5 ms·

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 wi

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
  Maybe they'd have less political violence if they didn't associate with people who disagree with them. I'm not sure I'm convinced that dying for your political views is a fair price to pay for conversations with your neighbors.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm not convinced that the two are correlated. We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, ~~without the violence~~. [Scratching this part out because it's drawing plenty of justified criticism. I stand by the rest, and this part was generally true—with small exceptions—from at least 1990-2008.] The complete refusal to interact with someone who disagrees with you is a relatively new phenomenon that seems to have risen alongside social media.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, without the violence. No, we didn't. Look up what happened in the 1960s. And even that was mild compared to what went on in election campaigns in the 19th century in the US.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, without the violence. You must have forgotten the US Civil War, plus all the turbulence of the 1960s. The big difference there was that, for the most part, the two sides were geographically separated from each other. >The complete refusal to interact with someone who disagrees with you is a relatively new phenomenon that seems to have risen alongside social media. If you're thinking of the early-to-mid 20th century, things have changed. America has become much more diverse, and co-mingled (in the past, immigrant and other minority groups tended to keep to themselves and not socially interact so much with other groups). White European-descended people are no longer the overwhelming majority (remember, immigrants in the past mostly came from Europe), religion has lost much of its power and many of its believers, homosexuality has become far more accepted, basically one side feels existentially threatened, and the other side oppressed.
    - sunshowers 2y ago
      Disagrees with you on what, exactly? Be specific.
    - whaaaaat 2y ago
      > We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives... We most certainly did not. Point to an era where there wasn't political violence in the US. Jim Crow? Civil rights era? WTO Protests? Vietnam war protests? Rodney King? Stonewall? Like... this country has been violent about politics since this country was a country. Growing up I was afraid to be even remotely "non-manly" because I was so worried I'd be dragged behind someone's truck.
- beaglessss 2y ago
  [dead]
- whaaaaat 2y ago
  I don't refuse to interact with people of the wrong "tribe", I make sure to ask for their political positions on, e.g., "should interracial marriage be allowed? Should we allow trans people to change their birth certificates?" If someone is like, "Nah, those things are bad" then I'm happy to not associate with them because I find their beliefs abhorrent. It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy.
  - zero-sharp 2y ago
    >It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy. This is absolutely not how a lot of people operate.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here. I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.
      - whaaaaat 2y ago
        I'm with you. There are hard lines. But I also have hard lines in who you support. Like, if you vote for a politician who supports, e.g., the eradication of trans people, then even if you say, "I don't believe in that" you've furthered that cause by issuing your vote. I can't abide someone who is willing to compromise on some things.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        This is what I find as strange. Why couldn't you sleep at night? In my mind, the moral, healthy, productive, and pro-social thing would be to continue friendship. I dont think shunning people builds bridges or helps anyone. Then again, my generation grew up with stories like black activists who befriended KKK members and slowly converted them with compassion and challenging their preconceived notions.
- shusaku 2y ago
  When reading an article like this, I think westerners get guilt tripped. We must be wrong, just look at all the troubles we have. Maybe if we talked more things would be better. But maybe the real take way here is that people in Indian should talk less about politics!

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
Maybe they'd have less political violence if they didn't associate with people who disagree with them. I'm not sure I'm convinced that dying for your political views is a fair price to pay for conversations with your neighbors.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm not convinced that the two are correlated. We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, ~~without the violence~~. [Scratching this part out because it's drawing plenty of justified criticism. I stand by the rest, and this part was generally true—with small exceptions—from at least 1990-2008.] The complete refusal to interact with someone who disagrees with you is a relatively new phenomenon that seems to have risen alongside social media.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, without the violence. No, we didn't. Look up what happened in the 1960s. And even that was mild compared to what went on in election campaigns in the 19th century in the US.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives and discussing politics with them all the way up through 2008 at least, without the violence. You must have forgotten the US Civil War, plus all the turbulence of the 1960s. The big difference there was that, for the most part, the two sides were geographically separated from each other. >The complete refusal to interact with someone who disagrees with you is a relatively new phenomenon that seems to have risen alongside social media. If you're thinking of the early-to-mid 20th century, things have changed. America has become much more diverse, and co-mingled (in the past, immigrant and other minority groups tended to keep to themselves and not socially interact so much with other groups). White European-descended people are no longer the overwhelming majority (remember, immigrants in the past mostly came from Europe), religion has lost much of its power and many of its believers, homosexuality has become far more accepted, basically one side feels existentially threatened, and the other side oppressed.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    Disagrees with you on what, exactly? Be specific.
  - whaaaaat 2y ago
    > We did just fine associating with people of different political perspectives... We most certainly did not. Point to an era where there wasn't political violence in the US. Jim Crow? Civil rights era? WTO Protests? Vietnam war protests? Rodney King? Stonewall? Like... this country has been violent about politics since this country was a country. Growing up I was afraid to be even remotely "non-manly" because I was so worried I'd be dragged behind someone's truck.
beaglessss 2y ago
[dead]
whaaaaat 2y ago
I don't refuse to interact with people of the wrong "tribe", I make sure to ask for their political positions on, e.g., "should interracial marriage be allowed? Should we allow trans people to change their birth certificates?" If someone is like, "Nah, those things are bad" then I'm happy to not associate with them because I find their beliefs abhorrent. It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  >It has nothing to do with tribal affiliation and everything to do with policy. This is absolutely not how a lot of people operate.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    I'm sensing some sort of neurotypical/neurodiverse divide here. I don't think it's unreasonable to live a morally comprehensive life. For example, I probably couldn't be friends with a white-supremacist even if they were kind, gentle, supportive, and caring. Some folks are able to look past those things and more power to them. I, however, couldn't sleep at night.
    - whaaaaat 2y ago
      I'm with you. There are hard lines. But I also have hard lines in who you support. Like, if you vote for a politician who supports, e.g., the eradication of trans people, then even if you say, "I don't believe in that" you've furthered that cause by issuing your vote. I can't abide someone who is willing to compromise on some things.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      This is what I find as strange. Why couldn't you sleep at night? In my mind, the moral, healthy, productive, and pro-social thing would be to continue friendship. I dont think shunning people builds bridges or helps anyone. Then again, my generation grew up with stories like black activists who befriended KKK members and slowly converted them with compassion and challenging their preconceived notions.
shusaku 2y ago
When reading an article like this, I think westerners get guilt tripped. We must be wrong, just look at all the troubles we have. Maybe if we talked more things would be better. But maybe the real take way here is that people in Indian should talk less about politics!