9 ms·

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 th

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.

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.