affects all and we should be involved but reality is your vote makes little difference in choosing one party or the other. And the other even more nasty problem is that either party you choose you end up with the same politics. Ever increasing taxes, ever increasing debt, ever increasing benefits for the politicians. Learned helplessness is a thing. How much of it is behind "people don't discuss politics"?
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
I think the answer is “don’t generalize based on your sample size of 8 people”. I talk about politics at work all the time. It’s totally fine. I actually disagree with the majority view but we talk about it rationally and make jokes.
justin66 2y ago
If the author knew a little more about India he might have questioned whether Vinay’s political discussions in India are easy and open when Vinay converses with Sikhs and Muslims, or to what extent Vijay can do that at all.
aliasxneo 2y ago
I've spent the last two years working for a global company with people from all corners of the globe. I've spent many hours talking to them, sometimes on the subject of politics and religion. I must say, it's been so refreshing, especially after coming from Google. I particularly enjoy talking to individuals from communist or post-communist countries, which have been demonized in the U.S., to say the least. Not that I'm pro-communist by any means, but just listening to people's stories from these countries really drives home the point of how similar we all are. The best part is that the company culture seems to promote these open discussions. I'm not deathly afraid to voice an opinion for fear of HR hunting me down. I wish U.S. companies were like this. (Note) I'm not suggesting I spend much of my time on this activity. It mainly occurs at meetups or scheduled coffee chats.
jaarse 2y ago
I’ve long maintained that what the USA really needs is a good opponent again. Everyone wants to be on a winning team, and with the lack of a good opponent it’s turned into Republicans vs Democrats with no common ground. At least up until the 1990s there was always a common opponent (the English, the Spanish, the Prussians/Germans, the Soviets). So while Americans had different views, they could at least focus on defeating the enemy together. Now there is no more enemy, and they turn on each other. I guess old habit are hard to break.
binary132 2y ago
American politics is extremely wrapped up in identity and always has been. That means that having an opinion which someone disagrees with isn’t just an opinion they disagree with; in their mind it may be perceived as an opinion about who and what they or their loved ones are, and what should be done to or about them. Maybe I’m presuming here, but something tells me it’s not really like that in the gentleman’s hometown from the article. In America, people who disagree about politics feel like (or are) actual enemies, not fellow countrymen. We also do often place a lot of value on few precious friendships that we’re willing to mutually set aside the fighting and defensiveness for, and for the sake of getting along. I’m not sure that’s hard to explain or understand, and I’m not sure it has so much to do with density.
lamontcg 2y ago
This part of American culture is probably because of religious pluralism. At work, you don't want workers arguing over religion. You also don't want members of your church being converted to other religious sects at work. Then that gets applied to politics as well, which is useful to keep workers from talking about political things which might lead to discussions of unionization (and similar to guidelines from employers not to talk about salaries).
daft_pink 2y ago
Vilification of ideas is the reason why people can’t discuss politics in the United States. Reality is that if you have normal common religious beliefs in this country, people on the left will quickly paint you as some sort of evil intolerant person, when most religious people are nice decent people. Just because they disagree with your lifestyle doesn't make them evil. Why people can’t tolerate basic disagreement is beyond me.
KwisatzHaderack 2y ago
> I think that in America, political beliefs and violence are more closely entwined than in other parts of the world. I’d be a bit worried about getting punched if I got too deep into politics with someone who disagreed with me Jamie, pull up that clip of Taiwanese legislators getting into a fist fight in Congress.
benterix 2y ago
It's enough to think for a couple of seconds to realize it has nothing to do with population density, otherwise you could freely discuss politics in less populated areas of the States. The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world. It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning, it's about freedom for women to decide about their own body, about respect towards minorities and people coming from other countries, just to name a few. For right-leaning, it's about protecting families, cultivating the tradition, prosperity of the country, the right to defend oneself etc. Politics became almost a new religion.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > the two party system in most Western countries Pretty sure Europe is mostly multi-party systems where coalitions are the norm, so including North America the only two western countries where dual-party is the norm is the United Kingdom and United States (both use first-past-the-post which encourages dual-party systems). That said, I agree on two party systems promoting toxicity, the Brexit debate in the UK which was a near-perfect 50/50 split was an extremely toxic period in UK politics and heavily influenced the 2019 election. It has got somewhat better in the last couple of years though.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Brexit wasn't a party issue, it was a referendum, so citing it as an example of two-party politics is a bit odd. Other European countries have also had referendums on aspects of the EU that were extremely bitter, often because the pro-EU side lost and then simply ignored the results/asked again. It wasn't a near-perfect 50/50 split either. It was 52/48, which yielded a large margin of ~1.8M more votes to leave. Referendums in societies that only have them rarely will always be somewhere around the middle point, of course, as if there was already a clear majority in favour of one direction then it'd have been implemented already without the need for a referendum.
- gwurk 2y ago
  Do you actually believe that most western countries use a two party system? Do you use a different definition of two party system than I do, when I say 2 party system I mean "first past the post"-systems, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting and for which countries use that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/media/File:Countries_That_Use_a_First_Past_the_Post_Voting_System.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/me...
gilbetron 2y ago
It isn't population density, since we used to discuss politics all the time until 2016. Family get togethers, work events, just friend hangouts, all of them would have active discussions and arguments surrounding politics. The Trump era changed all that. I don't know about India, but I think social media is what changed everything, and how it changed everything is more complex than many people think. There are so many factors to it. The non-stop nature, the echo chamber effect, how it allows you to hear the thoughts of people you never would have heard before, but also, and maybe this is a big difference with India, that insane effort from Russia and China (and others) to maliciously engage with our social media with the sole goal of disruption of our culture and nation. I'm in my 50s, and there was plenty of political discussion before 2016, much like the person from India in the OP describes. We used to have a close friend in our friend group and we would regularly tease each other over political issues, but also listen, and he was a staunt Obama-hater and subscribed to birther conspiracies. Two years into Trump and we stopped being friends, and I haven't talked to him since 2018.
from-nibly 2y ago
It's because every election the political parties figure out how to up the stakes to get people to care about voting. Now if someone gets voted it's "literally life or death" (it super isn't). Everyone could use a dose of "no treason" by Lysander spooner. Then maybe we can care little enough to have actual conversations.
archagon 2y ago
I find it bizarre how many people are still discussing American politics as if there remain two sensible and balanced political parties in play. Unfortunately, we do not have that anymore. We have a coalition liberal/conservative Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that has driven straight off a cliff. One of the candidates for president is a vile, stupid, deeply corrupt rapist who literally tried to overturn the last election and now wants to be “dictator for a day,” while his closest allies[1] are radical ethno-nationalists who want to install an authoritarian state with 19th century cultural trimmings. Every other word these people speak is an unambiguous lie in service of riling up their base and accruing power. Candidates like McCain and Palin are but a blip in the rear view mirror. At this point, I only have the energy to gawk in horror at the unfolding situation: discussing the minutiae of policy feels almost comical when the very soul of the country is at stake. Never could I imagine how much blatantly obvious evil could be laundered through the intrinsic balance fallacy of a two-party system. [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-project-2025-author-coming-onboard-if-elected-1966334 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-project-2025-auth...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

75 points by gsaines 2y ago

If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to make friends” statement). The reason we can’t discuss politics is because we don’t practice. The widespread saying “don’t discuss politics or religion [in X context]” means that we have fewer places to discuss it, so we get less practice to do it. We are less practiced so it is brittle. If we practiced more, we would be more resilient. Discussions about politics and religion are rife with conflation of opinion with fact, true fact with false fact, claim with evidence. Most good faith differences on politics boil down to differing values and priorities. Having a discussion about those directly, rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system is usually more productive in avoiding the screaming / emotions. Then again, you could argue that the premise is flawed and we talk about politics too much…

Swizec 2y ago
> rather than through the lens of the broken US political parties / election system This is key, in my observation as an immigrant from Europe who's lived here ~10 years. Europe for the most part has multi-party democracies meaning that for every pet cause you might have there is a party that focuses on your cause. Larger causes get parties that might even get elected into parliament. Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. In practice this means that when you're discussing politics with friends, you don't bifurcate into right/wrong, you discuss differences on specific causes. You and your friend might disagree about UBI, or trans rights, or whatever, but you both understand that you more or less agree on the other 9/10 issues. You are more alike than you are different and that makes debating your differences easier. Contrast that with american politics where it's all or nothing. If you like abortion and low taxes, there is no way for you to vote. Additionally americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote. People actually treat whom they vote for as a part of their identity. That always felt weird to me. It means any discussion of politics becomes a triggering assault on your ego. edit to share an example: In college I signed a thing to support The Pirate Party. The most they've ever achieved is like 1 or 2 seats in parliament. But this means that every law that gets discussed has a voice or two talking about its impact on copyleft, opensource, net neutrality, etc. This is great! And it doesn't mean anyone has to abandon the bigger more important issues to get this representation.
- sologoub 2y ago
  Agree, the forced two-party system is very limiting and the identity tied to politics is emblematic of modern US. In EU, as I believe in India from the anecdotes in the article, a lot of the identity is tied to the place you are from and the social strata the family occupies. Those are somewhat immutable things (where you were born and what family you are from), so deciding to break off communication with that community is “expensive” socially because there is no other community that will readily accept you as their own. Whereas in US, it’s quite normal to change social circles at will. Density/proximity makes it much more obvious, but the semi-fixed social circles I believe have a lot to do with it. Many US expats report loneliness when moving abroad for similar reasons - it’s hard to find a new inner circle in societies built around other identities.
- dgoldstein0 2y ago
  That last part is called "identity politics". It's partly due to different politicians and parties trying to directly pander to specific demographics. It doesn't always work - like Trump saying you can't be Jewish and vote for Harris is laughable. But in rural areas it's hard to be a Democrat and be out and proud about it; in urban areas, it's hard to be a Republican in the sea of Democrats. And much of that has to do with how heated politics has gotten around issues like abortion, trans rights, DEI, immigration. Politicians on both sides have leaned into the "culture war" - Democrats arguing the rich should pay their fair share, Republicans with their "stop woke". It's really unfortunate that quick sound bytes work so much better than real policy discussion.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > americans have this weird thing where they worship politicians instead of treating them as disposable public servants who exist at the mercy of your vote As a British person I also find this weird. There was a tiny amount of it with Boris Johnson and that was mirrored in the very small cult of personality that rose up around Jeremy Corbyn. But for the most part politicians of all stripes are considered with mild disdain and actual membership of a political party is seen as probably a bit weird. In America... rallies! Thousands of people actually pay to go and listen to this self-aggrandising nonsense. It's very odd. In the UK I usually voted for the liberal democrats or the greens because each appealed to my views in different ways. Occasionally held my nose and voted Labour when "get the conservatives out" seemed the most important thing. Here in Aus, when I get citizenship, I will feel even more free to vote for smaller parties because we have preference voting. I can (and do) discuss politics with friends who have different views, though as my friends mostly skew liberal (ironically) this means none of them will be voting for the Liberal Party...
tdeck 2y ago
I think lack of good practice is a big part of it, and I also would add that a lot of the "practice" input our brains get comes from online debate culture and/or watching politicians and surrogates acting in bad faith. That means there's a lot of baggage and bad habits lying around that folks can easily and reflexively fall back, on and it really increases the burden on someone trying to have a good discussion.
- thephyber 2y ago
  Yeah, this reminds me that “politics” is easily confused with tribalism. Politics at its core is about the organization of who/what gets the government’s attention and resources. It has completely enveloped tribalism, becoming something much closer to a sport/entertainment, especially when people passively consume it rather than actively investigate.
whaaaaat 2y ago
Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I understand why, even with practice, some political positions are simply intolerable for them. (And to me, this feels different than, say, "I have opinions about which rate I should be taxed" though I admit tax rates could be life or death for some people.)
- Hutrio 2y ago
  [dead]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important Though, I would argue, unnecessary. If you faithfully believe, challenge shouldn’t be burdensome. If you’re open to revision, maybe they have a point. I’m not Epictetus, but unless your conversation partner is an idiot or a bore, there is usually something redeeming there.
  - ungamedplayer 2y ago
    Challenge response has a higher cost than challenging. For example, would you debate with every flat earther you see? It's simply not worth the time spent. Maybe they fall into the idiot category though.
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    I think this is however kind of lopsided. For example, trans people are a hotly debated subject but are only 1% of the population or whatever. An individual trans person might have to engage in this debate daily, but a non-trans person might only engage online voluntarily because they have never met a trans person IRL and the concept of one is a fun thought experiment. In that sense being able to say "discussing this topic further won't change my mind" may be an important part of simply letting politicized minorities go about living life.
blast 2y ago
> If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. This assumes that the effects of population density are continuously distributed, but what if the national discourse is affected by population density in a way that shows up across the entire country?
- thephyber 2y ago
  It turns out that population density is highly correlated with Democrat / Republican voting behavior. But I was pointing out that the article/title is easily refuted. It’s not as simple as that heuristic.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case I live in both! It’s easy to discuss if you’re respectful. Even with someone who will take offence to any opinion but their own. You can label them zealots. But they’re also passionate about something, and even if the what is banal the why is usually incredibly beautiful.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Two issues that are probably rare but not worth the risk 1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk. 2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more violent. I ain't risking that just to make some small talk in public. Most people are far from good faith and a few have enough short fuses that I'd rather not take that risk.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Don't forget that a lot of the crazies are carrying guns, thanks to America's obsession with "gun freedom".
  - LinuxBender 2y ago
    For what it's worth I am in the most gun toting state and we do talk politics. I do not claim to be one of theirs and do not always say nice things about their guy. I try to focus on areas that I know we have common ground and that I think they will find interesting. It usually works out to be a fun conversation. In fairness I would not try this in a bar where peoples inhibitions are taking a break but I do not drink so that's fine. I think my saving grace is that I distrust all politicians equally and I know some bits of the deep state they were unaware of so they get something out of it. At the end of the day we are all still part of a community and still help each other out.
RickJWagner 2y ago
Psychological safety is another way of saying 'anonymous, cowardly trolls'. People say things they shouldn't when they believe they are anonymous. It's to our detriment.
- thephyber 2y ago
  Psychological safety is also a necessary part of intimacy in your closest personal relationships and is incredibly valuable for a company to provide their employees. It isn’t exclusively tied to anonymous trolling.

pstrateman 2y ago

I think this guy misses something pretty significant. Many Americans have professional business relationships with people whom they vehemently oppose politically. Politics is simply bad for business.

anonCoffee 2y ago
[flagged]

zero-sharp 2y ago

Disagreements can be healthy. But everything you say somehow ends up getting used against you in a formal way. Somebody at work can misinterpret what you say and it can cost you your job. You have a political idea that some nutty Republican shares? Well you're basically Hitler now. Good luck with your career. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it's related to our political discourse in society at large. Open up reddit, read some of the political commentary, and try not to vomit in your mouth. People don't engage with ideas, or each other. I can't tell you how often I see people respond with things they assume the other person thinks instead of just talking about what was said. People in this thread have mentioned how difficult it is to untangle beliefs, assumptions, etc and that's true. No, politics isn't about ideas, it's about group identity. A consequence of this is that the conversation can quickly become reactive and emotional. It's easy to get othered (and this can have severe consequences) and we're apparently very aware of how the other necessarily impacts our life in a negative way (via social media and the major news outlets). Part of the problem is that we've normalized this degree of sensitivity. I also wouldn't be surprised if our news feeds were incentivized to spread divisive beliefs.

malfist 2y ago

I don't discuss politics with coworkers because I have to work with them and I want to be friendly. I can't be friends with someone that questions the basic human rights of my existence as a gay person, so I'd rather not know.

danielodievich 2y ago

Many years ago my then girlfriend now wife and I were finishing the trip through France. We wound up in the port city of Rouen up north, with the plan to drop off the car near train station, rent a room for a night and take the train to Paris. Unbeknown to us there was some sort of student strike and ALL hotel rooms everywhere were sold out. We found some sort of skanky hostel in a really iffy part of town, not at all the place where we'd usually stay. After dinner near lovely Rouen cathedral memorialized by Monet we got lost on the way back to that iffy area of town. We hailed a young woman walking right ahead of us who was first a bit startled but then helped us find a way in excellent english. We complimented her on her language skills and she said she learned it in America, she was quite proud of it. We asked - where did she go in America? She says - Wyoming! - with a large beaming smile. Why Wyoming of all things we asked (a reasonable question, mind you, considering other more exciting places we have in USA). Her response - "NO PEOPLE!" - and gestured around, alluding that in Europe you are surrounded by people or places the people have been for millenia. She spent a year working on a dude ranch herding cattle there. Definitely if you don't want people you shall find it somewhere in Wyoming.

Justsignedup 2y ago

This is silly: “In my hometown in India, everyone talks about politics all the time. And most of us don’t agree with one another. But that’s okay. I can even tease other people about our political disagreements and it doesn’t get in the way of friendships. Why isn’t that the case here in the US?” Because when you're in a homogenous in-group you can discuss politics and get annoyed, or heated, and shake hands and go home. When you're not in an in-group, one side is discussing non-ideal solutions, and the other side wants to destroy you. And then you have to figure out how to convince a friend that their political ideology might kill you.

lolinder 2y ago
Read the rest of the post. Indian politics are not somehow lower stakes than ours, the Indian subcontinent is not less diverse, and the author's friend included a specific example of people getting literally killed over their politics.
- nineplay 2y ago
  I'm still puzzled over the article frankly. In India there's political violence and people are getting killed - but they still are happy to discuss politics with their friends and neighbors? There's a disconnect there that I'm not getting. Why are they talking to everyone about their political views if it might get them killed?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That's the question that the Indian person is asking. Here in the US we'll refuse to interact with someone if we find out that they're part of the wrong tribe, but our political violence is pretty low on the scale of what's possible. There, they have a lot of political violence and from what I understand quite divisive political issues that put people's lives and livelihoods at stake, but apparently they don't have the culture of avoiding talking about it altogether that we do and they don't attempt to avoid associating with anyone who disagrees with them.

nineplay 2y ago

For a lot of people in the US, politics has become very personal. I believe that some policy decisions have become a direct threat to my health and I can try to discuss those policies calmly but I'm not good at covering my aggravation. I'd say that everyone has gotten increasingly disdainful of the 'other side'. I know I have - I'm not proud of it but I'm also not a good actor. I was in a message group recently and someone said something that (in my opinion) was so stupid and ill-informed that it was all I could do to sit on my fingers. If we'd been speaking in person, I'm not sure what I would have done but I certainly wouldn't have managed a polite response.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
[flagged]
- nineplay 2y ago
  That's the problem though right? I think that there are people who are so completely and utterly wrong that I don't know what to do with them. They also think that I am so completely and utterly wrong that they don't know what to do with me. So we don't talk about it.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Exactly. To one side, the other side includes (or defends) people who were "trying to dismantle democracy [over] unsubstantiated claims of fraud". To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. In a nutshell, the two sides simply can't even agree on basic reality. If you can't agree on the basic facts of something, it is not possible to have a fruitful discussion about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any kind of workable solution to this issue.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      > To the other side, these rioters were "peaceful protesters" (I guess they never watched the videos) who did nothing wrong. I assume anyone claiming this is lying.

xyst 2y ago

I think it’s part of the reason, but not the sole or main reason. I blame American exceptionalism, and the idea of hyper individualism and excessive consumerism. Insulting any part of that “individualism” (ie, guns, housing, transportation, clothing choices, and even the car you drive) and suddenly you are persona non grata to that person.

bbor 2y ago

I. This is a well written, engaging article, thanks for sharing. I absolutely agree that the thesis is true to an extent, though I would phrase it more broadly (perhaps "American culture is unusually individualistic" or "American local social communities are being replaced by online parasocial ones"). I don't see any reason to suspect that politics is taboo in Mongolia, or frequently debated in China! II. A huge part of this is just "the instigator is discussing relationships largely not based in work". You can't be fired from your apartment building or your family for being a little rude, but you can and will be fired from your job for causing even slight unrest. Applies to work friends across the world, I would imagine, and I'm guessing a recent immigrant has a higher ratio of those in his new home than his old one. III. The belief that politics are "abstract" is, itself, a controversial political stance. Imagine for the sake of argument that a small group of people start controlling huge portions of the economy and using it to knowingly and intentionally harm others for fleeting personal gains. Perhaps you could think of the villains in Don't Look Up letting the apocalypse happen over pride, or, for the conservatives among us, the villains in Atlas Shrugged who cultivate poverty and inequity as a lever for maintaining their power. Hopefully we can all agree that those situations wouldn't be ones of polite disagreement? To make it even more stark, imagine what you would say if one of your friends or family came out as an open Nazi -- it would be immoral to laugh off engagement in literal genocide as a personality quirk, IMO. IV. "In which a parent pretends he has time to write" is downright adorable and extremely relatable, even for someone who will likely never have children. Godspeed George, may you have many only-slightly-stilted team dinners in Austin ahead of you

pdonis 2y ago
> The belief that politics are "abstract" Is obviously daft in a country where, by the person's own admission, people get killed for their political views.

worstspotgain 2y ago

[flagged]

mjevans 2y ago
Difficult to read even though you mentioned Broken Democracy with capitols. Was not typing it out again twice really more effective communication? The overhead for replacing two other uses in a single context didn't warrant the creation of a new acronym, let alone one so short.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  The acronym was about focus, not about overhead. There's always been foreign influence, and sweeping it under the rug is standard practice. Democracy broke when we went from "influenced" to "pwned." Unbreaking it will require more than just wishing the problem away.
rightbyte 2y ago
You should specify if you mean Israel, China or Russia. It is impossible to tell which you alure to.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  My post was intentionally generalized to stay on point. The "wise" know which. Some readers might truly (not disingenuously) not know, but then the argument would degenerate into a blind political flamewar - which is the key system in the weaponized trolling arsenal that made this all possible. The only way to have this argument is on general terms - does a foreign adversary have an "effective right" to win elections by subverting the democratic process.

RiverCrochet 2y ago

I don't often discuss politics with my niece; we've actually had physical altercations before. But I mustered some courage and brought this up to her, and she had the following to say: "The two party system forces people who advocate for issue X to also have to advocate for Y and Z, when they may really only care about X. Another factor; the decay of respect of and audiences for traiditional mass media, and the rise of personal "bubble" media such as social media has also forced mass communications to be more personal if one wants to reach people, and various political forces are adapting to the new landscape." I'm not sure if population density has any effect on political discussions more than discussions in general.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
i think your niece is on to something. I'd like to develop it further. I think the problem is that when you talk politics, the subject or your position are irrelevant. You can even extend that to what the parties themselves do and say (the american uniparty has been a common complaint for many voters). Why ? At the core, the issue are the ideas that each party represents, and how those ideas label you immediately with your peers, regardless of what you actually advocate, or what the party line is on a given subject. Take a statue. The republican position is to not build it. The democrat is to build it. Just having a conversation about the merits of the statue automatically puts you on a spectrum. If you are against the statue, you must be an uncaring republican. If you are for the statue, you must love doing charity with other people's money. And so on. This is in spite of direct evidence that both parties don't seem to care about americans, and the unrestrained use of their tax dollars. Politics in the USA earns you a label, for free, that is not even accurate or deserved.
- bombcar 2y ago
  I've found that a way to side-step this is to NOT talk about solutions; because solutions are always political; but to talk about problems - and not even the causes of the problems, but the problems themselves. Discuss the problems, and "what would you do" kind of hypotheticals, and you can find common ground with almost anyone.

dzink 2y ago

I’m an immigrant from Eastern Europe who moved to the US decades ago. Eastern Europeans are direct - you speak your mind, so there are no assumptions or miss-understandings. Families live close to where they were born in sparser areas and relationships matter, but there is also forgiveness. I have friends who come from Welsh and Swiss backgrounds and would have layers of internal inhibition before saying something out of fear of embarrassment or multitude of other concerns. A lot of time that leads to them assuming and assumptions can be wrong. They do a lot less verbal or video contact with family members, almost intentionally so, but would still get together in person (broader context i suspect). A lot of relationships on that side degrade quickly when contact is not made for a while - assumptions upon assumptions of offense or who knows what seems to erode the relationship. So when you meet again it’s almost like you have to earn the friendship again. Politics in this country involves those two mixes of people and waaaay more. The cultural spread, the political spectrum spread, forms a matrix too big to navigate in 99.9 % of conversations The in-person interactions are not long enough to peel all layers of the political onion and the relationship trust onion before you get to the core that you both agree on. Instead there are often unsaid assumptions, experiences, trauma that won’t fit in a tweet and if they do, nobody has time to read it. The more complicated things get and the lower the attention span, the harder it is to invest time and get a favorable relationship outcome if you discuss politics, so you’re better off not even trying.

sunshowers 2y ago

Speaking as an Indian, what's really going on is that everyone in India has lost hope in their political decisions actually impacting their lives in ways that they wish. So politics is a pretty low-stakes discussion in India, like sports teams. In America we haven't quite lost hope yet. edit: to be clear, politics does impact lives in India, but it does so in ways that are quite disconnected from individuals' political actions.

joshdavham 2y ago
That sounds plausible.
bombcar 2y ago
Part of it is that all political parties in the USA have given up "conversion/conversation" or trying to get this "hypothetical middle" to budge. Instead, they're both entirely geared up to get "their base out to vote" which you do by riling them up in all possible ways.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  That’s clearly not true, just look at both T and H backpedaling on their policies to move them towards the center.
DirkH 2y ago
I think Americans have lost hope as well. I think in America it isn't hope for a better tomorrow that is driving politics anymore, it is fear for a worse tomorrow. I don't know how things are in India, but I imagine people have lost hope that politics will actually impact their lives in ways they wish, but they probably aren't as fear-driven as Americans (yet). And this explains why you can discuss politics with someone you disagree with - because you aren't scared of what the party of someone with opposing views will do (yet).
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  There is also an element of vindictiveness and revenge. e.g. you harmed me, so I am willing to suffer costs to inflict harm an you.

jackcosgrove 2y ago

I think it's wealth and well-being. The easier your life becomes, the more you live in the world of ideas and abstractions. When you and most people around you need to toil daily to stay afloat, it puts things in perspective. There's also a shared bond of work and survival which can smooth things over. Politics being prominent in your life is a luxury. Even if the stakes are high for you personally, most people worldwide don't have the time and energy to dwell on that.

bombcar 2y ago
This is it - watch people in a disaster; suddenly what needs to be done in the next minute, hour, day is clear, and politics doesn't matter. It's like what they say about the fights in academia - they're so vicious because the stakes are so small. Of course, nobody wants to admit this about politics (but look at the vast amount of what happens year in and year out that doesn't change at all).

thefaux 2y ago

Population density may be a factor but I don't think it's dominant. Right now, as I see it, the biggest problem in American politics is that the American right has been taken over by a personality cult. This has in turn sparked a broader anti-cult movement that is left dominant but open to everyone. Somehow these two forces have almost equal valence within our electoral system but it feels almost impossible to talk across the divide. Unfortunately I think the anti-cult movement almost paradoxically strengthens the cult and the result is both sides digging deeper and deeper in. The undecideds generally don't pay much attention and think that both sides are a little nutty and that elections should be about policy. They are frustrated that they are being forced to choose between two seemingly bad options. They also know that they will be harshly criticized for their choice by many no matter which they make. This is an extremely toxic dynamic and it is leading to increased radicalization on both sides but the scale of radicalization is significantly higher on the right. Like any cult, the crazier the claims made by the leader, the stronger the hold they have on its members who have already sacrificed intellectual autonomy to the movement. To admit that they've been duped is psychologically devastating and could lead to the loss of community that they've made through the movement. So they get defensive and closed off to reason. And, of course, as a defense mechanism they must project their experience onto their opponents whom they assume must also be delusional. This is exacerbated by the fact that any large group of people will contain the full range of character types: crazy and sane, cruel and kind, smart and dumb, etc. But once you have a strong bias (which is encouraged by the cult leader), you will start seeing all the negative things almost exclusively in the other side and all the positive things in your camp. It is almost impossible to reason with someone who is not open to an opposing viewpoint (even if they are otherwise intelligent) and it can be dangerous if there is a reasonable probability that the discussion can turn hostile. So many if not most people avoid those challenging conversations out of a reasonable sense of self-preservation. I would certainly not try and talk politics with anyone with a "FUCK $DEMOCRATIC_POLITICIAN" flag flying in their yard and, honestly, it's not really that hard to tell from a few minutes conversation if they might lean that way. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that I am immune to cult like thinking. I certainly have been indoctrinated into problematic belief systems and still have some erroneously biased thought patterns. People are complicated and they can be quite rational in one domain and irrational in another. Unfortunately, we seem far past the point of rationality in our political system. Nevertheless I have hope that we can get through this difficult period with a minimum of damage but that hope is irrational on my part.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throw0101c 2y ago

In the US at least, parties started sorting their policies on certain issues in the 1960s: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Ezra Klein goes into the (US) history of this in his book: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized It also has a few chapters on how humans seem to have built-in tribe/clan mechanism (us/them, in/out-group).

motohagiography 2y ago

"mimetic violence," explains it. an ironic result of the success of the melting pot, whereby in a culture where people were sufficiently different and their identities distant, one's success didn't come at the expense of another's. there is no resolution to that today. the conflict is so fierce because the stakes are so small, and it's because we've been told we are the same, homogenous and undifferentiated, with nothing left but a power struggle. we don't discuss politics because there isn't much left to discuss. I take some responsibility for it because I thought being tolerant of (and silent about) views i disagreed with was part of a social contract around respect for boundaries and reciprocity, but that worldview isn't equipped to deal with people who are actuated by malice and malevolence. Now, I listen to some people talk politics, but mainly I'm just finding some enjoyment in what we will look back on as "the good old days," appreciating some peace where i can find it, and hoping it all goes another way before we're all drawn-in to the terrible work being set out for us.

fromMars 2y ago

For me it's been fear of impacting friendships. I have some friends who have very different political views than myself, although I consider myself a centrist. Some of my friends are no longer on speaking terms with each other because there identity is not just wrapped up in their political beliefs but also in opposition of the other side. It's a sad state of affairs and a fairly recent one, in my opinion. I don't remember political disagreements being such a big deal before the rise of Trump. During the Trump Clinton election he changed the game and politics became more about insulting and denigrating your opposition.

throwawa14223 2y ago

I know I have superiors that I know disagree with me politically. Nothing good can come from them knowing that I disagree with them on fundamental assumptions about the universe.

adsharma 2y ago

Fragility of human relationships, not population density.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jmyeet 2y ago

No. Kurt Lewin is viewed by many as the father of social psychology [1], who made a name for himself particularly with studying the social dynamics that allowed the HOlocaust to happen, the psychology of obedience. What allowed otherwise ordinary people to go along with such horrors has been studied ever since. I believe MAGA will be studied in similar terms for similar reasons for decades to come as researchers will seek to understand the mass psychosis and cognitive dissonance that made this possible. What we have now goes beyond simple politics. We have a significant group in our society who is openly calling for inflicting violence on millions of people, be they immigrants, trans people, Muslims or whoever. I don't say this as hyperbole or as an intended political rant. These statements are objectively factual. If, say, you want to deport millions of people, that's a massive act of state violence, one where the logistics should be discussed but aren't. Why? Because it would involve internment camps (concentration camps, if you will) for millions of people. Is that not ringing any alarm bells for anyone? The Holocaust isn't the only example where legitimate grievances were directed at a minority with horrific consequences. Even in the last century we've had the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Rape of Nanjing, Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Aremenia, Yemen and even the Cultural Revolution, to name just a few. There is no compromise position when it comes to industrialized violence against millions of people. We're not discussing how healthcare should be provided or how shchools should be funded or how we pay for the roads and bridges. Those things you should be able to discuss, But we're so far beyond that now. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4B9rmwvZwQN45rckdzQKxp2/how-the-holocaust-created-a-new-field-of-science-the-science-of-evil https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4B9rmwvZwQN45rckdz...

cherrycherry98 2y ago
You are trying to draw a parallel between mass deportation and genocide that I do find valid. Rounding up people for deportation may be considered a violent act but not nearly to the degree of intentional mass murder. Also alluding that migrant internment camps (which would be temporary holding facilities for deportees) would be like something akin to Auschwitz (an actual industrialized mass murder facility) feels like more of a smear than a realistic argument. The law defines the process for legal immigration and many people have broken the law. Either intentionally or through incompetence the government has failed to effectively enforce immigration law. If the people of the USA wanted open borders then they should consent to it via the democratic process. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It strains local resources to accommodate the influx of people. Housing costs are driven up and labor costs down for the most vulnerable in society. Unvetted criminals or gang members entering pose a threat to public safety. That being said I don't feel good about the mass deportation and the pain and suffering it would surely cause people who mostly mean no harm to anyone and are looking for a better life.

mrangle 2y ago

The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the case and virtually no original families remain. Other research implies that the regions with most social capital highly correlate to sparsely populated metros and regions, but not all sparsely populated regions. Rat research indicates that increased population density leads to dysfunctional social behavior. My personal observation is twofold. First, spontaneous political discussion in the West is considered to be impolite in conversation for valid reasons. The first is the fact that social reactions are unpredictable and, in a casual social situation, rightly the emphasis should be on maintenance of the situation for everyone. To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. Group harmony as well as the individual's right to peace in public are prioritized. Second, lifelong exposure to propaganda has trained individuals to have highly emotional reactions to those who disagree with them. The political environment in the West is not psychologically designed for casual public political conversation. Everyone knows multiple individuals who simply cannot abide, at least for long, anyone on the other side of the isle. Propaganda's long time goal has been to encourage mental illness to be viral, and it has widely succeeded. An acceptable public political conversation looks more like one over methods to reach a pre-agreed upon goal. These still happen, however often low value. But many people who need to have a political conversation want the other type: a cross-isle argument over objectives. Which are even more low value, and much more likely to end poorly.

zero-sharp 2y ago
>To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over. How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional conversations? Not rocking the boat has a place in professional settings, but I don't think people have a right, in general, to not see emotion. I agree that, to a certain extent, it can be socially unpleasant. But saying it's a right is too much.

greenthrow 2y ago

No, it's because most Americans know nothing about actual issues and treat politics as a team sport. So there's as much point in talking about it with other people as there is talking about the Mets vs the Yankees or whatever.

DirkH 2y ago

Isn't this better explained by the US's atrocious two-party system that has over the years hyper-polarized politics (multiplied 10x further by social media?)? I can remember 10 years ago it was much easier to discuss controversial politics with a stranger in person that you disagreed with. What I am saying is the situation right now in India insofar as discussing politics with anyone comfortably used to exist in America a decade ago. India doesn't have a 2 party system (I don't think?). If you look at the seats in parliament there is much more of a rainbow which suggests it is more democratic than the US. Maybe it will eventually evolve into a 2 party equilibrium as more people vote only for bigger parties they think stand a chance, rather than for ones they actually believe in (practically mathematically guaranteed to happen if India's political system has no defence against the spoiler effect). But that shift will take time. If I am right India will eventually be hyper-polarized like the US after it "2-party-crystallizes." If there were only 2 viable political parties in India right now where votes were split near 50-50 each election cycle and each party viewed the other as a huge threat and amplified how terrible the other is on social media 24/7 I think we'd see cultural norms shift in India and people would start to become more quiet on politics. Population density I don't think would be that key a factor. Likewise, if the US had multiple political parties all represented in parliament and there just wouldn't be as much political hyper-polarization and without 2 parties tribalistically fighting winner-takes-all style it is much easier to have cultural norms that you can talk controversial political stuff

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

Betteridge’s law of headlines

MichaelRo 2y ago

It doesn't seem to me that people can't, rather they won't. One invoked reason is they want to avoid conflict but what about "not caring"?. Yeah yeah, politics affects all and we should be involved but reality is your vote makes little difference in choosing one party or the other. And the other even more nasty problem is that either party you choose you end up with the same politics. Ever increasing taxes, ever increasing debt, ever increasing benefits for the politicians. Learned helplessness is a thing. How much of it is behind "people don't discuss politics"?

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

I think the answer is “don’t generalize based on your sample size of 8 people”. I talk about politics at work all the time. It’s totally fine. I actually disagree with the majority view but we talk about it rationally and make jokes.

justin66 2y ago

If the author knew a little more about India he might have questioned whether Vinay’s political discussions in India are easy and open when Vinay converses with Sikhs and Muslims, or to what extent Vijay can do that at all.

aliasxneo 2y ago

I've spent the last two years working for a global company with people from all corners of the globe. I've spent many hours talking to them, sometimes on the subject of politics and religion. I must say, it's been so refreshing, especially after coming from Google. I particularly enjoy talking to individuals from communist or post-communist countries, which have been demonized in the U.S., to say the least. Not that I'm pro-communist by any means, but just listening to people's stories from these countries really drives home the point of how similar we all are. The best part is that the company culture seems to promote these open discussions. I'm not deathly afraid to voice an opinion for fear of HR hunting me down. I wish U.S. companies were like this. (Note) I'm not suggesting I spend much of my time on this activity. It mainly occurs at meetups or scheduled coffee chats.

jaarse 2y ago

I’ve long maintained that what the USA really needs is a good opponent again. Everyone wants to be on a winning team, and with the lack of a good opponent it’s turned into Republicans vs Democrats with no common ground. At least up until the 1990s there was always a common opponent (the English, the Spanish, the Prussians/Germans, the Soviets). So while Americans had different views, they could at least focus on defeating the enemy together. Now there is no more enemy, and they turn on each other. I guess old habit are hard to break.

binary132 2y ago

American politics is extremely wrapped up in identity and always has been. That means that having an opinion which someone disagrees with isn’t just an opinion they disagree with; in their mind it may be perceived as an opinion about who and what they or their loved ones are, and what should be done to or about them. Maybe I’m presuming here, but something tells me it’s not really like that in the gentleman’s hometown from the article. In America, people who disagree about politics feel like (or are) actual enemies, not fellow countrymen. We also do often place a lot of value on few precious friendships that we’re willing to mutually set aside the fighting and defensiveness for, and for the sake of getting along. I’m not sure that’s hard to explain or understand, and I’m not sure it has so much to do with density.

lamontcg 2y ago

This part of American culture is probably because of religious pluralism. At work, you don't want workers arguing over religion. You also don't want members of your church being converted to other religious sects at work. Then that gets applied to politics as well, which is useful to keep workers from talking about political things which might lead to discussions of unionization (and similar to guidelines from employers not to talk about salaries).

daft_pink 2y ago

Vilification of ideas is the reason why people can’t discuss politics in the United States. Reality is that if you have normal common religious beliefs in this country, people on the left will quickly paint you as some sort of evil intolerant person, when most religious people are nice decent people. Just because they disagree with your lifestyle doesn't make them evil. Why people can’t tolerate basic disagreement is beyond me.

KwisatzHaderack 2y ago

> I think that in America, political beliefs and violence are more closely entwined than in other parts of the world. I’d be a bit worried about getting punched if I got too deep into politics with someone who disagreed with me Jamie, pull up that clip of Taiwanese legislators getting into a fist fight in Congress.

benterix 2y ago

It's enough to think for a couple of seconds to realize it has nothing to do with population density, otherwise you could freely discuss politics in less populated areas of the States. The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world. It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning, it's about freedom for women to decide about their own body, about respect towards minorities and people coming from other countries, just to name a few. For right-leaning, it's about protecting families, cultivating the tradition, prosperity of the country, the right to defend oneself etc. Politics became almost a new religion.

ChocolateGod 2y ago
> the two party system in most Western countries Pretty sure Europe is mostly multi-party systems where coalitions are the norm, so including North America the only two western countries where dual-party is the norm is the United Kingdom and United States (both use first-past-the-post which encourages dual-party systems). That said, I agree on two party systems promoting toxicity, the Brexit debate in the UK which was a near-perfect 50/50 split was an extremely toxic period in UK politics and heavily influenced the 2019 election. It has got somewhat better in the last couple of years though.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Brexit wasn't a party issue, it was a referendum, so citing it as an example of two-party politics is a bit odd. Other European countries have also had referendums on aspects of the EU that were extremely bitter, often because the pro-EU side lost and then simply ignored the results/asked again. It wasn't a near-perfect 50/50 split either. It was 52/48, which yielded a large margin of ~1.8M more votes to leave. Referendums in societies that only have them rarely will always be somewhere around the middle point, of course, as if there was already a clear majority in favour of one direction then it'd have been implemented already without the need for a referendum.
gwurk 2y ago
Do you actually believe that most western countries use a two party system? Do you use a different definition of two party system than I do, when I say 2 party system I mean "first past the post"-systems, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting and for which countries use that system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/media/File:Countries_That_Use_a_First_Past_the_Post_Voting_System.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#/me...

gilbetron 2y ago

It isn't population density, since we used to discuss politics all the time until 2016. Family get togethers, work events, just friend hangouts, all of them would have active discussions and arguments surrounding politics. The Trump era changed all that. I don't know about India, but I think social media is what changed everything, and how it changed everything is more complex than many people think. There are so many factors to it. The non-stop nature, the echo chamber effect, how it allows you to hear the thoughts of people you never would have heard before, but also, and maybe this is a big difference with India, that insane effort from Russia and China (and others) to maliciously engage with our social media with the sole goal of disruption of our culture and nation. I'm in my 50s, and there was plenty of political discussion before 2016, much like the person from India in the OP describes. We used to have a close friend in our friend group and we would regularly tease each other over political issues, but also listen, and he was a staunt Obama-hater and subscribed to birther conspiracies. Two years into Trump and we stopped being friends, and I haven't talked to him since 2018.

from-nibly 2y ago

It's because every election the political parties figure out how to up the stakes to get people to care about voting. Now if someone gets voted it's "literally life or death" (it super isn't). Everyone could use a dose of "no treason" by Lysander spooner. Then maybe we can care little enough to have actual conversations.

archagon 2y ago

I find it bizarre how many people are still discussing American politics as if there remain two sensible and balanced political parties in play. Unfortunately, we do not have that anymore. We have a coalition liberal/conservative Democratic party and a far-right Republican party that has driven straight off a cliff. One of the candidates for president is a vile, stupid, deeply corrupt rapist who literally tried to overturn the last election and now wants to be “dictator for a day,” while his closest allies[1] are radical ethno-nationalists who want to install an authoritarian state with 19th century cultural trimmings. Every other word these people speak is an unambiguous lie in service of riling up their base and accruing power. Candidates like McCain and Palin are but a blip in the rear view mirror. At this point, I only have the energy to gawk in horror at the unfolding situation: discussing the minutiae of policy feels almost comical when the very soul of the country is at stake. Never could I imagine how much blatantly obvious evil could be laundered through the intrinsic balance fallacy of a two-party system. [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-project-2025-author-coming-onboard-if-elected-1966334 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-project-2025-auth...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]