Well, I’ve managed to successfully avoid getting into conversations about politics online for quite a while now, and have found it quite refreshing. I’ve also steered clear of them in person for the most part, with some brief exceptions.
One of the exceptions occurred tonight, and while (I felt) it was civil and respectful all around, it did serve as a gentle reminder of why I have decided to avoid them as a general rule.
The main reason is that they are rarely beneficial to anyone involved. I don’t know if that’s due to a failure in my ability to communicate, a lack of open-mindedness of one or more parties involved (including myself), just the nature of the subject, or all of the above.
When it comes to politics, there are a variety of complex issues that go into the decision to vote for a particular candidate (for example). Unfortunately, (in my experience at least) conversations about politics are usually not held around the broad base of that information, but focused on individual issues that are likely to be controversial and / or easy to attack.
It might be interesting to explore approaching these conversations with the angle of finding the things that we agree on, but I’m not exactly sure how that might go either. In the end I think it might be best just to acknowledge the differences and focus on things that are either more important or less divisive (or even both).
I think it would also be wise to keep in mind that (in contrast to the way political media likes to line things up), people often don’t agree on every single issue with the particular party or candidate that they are backing, and probably shouldn’t. If we find ourselves in such a position of unwavering allegiance, I’d suggest it’s probably time to question our own filters that we may have placed on our understanding and ability to look at things from multiple points of view.
For you guys who were involved in the conversation tonight, (since most of you will probably read this), I would clarify that my desire to refrain from these conversations shouldn’t reflect negatively on you or on my opinions of your views or how you presented them. I think it’s safe to say that we respect each other’s intelligence, that we realize that different people have different theories on (among other things) how government should work, and that it’s OK to disagree about them.
Personally, I’d just prefer to not get into it in the future and focus on other subjects that would either be more beneficial or at least more entertaining. Life is too short to waste it arguing. While the history of the comments here on this blog (at least as it was in the past) stands as evidence that I haven’t always heeded that advice, I hope to change that going forward as much as I possibly can.
4 Comments
Life is too short not to have spirited conversations. I had fun.
I had fun too, but there’s always the tension of keeping it light-hearted vs. getting too serious and therefore (at least for me) less “friendly”, which isn’t a trade-off I’m interested in making right now.
I think politics is serious. I still think it’s fun. I think we’ve grown enough where it can be serious or heated even but very worthwhile and fun. I like to talk about politics with close friends because it is a little less personal than religion but still incorporates your view of the world and forces a serious reflection of how you think things work from top to bottom really. Other things are fun to talk about but everyone has at least passing interest in some policy.
Jared- I think you have to separate your prior experience with this (Bangs’ family “discussions) from now. I think there is a great difference in the banter. Previously, I think it was taken much more personally than it is by Nate and most others I think you are referring to. Just my thoughts- and I wasn’t there.