5 ms·

The problem with discussing politics is that it gives you the kicks. Its very easy to get into a feedback loop and take things quite far off civility. I am also

by mrtksn 2y ago

The problem with discussing politics is that it gives you the kicks. Its very easy to get into a feedback loop and take things quite far off civility. I am also guilty of it, many times. IMHO there needs to be a mechanism for breaking the loop and then we can have civil online political discussions. Unfortunately most places just ban it or ban those who got into the loop, either way its ugly. IRL when discussing politics and things don't go badly its thanks to 3rd party who will moderate or calm down the heated debaters.

kelsey98765431 2y ago
No thank you. I am absolutely uninterested in civil discussions with people who literally want to kill me and deport my good friends to guantanamo bay cuba. When you accept nazism you throw the concept of civil discourse out the window.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  See, its unlikely that its those people that you meet online and you won't be able to do anything to them anyway. %99.999 of the time its usually trolls or people with good intentions(with wrong solutions based on wrong information or understanding of the situation). Trolls can be fun when they play with hypothetical scenarios and edge cases, conducting thought experiments. You are also unlikely to change the views of the people with good intentions through discussion but they are very useful to understand what their motives so you can develop beter arguments or solutions. Also, you might find out that on some issues you are one of those with good intentions(but misguided understanding of the situation).
- bluGill 2y ago
  Case in point: you have decided that those who disagree with you want to kill you, deport your friend, and are otherwise nazis. While a minority do, that isn't the majority.
  - mulnz 2y ago
    I am (un)lucky enough to live in an area where I don't have to decide this. People are willing to say it out loud.
  - citizenkeen 2y ago
    One the one hand, yes. On the other hand: “Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is 'Nazi.' Nobody cares about their motives anymore.” - Julius Goat
  - thrance 2y ago
    We had a word for people that voted for Nazis, agreed with Nazis, talked like Nazis but claimed they weren't Nazis themselves in the 40s. It was "Nazi". What matters is that the current administration is disappearing people with no legal reasons, due process or possible recourse. Either you agree with them in which case fuck you, or you don't and you condemn them. There can be no compromise or civility when one side is so aggressive and dangerous.
  - vultour 2y ago
    This argument went out the window long ago. You're not absolved of responsibility just because you voted for someone who wants to hurt people instead of hurting them yourself.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Quit turning the argument around. forget about "them" - what does it say about you when you cannot talk nice about people you disagree with? People who voted for Trump are not stupid. They have real concerns that they do not see being met and so they are turning to something that while maybe not ideal is at least a promise of maybe better. Maybe it will be worse, but they don't see things on the right track as they were either.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  No thank you. I am absolutely uninterested in civil discussions with people who literally want to control everything I say and put my good friends into reeducation camps. When you accept communism you throw the concept of civil discourse out the window.
  - btucker 2y ago
    I understand you're trying to "both sides" an argument. What have you found that has achieved for you in the past? Do you change people's opinions with this?
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      I have found that no amount of online discussion has ever changed anyone's mind on larger issues. We're all pissing in the wind here.
      - btucker 2y ago
        Then why did you post that?
  - abvdasker 2y ago
    Democrats haven't put anyone into a reeducation camp as far as I'm aware. Your enemies are imaginary while the parent comment's enemies are all too real.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      Yes, but the Republicans literally want to kill some minority groups. /s Do you know how crazy this all sounds once you're outside of a specific left echo chamber? How is the hyperbole I employed any more unbelievable than that of the poster I was replying to? Another sibling comment to yours says that Trump is rounding up political opponents for a gulag. Nevermind that he has only rounded up non-citizen (most of them in the US illegally) because that's all he can do. If you look at my posting history, it's wildly left-wing as little as 2 years ago. I've become completely disillusioned with the left after noticing how self-contradictory some of those ideas are and how the language of crisis is deployed to constantly smear their political opponents. Everyone the left doesn't like is Hitler and every policy they don't like is fascism. Give me break. Edit: For a little more elaboration, look at the speech codes and compelled "DEI pledges" that American universities have employed in the last few years[1]. How is this not speech policing? You might argue that these are private institutions, and maybe that's fair enough, but when the government pulls funding for crap like this the hyperbole and outrage persist. Or look at Canada's bill C-63[2]. This bill aims to allow the possibility of life sentences for "hate speech"[3]. To me this is authoritarian. To many left wing commentators, it's another day at the office, I guess - meanwhile the Canadian right wing party is regularly called fascist[4][5] despite being basically in line with US Democrats on many issues. [1] https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-were-the-most https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-wer... [2] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-r... [3] https://bccla.org/2024/09/whats-in-bill-c-63-why-are-we-alarmed/ https://bccla.org/2024/09/whats-in-bill-c-63-why-are-we-alar... [4] https://medium.com/pigeons-peculiarities/pierre-poilievres-populism-to-fascism-pipeline-88efa3072b20 https://medium.com/pigeons-peculiarities/pierre-poilievres-p... [5] https://cultmtl.com/2025/02/pierre-poilievre-has-racked-up-endorsements-from-a-whos-who-of-fascists-fraudsters-and-alt-right-influencers/ https://cultmtl.com/2025/02/pierre-poilievre-has-racked-up-e...
- galangalalgol 2y ago
  Having civil discussions with people who disagree isn't about politeness or acquiescence. Having political discussions per the same rules we use for technical debates, like steel manning, allows information to actually flow both ways. I'm up to four people now that I changed parties between 2020 and 2024. That doesn't seem like a lot, but if everyone was doing it it would make a difference. It took time. I had to non judgementally listen to their concerns and intuit the fears underneath. They were reasonable intelligent people operating off of propaganda mostly. The emotional hook had been set and used draw them further and further into false narratives that fed their fears and hopes. To think I am immune isn't realistic either. My triggers are getting used to pull me the other direction, to make me uncompromising, and to view those who disagree as inhuman. Some of that is game theory polarizing us, but some of it is the intentional result of the Kremlin's standard divide and conquer they have been using on us for over half a century. The antidote is calm conversations with voters who have been made scared about irrational things, and looking to see what fears we are being manipulated with as well.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    > Having civil discussions with people who disagree isn't about politeness or acquiescence. Having political discussions per the same rules we use for technical debates, like steel manning, allows information to actually flow both ways. What additional information do they need to get out there other than they want me and people like me dead? What additional information do I need to get out there other than I don't want them to do that?
    - wins32767 2y ago
      The logical end state of this belief is a civil war. I assume that in lieu of trying to change minds you're buying guns and ammo and trying to organize like minded people into a militia to protect your safety? Cause if not, I don't really think you really believe that a significant fraction of the country wants people like you dead.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
footlose_3815 2y ago
The loop is intentionally being closed and sped-up by enemies of the USA who want to exhaust the USA in every way possible. After the infekktion of 2015, moderators of Right-leaning discussion boards started amping up their censorship. Left leaning and moderate discussion boards still tend to be more moderate, letting most discussions in and censoring less. Most of the time, one side is trying to play an equal field, while the other shits all over it and just yells "Winning!"

by mrtksn 2y ago

kelsey98765431 2y ago

No thank you. I am absolutely uninterested in civil discussions with people who literally want to kill me and deport my good friends to guantanamo bay cuba. When you accept nazism you throw the concept of civil discourse out the window.

mrtksn 2y ago
See, its unlikely that its those people that you meet online and you won't be able to do anything to them anyway. %99.999 of the time its usually trolls or people with good intentions(with wrong solutions based on wrong information or understanding of the situation). Trolls can be fun when they play with hypothetical scenarios and edge cases, conducting thought experiments. You are also unlikely to change the views of the people with good intentions through discussion but they are very useful to understand what their motives so you can develop beter arguments or solutions. Also, you might find out that on some issues you are one of those with good intentions(but misguided understanding of the situation).
bluGill 2y ago
Case in point: you have decided that those who disagree with you want to kill you, deport your friend, and are otherwise nazis. While a minority do, that isn't the majority.
- mulnz 2y ago
  I am (un)lucky enough to live in an area where I don't have to decide this. People are willing to say it out loud.
- citizenkeen 2y ago
  One the one hand, yes. On the other hand: “Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is 'Nazi.' Nobody cares about their motives anymore.” - Julius Goat
- thrance 2y ago
  We had a word for people that voted for Nazis, agreed with Nazis, talked like Nazis but claimed they weren't Nazis themselves in the 40s. It was "Nazi". What matters is that the current administration is disappearing people with no legal reasons, due process or possible recourse. Either you agree with them in which case fuck you, or you don't and you condemn them. There can be no compromise or civility when one side is so aggressive and dangerous.
- vultour 2y ago
  This argument went out the window long ago. You're not absolved of responsibility just because you voted for someone who wants to hurt people instead of hurting them yourself.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Quit turning the argument around. forget about "them" - what does it say about you when you cannot talk nice about people you disagree with? People who voted for Trump are not stupid. They have real concerns that they do not see being met and so they are turning to something that while maybe not ideal is at least a promise of maybe better. Maybe it will be worse, but they don't see things on the right track as they were either.
AlexandrB 2y ago
No thank you. I am absolutely uninterested in civil discussions with people who literally want to control everything I say and put my good friends into reeducation camps. When you accept communism you throw the concept of civil discourse out the window.
- btucker 2y ago
  I understand you're trying to "both sides" an argument. What have you found that has achieved for you in the past? Do you change people's opinions with this?
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I have found that no amount of online discussion has ever changed anyone's mind on larger issues. We're all pissing in the wind here.
    - btucker 2y ago
      Then why did you post that?
- abvdasker 2y ago
  Democrats haven't put anyone into a reeducation camp as far as I'm aware. Your enemies are imaginary while the parent comment's enemies are all too real.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    Yes, but the Republicans literally want to kill some minority groups. /s Do you know how crazy this all sounds once you're outside of a specific left echo chamber? How is the hyperbole I employed any more unbelievable than that of the poster I was replying to? Another sibling comment to yours says that Trump is rounding up political opponents for a gulag. Nevermind that he has only rounded up non-citizen (most of them in the US illegally) because that's all he can do. If you look at my posting history, it's wildly left-wing as little as 2 years ago. I've become completely disillusioned with the left after noticing how self-contradictory some of those ideas are and how the language of crisis is deployed to constantly smear their political opponents. Everyone the left doesn't like is Hitler and every policy they don't like is fascism. Give me break. Edit: For a little more elaboration, look at the speech codes and compelled "DEI pledges" that American universities have employed in the last few years[1]. How is this not speech policing? You might argue that these are private institutions, and maybe that's fair enough, but when the government pulls funding for crap like this the hyperbole and outrage persist. Or look at Canada's bill C-63[2]. This bill aims to allow the possibility of life sentences for "hate speech"[3]. To me this is authoritarian. To many left wing commentators, it's another day at the office, I guess - meanwhile the Canadian right wing party is regularly called fascist[4][5] despite being basically in line with US Democrats on many issues. [1] https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-were-the-most https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-wer... [2] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-r... [3] https://bccla.org/2024/09/whats-in-bill-c-63-why-are-we-alarmed/ https://bccla.org/2024/09/whats-in-bill-c-63-why-are-we-alar... [4] https://medium.com/pigeons-peculiarities/pierre-poilievres-populism-to-fascism-pipeline-88efa3072b20 https://medium.com/pigeons-peculiarities/pierre-poilievres-p... [5] https://cultmtl.com/2025/02/pierre-poilievre-has-racked-up-endorsements-from-a-whos-who-of-fascists-fraudsters-and-alt-right-influencers/ https://cultmtl.com/2025/02/pierre-poilievre-has-racked-up-e...
galangalalgol 2y ago
Having civil discussions with people who disagree isn't about politeness or acquiescence. Having political discussions per the same rules we use for technical debates, like steel manning, allows information to actually flow both ways. I'm up to four people now that I changed parties between 2020 and 2024. That doesn't seem like a lot, but if everyone was doing it it would make a difference. It took time. I had to non judgementally listen to their concerns and intuit the fears underneath. They were reasonable intelligent people operating off of propaganda mostly. The emotional hook had been set and used draw them further and further into false narratives that fed their fears and hopes. To think I am immune isn't realistic either. My triggers are getting used to pull me the other direction, to make me uncompromising, and to view those who disagree as inhuman. Some of that is game theory polarizing us, but some of it is the intentional result of the Kremlin's standard divide and conquer they have been using on us for over half a century. The antidote is calm conversations with voters who have been made scared about irrational things, and looking to see what fears we are being manipulated with as well.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > Having civil discussions with people who disagree isn't about politeness or acquiescence. Having political discussions per the same rules we use for technical debates, like steel manning, allows information to actually flow both ways. What additional information do they need to get out there other than they want me and people like me dead? What additional information do I need to get out there other than I don't want them to do that?
  - wins32767 2y ago
    The logical end state of this belief is a civil war. I assume that in lieu of trying to change minds you're buying guns and ammo and trying to organize like minded people into a militia to protect your safety? Cause if not, I don't really think you really believe that a significant fraction of the country wants people like you dead.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago

footlose_3815 2y ago

The loop is intentionally being closed and sped-up by enemies of the USA who want to exhaust the USA in every way possible. After the infekktion of 2015, moderators of Right-leaning discussion boards started amping up their censorship. Left leaning and moderate discussion boards still tend to be more moderate, letting most discussions in and censoring less. Most of the time, one side is trying to play an equal field, while the other shits all over it and just yells "Winning!"