Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
My own DOs and DON'Ts list
Published on October 27, 2006 By Brad Wardell In Politics

They say you shouldn't talk about politics, religion, or money with friends.

Naturally, I violate all 3 rules regularly.  I have some friends I've learned not to discuss politics with while there are others I can heartily talk about politics. Here are some of the rules I've come up with over the years.

#1 DO NOT discuss politics with people who feel that a political disagreement is tantamount to a moral failing on your part.  There are people out there who believe that a disagreement in political philosphy is the result of you being a bad person, morally corrupt, etc.

#2 DO NOT discuss politics with people who feel that political disagreements with them rise from ignorance on your part. Some people become so unempathic when it comes to politics that they simply can't grasp that someone might be well informed on political issues but have formed a different opinion.  Instead, they simply assume that if they can educate them, you're surely come to the "correct" opinion.

#3 DO NOT discuss politics with people who become emotionally involved in the topic. For me, politics is like talking about sports. I certainly care deeply about what's happening in the world. And I have strong opinions about how the problems of the world are best solved. But I don't pretend I'm about to run for emperor. I express my influence on policy through my measely vote and to a slightly greater extent, my blogs that may convince some small group of the value of my opinion. 

But some people really get wrapped up in these issues and get very very upset at disagreements. This is particularly true of people whose opinions are based on their feelings. "I just don't like <President X>. I just don't trust him."  If they use the phrase "I just..." you're probably dealing with someone who's emotional.

 

And that's about it.  Sometimes I've determined this sort of thing too late -- after damage has been done. 

I've had friends who clearly think I'm some sort of horrible, uncaring guy because I don't agree that the solution to poverty is to confiscate the property that one person has earned to hand it over to those who have not earned it. Obviously, I WANT people to starve because I'm an uncaring bastard.

I've had friends who think that I'm an unenlightened ignorant tool because I don't think the invasion of Iraq was motivated by Bush's obvious need to control their oil wells for "his buddies". Why can't I just open my eyese and see the obvious?

As I get older, I tend to have a lot thinner skin about those kinds of things. I don't like having to be the "bigger person" and turn the other cheek and absorb being patronized or looked down as some sort of moral dwarf.  So I just try to avoid the topic if it's with someone who has any of the 3 traits I mentioned above.


Comments
on Oct 27, 2006
The worst part is that these rules change for people depending on where they are in their life, and the political climate at the time. I have a friend that I used to have the BEST arguments with, and now I simply can't discuss it. Things got too "important". I love him like a brother, but I can almost see his eyes glaze over and hear other voices coming out of his mouth.

This friend didn't become so stolid when Ruby Ridge or Waco were big stories, but now we're all in danger of having our phones tapped and being sent to Camp X-Ray. He was a founding member of the Young Republicans at our college, and revered Ronald Reagan, but now the national debt is just far too serious an issue to overlook. He reads a lot of Slate these days.

It's sad. I agree with your rules, I just think they are impossible to apply to people because one hotbutton issue on a bleeding heart blog somewhere can change people dramatically these days. The next day you end up blindsided by someone you'd assumed was okay to argue with. Maybe we're just way too open to programming from what we are watching and reading to really trust people to remain cordially combatant.

on Oct 27, 2006

The worst part is that these rules change for people depending on where they are in their life, and the political climate at the time. I have a friend that I used to have the BEST arguments with, and now I simply can't discuss it. Things got too "important". I love him like a brother, but I can almost see his eyes glaze over and hear other voices coming out of his mouth.

I know that feeling. That was the essence of the Rush thing last week.

Bakerstreet, don't you see how IMPORTANT <issue X> is? The fate of the world depends on the <political party> having control.

This friend didn't become so stolid when Ruby Ridge or Waco were big stories, but now we're all in danger of having our phones tapped and being sent to Camp X-Ray. He was a founding member of the Young Republicans at our college, and revered Ronald Reagan, but now the national debt is just far too serious an issue to overlook. He reads a lot of Slate these days.
.

I agree, it's about perspective.  I also tend to avoid discussions with people who don't know history at all. Ruby Ridge is really a great example of if BUSH had done that, there'd be hysteria. But when the President has a (D) by his name, well it's okay to start sending in the heavy guns to take out citizens with incorrect opinions.  Haven't seen Bush sending in an armored division to take out any communes..

 

on Oct 27, 2006
Spam posted by 64.27.0.166 Home city: Sacramento, CA.
on Oct 27, 2006
My Rule #1:  If they start out with an "I hate" so and so, I just tune them out and walk in the other direction.  For I know the rest of their speech is going to be emotional, sprinkled with half truths and innuendos to justify their "feelings".
on Nov 08, 2006
I know that I stopped reading your blog a while back because your political comments were so pointed and one sided, but I have been bored today and decided to give you another chance. I agree with this post for the most part. I have found that even trying to stick up for people of a different opinion than the mob has made people attack me personally. I generally play the devils advocate in arguments that seem to be one sided, because I hate seeing people get dumped on. But doing so on an internet forum seems to bring attacks to me. Doing so in person never does this, but then I guess people are more reserved in person and are more likely to know that you aren't trying to attack them as a person. Oh well, I don't worry abou tthe attacks, but one person went over the edge in what she said about me and I am still very hurt by what she said. I guess I was not ready to participate in a truly global forum where the people talking to you don't have to look you in the eye.