8 ms·

(Article starts off be asserting that they don't talk politics with friends then proceeds to describe how to talk politics with friends?) Friends are people yo

• gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
  This gets more complicated when you replace "friend" with "spouse" (/partner) because there comes up the problem of consensuality in unavoidably unpleasant unavoidable decision-making.. (Assuming one marries for "love")
  • facile3232 2y ago
    Politics feels like an integral part of finding a partner nowadays. Which makes sense—values are important to agree upon.
    • viraptor 2y ago
      Really depends on the region. There's lots of opinions/ideas/directions/parties in many countries with lots of overlap. In the US... I'm not sure how relationships, that actually talk about things, can survive if partners have different party preferences.
      • facile3232 2y ago
        [dead]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • ta1243 2y ago
      The width of the spectrum of political views for 65% of people used to be relatively narrow. That's increasingly not the case.
      • pixl97 2y ago
        Capitalism "Choice is good!" Politics "Not like that, not like that!" I don't believe that political views used to be narrow, I believe the political views you were allowed to actually express were much more narrow and everything else was repressed.
  • galfarragem 2y ago
    I believe having a partner with directly opposing political views is unsustainable. Partners with adjacent political views may be manageable, or even preferable to a fully aligned one, but those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life. Political views often reflect deeply held values and beliefs.
    • HPsquared 2y ago
      Political views can change over time though. It can be unsustainable in the way of "one or both people moderates their political views".
    • basisword 2y ago
      >> those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life I don't think this is true at all. The vast majority of people largely ignore politics, cast their vote, and move on with their lives. It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people. We see a lot of the 'kick, scream, and cry' types on both side in the media. In the real world, most people have more important things to be getting on with.
      • diggan 2y ago
        > It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people. Yes, this is true, you can have different political views and still be friends/lovers/partners/whatver. What parent said though was "directly opposing political views", which I'd also agree with is inviting trouble, as it'll leak out in constant tensions and frictions. Simple things like "We shouldn't drive as much as we currently do" can lead to heavy argumentation if the underlying reasoning cannot be understood by both parties. In real life, people might not speak about parties or political figures, but their everyday actions are driven by their values and beliefs, which also ends up reflected by who they vote for. Politics is everywhere, even where people don't speak of it directly.
        • basisword 2y ago
  • pjc50 2y ago
    Note that various surveys report young women and young men diverging a lot more politically. Partly because women's rights have become so politicised.
    • galfarragem 2y ago
      This trend is certainly one aspect of the explanation for the decline in the number of long-term relationships.
      • HPsquared 2y ago
        It could also be the opposite causality. Because people aren't getting into intimate relationships as much (looking out for each other, caring deeply about an individual of the opposite gender), the two groups are naturally diverging into preferring "what's best for ME". I think the political split between genders is MUCH stronger for singles. It's kind of a trap actually.
      • 542354234235 2y ago
        The other being that once women have largescale representation in the workforce, can open bank accounts and credit cards on their own, and can support themselves financially, one of the key pressures to marry is removed. Once there was no fault divorce and women did not need to prove why they needed to divorce, one of the key pressures to stay married is removed.
        • dfxm12 2y ago
          Perhaps important, republicans from state lawmakers up to the VP are interested in repealing no fault divorce laws.
          • 542354234235 2y ago
            I am the opposite of surprised. How else are terrible, low-quality men going to trap women into a life of unpaid home labor if they can control their own finances, reproduction, and choice to enter or leave a marriage.
  • jajko 2y ago
    Marrying purely for "love" and ignoring core values, mindset compatibility, what they want in life and so on is a recipe for disaster, or at least some deep regrets down the line. I haven't seen nor heard about a single success story a decade or two down the line. Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives. One of reasons why marrying early is too risky - people still massively change till at least 25-30, it cal still work but chances are smaller. Its a typical junior mistake to marry for love/lust and not think a bit on top of that, in this case I blame parents who don't have some hard talks with their kids explaining them not-so-rosy parts of adult existence. Like initial enormous physical attraction wanes over time, kids crush most of remaining, and what still remains are 2 people and how they treat relationship and each other with that lust tuned down eventually to 0, under various, often not so nice situations. But our parent's generation didn't figure it all out, in contrary the amount of actually nice relationships in higher ages ain't that high. I didn't have such prep talk neither, nor do I know anybody who had, and had to figure it all on my own via rough trials and failures till finally figuring myself and women out, and then happy marriage (so far, hard knock on the wood). Its like expecting everybody to be sophisticated engineer, learning them to count on fingers and throwing them out and good luck, I am sure you'll figure it out eventually. Some do, some don't. Most don't I'd say.
    • HPsquared 2y ago
      This is the sort of thing they should teach in schools. English literature is a good venue for it.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    • diggan 2y ago
      > Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives. That's putting way too much pressure on it. Find someone you feel like you could spend the rest of your life with? Marry them, see what happens. If you get a divorce, so be it, it's not the end of the world and there is plenty of others out there, even if you're "damaged goods" or whatever your worry is. I feel like the pressure people put around marriage it what makes it so damaging in the first place, people feeling like they have to marry in the first place, or if they're married, they need to try to stick together more than some couple who isn't married, and so on. Just make a decision and learn from your mistakes in case you fuck up, it really isn't more complicated than that.
• shw1n 2y ago
  yep the purpose of the essay was to: 1) show the situations in which politics can't be discussed productively (dogmatic ideologies) 2) show how to avoid being dogmatic yourself I absolutely encourage people to discuss politics productively
  • fergie 2y ago
    It was a good essay- thanks for writing it :)
    • shw1n 2y ago
      ty!
  • elliotec 2y ago
    Not the best title if that’s your message
    • shw1n 2y ago
      the idea's that we're so tribal these days (maybe it's always been like this) that it's largely impossible but here's how we can change that, etc
  • ghaff 2y ago
    Well, I know a lot of people in the US who simply don't want to discuss politics at social events these days.
    • ta1243 2y ago
      Which means the only input they get is ever polarised extreme feeds online, from social media algorithms and straight up paid adverts.
      • lukan 2y ago
        No, it can also mean they get too much extreme input from the people in reality. There are lot's of people who won't stop, when you push the wrong button (speaking a wrong word).
• DeathArrow 2y ago
  Being friends with someone doesn't mean we both should agree on everything. It also doesn't mean we should try to avoid discussing whatever. If we agree on something, good. If someone is changing his opinion bases on a talk and arguments, good. If not, also good. I am friend with someone because I like that someone and I enjoy meeting him and talking to him, doing things together. That doesn't mean agreeing on everything. And doesn't mean being afraid of speaking. If someone quits, being my friend because we have different opinions on X, so be it. I am not like that. I won't break a friendship because someone thinks differently.
• d0mine 2y ago
  What is the point of discussing politics? (not rhetorical). What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards? You won't undo indoctrination. It just upsets people.
  • klabb3 2y ago
    You can’t talk politics without first overcoming tribalism, so I suggest you start there, since in the US that is sadly the state of things. If you start by talking about which sports team is better you will also cause these reactions. But politics should not be sports. It’s harmless to support a sports team that makes bad choices. Politics has real impact on people’s lives. It’s important to have exit criteria for alignments and affiliations with groups, to the extent they’re necessary. > What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards? Just like voting, it has no effect in the small. You discuss to form and exchange opinions and ideas that become part of the whole. The benefits are in the aggregates. Thus it’s important that it has some other incentive. Where I’m from it’s not very tribalist, so we get the pleasure from thinking and discussing problems even without having an expectation that it will change policy. That wouldn’t work in the US outside very specific groups that understand the rules of engagement and the point of the game. But the discussions themselves are similar in vibe to board games or puzzles, that it’s somewhat fun even though it’s entirely useless (in the small).