181–190 of 302 posts
Jamie, pull up that clip of Taiwanese legislators getting into a fist fight in Congress.
The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world.
It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning, it's about freedom for women to decide about their own body, about respect towards minorities and people coming from other countries, just to name a few. For right-leaning, it's about protecting families, cultivating the tradition, prosperity of the country, the right to defend oneself etc. Politics became almost a new religion.
It's enough to think for a couple of seconds to realize it has nothing to do with population density, otherwise you could freely discuss politics in less populated areas of the States. The real reason is that politics, and especially the two party system in most Western countries, is based on polarization, e.g. blaming the other party for all the evil of the world. It's not some abstract "politics". For left-leaning,…
Pretty sure Europe is mostly multi-party systems where coalitions are the norm, so including North America the only two western countries where dual-party is the norm is the United Kingdom and United States (both use first-past-the-post which encourages dual-party systems).
That said, I agree on two party systems promoting toxicity, the Brexit debate in the UK which was a near-perfect 50/50 split was an extremely toxic period in UK politics and heavily influenced the 2019 election. It has got somewhat better in the last couple of years though.
The ability to discuss politics in a group is likely correlated with social capital. Research indicates that modern populations in urban areas have realized a reduction in social capital from prior generations. My grandparents knew a vast amount of people in their neighborhood, in which most attended the same church. Today, in the same neighborhood, anyone is lucky if they know a few neighbors. Often, that isn't the…
It’s not “the West”. The USA is quite different to many OECD nations in this regard (and others).
There has also been a shift in the focus of politics away from economic policy and the running of government services (as was very much the case in the UK up to the 1980s) to social issues as a result of a centrist consensus on what were important issues - disagreement about them is now purely theoretical and off the table in terms of what might actually change.
It think the problem has also been inadvertently illustrated by people in the comments discussing specific American culture war issues with a great deal of anger.
An aspect of this is the lack of willingness to compromise. Take abortion. It is much less of an issue in most of Europe because it is allowed, but with short term limits. It means many of the arguments for it are not relevant, but it also undermines many of the arguments against it because of lack of functioning brain tissue, or the state of development comparable to a premature baby. Anglophone countries are much more all or nothing - long term limits or not allow at all.
We also do not (even in the UK) have the American alignment of party politics with social issues. Can you imagine the Republicans being the party that allowed same sex marriage?
I think the moving of discussion online has primed people to be more aggressive about their views in general. I was thinking the other day about the people I know IRL who have blocked me on FB: my ex, a friend of hers, one of my ex's sisters (emigrated to the US and is a stereotype Trump supporter, stolen election theory etc.), a creationist (also my ex's sister, a nice person who keeps in touch with me, but does not like my comments on her FB posts), and a remainer/rejoiner.
If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…
Practice is important. And being able to say, "I disagree, and discussing it further won't change my mind" is important. But many of the current political topics are life or death for parts of the community. Like, I know plenty of trans sysadmins for whom politics isn't just "well, one party advances ideas I support and the other less so". For them it's "One party will make my every waking moment a nightmare". I unde…
'Agree to disagree' is just an opt out. At that point there usually isn't any agreement upon what is disagreed upon in the first place. It is a debate evasion.
It is usually more honest to say 'I don't want you to convince me or the audiance otherwise'.
But ye there is some endurance limit the discussion need to respect. My point is that 'agree to disagree' is way overused.
If it really was population density, it would be easy to discuss politics in urban NYC and very difficult/ rare in rural Wyoming. I don’t think that’s really the case. I suspect politics are more discussed in forums where there is more “psychological safety” where the consequence of saying a thing that others disagree with doesn’t cause a rift in the relationship (as evidenced by the “it’s hard enough for a parent to…
Two issues that are probably rare but not worth the risk 1. political stance is not a protected status. if I find out (or vice versa) that some manager has opposite stances of me, things get awkward at best or dangerous at worst. Rather not be fired that easily, especially since a lot of work is from home with little opportunity for small talk. 2. there are just crazies out in my area, and US is only getting more vio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those larger parties still have to work together with other parties to form a coalition/anti-coalition. Those coalitions then end up running the country. Although I think there might be some benefits to this style of government, I also think people over-index on it. One way or another these groups end up forming coalitions and making compromises in order to govern. In one case it happens before the election, and mo…
I don’t think God is real but it doesn’t stop me from talking to Christians about other topics.
Luckily, these days, you'd have a very, very hard time finding any Christian who publicly advocates this, but centuries ago it was rather common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions. But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.
This is not good logic. If the government announced tomorrow they will pick 5 people a year at random to be executed for no reason, it would also be at the top of all the news, despite being many fewer deaths than vehicle related injuries. It’s at the top of the news because it is easily preventable, yet some choose to let people die anyway.
This is basically the police execution - sorry, "officer involved shooting" policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions. But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.
It's not ignored. Democrats have been pushing automobile safety since the 1970's, uphill the entire time against republican opponents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not “the West”. The USA is quite different to many OECD nations in this regard (and others).
Not just the US though. It is also true in the UK (maybe not as bad - yet) but we have the polarisation. The hatred of the other side is more on-sided here - its more a characteristic of the "left": you hear "I hate Tories" rather than "I hate Labour voters" or even "I hate socialists" (nor did you even before socialism died). It seems to be the same in other Anglophone countries. There has also been a shift in the f…