This was a Facebook post of mine, but I wanted to see how you guys felt on the little civil wars that happen at home during every election period.
I remember a time when a person's political affiliation was a confidential thing. I prefer it that way actually. Now a days it's the norm to discuss these things with whoever. Today it seems like the election cycle is that period of time that reveals the true colors of people (friends/aquaintences/ect). It's a time where a person may very well learn that we may not agree on every single thing. Now here comes my point. Do we really have to? It's incumbent in most of us to want to be DIFFERENT in the first place. So tell me now why are we so surprised and angry and outraged at each other over our DIFFERENT views of two politicians???
AGAIN we don't always agree and we should never be obligated to. But if you're so emotionally driven by this difference to actually end a friendship over it, then I'm telling you right now... The other person is lucky to be rid of YOUR brand of Bat Shit Crazy.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"I remember a time when a person's political affiliation was a confidential thing. I prefer it that way actually."
Yet here is an OP from you all about it on an atheist, not a political, site.
1)The intro to the whole thing explains how much it has become a norm (thus my willingness to share)
2)I'm not attacking anyone. If anything I thought I was being fair.
3)You're damn right. I am bringing up a SOCIAL/political topic on this site that was designed for us to socialize on. because:
"This forum provides the appropriate environment for atheists from across the world to come together and discuss any topic they like."
You see that? Any topic they like.
So be nice. I'm I'm not here to fight you.
It is my understanding that no subject is taboo on this site.
Be nice? How was I mean? I saw what sure appeared to me to be antithetical and simply pointed it out.
You are the one who said we don't always agree and should never be obligated to do so, yet, you admonish me to 'be nice'.
I find it curious.
Point taken. I shouldn't have assumed that your comment was mean spirited. In my defense, it seemed kind of sarcastic to me and on top of that, you went further to say this is an Atheist site, not a political one. As if I must only post about atheism all the time. That's what rubbed me the wrong way.
Lastly I see you take issue with my usage of "be nice" all I can say is that the whole point of my post is to promote civility or in other words, being nice to each other. That's all.
Other than that, I've seen your comments on other posts and I would say you and I are on the same side most of the time. So no problem.
Politics in the USA has always been a sorted affair with periods of reprehensible behavior and periods of boring mundane civility.
I like open political discussion. What I disdain is slander, propaganda, swift boating, and flat out lies.
The right side of the aisle engages in false indignation. Like "Take back this country." Take it back from who?
The right has gone so far right that they can't even see the center so they can't even negotiate or cooperate.
That is where the incivility occurs nowadays.
"I remember a time when a person's political affiliation was a confidential thing. I prefer it that way actually..."
There's a time and place for everything. The less people converse the more views drift apart and then they are all the more surprised when they finally do find out each other's views.
People should consider the important link between surprise and outrage. For example: it isn't the gassing of children in Aleppo that makes a person lose their temper, it is when someone cuts too close in front of their car. The amygdala reacts before the frontal cortex can analyse and identify the best response. Even a slightly hasty reply can be worse than none.
I find nothing wrong with discussing politics even in the workplace, in fact I find it healthy that people can exchange controversial opinions with civility. Conversation promotes understanding as well as highlighting and clarifying differences of opinion. It depends how and when to approach a subject. Ordinarily, people don't take offence if offence isn't intended - but not everyone is thoughtful.
Some people have found mindfulness useful....
http://bemindful.co.uk/
I feel I can never have a civil discussion about politics. I'd consider myself right center but whenever I express anything remotely right people jump on me. Ironically whenever I meet someone who is right wing they tend to be their own brand of raving lunatic.
"I'd consider myself right center but whenever I express anything remotely right people jump on me."
That's a great Avatar, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I'm seeing.
I was involved in politics for a few years in New Zealand. I'm on the libertarian right. I want government out of pockets, out of churches, and out of bedrooms.
I even stood for parliament once. Some people you meet from the other end of the spectrum will debate you till the cows come home over matters of policy and ideology, but they stll treat you with respect as a fellow human being. They're what I'd call classy people. And then you get the people who'll key your car, slash your tires, smear shit on your billboards, and call you fascist or other stupid labels. They seem to be driven by tribal instincts, fear and hate. Hilary Clinton stepped over that line when she hurled sweeping insults at Trump supporters. People take political positions for all sorts of reasons. You have to respect their choices and try to persuade them. Insults are not known to win friends and influence people.
Right across the political spectrum, the politicians that I encountered from religious backgrounds were all intolerant, hypocrites. Maybe there are some that aren't like that. But not in my experience. You meet some creepy people, too. There was some kind of evangelist cult leader with his own compound out in the country, who offered to command over 300 of his followers to vote for us.
Sigh, I feel like being classy is becoming an extinct practice in america. The mass media seems to dictate the pace of everyone's stride and the current medias tend to trend toward polarizing things. More and more people seem to be losing site that there is such thing as middle ground. Honestly I'd go so far as to say the media is manufacturing news by playing up the racial tensions because a couple years ago polls felt tensions where lowest ever now they are skyrocketing. But that is besides the point. What was you position in parliament? Also how are race relations over there? I heard from someone they are getting bad. I used to live in New Zealand and I have quite a few Maori friends and I've gathered there seems to be something going on.
@Jackdanel
"What was you position in parliament?"
LOL. On the outside looking in. I got around 1,000 votes. I've been out of New Zealand for several years, so I'm not very current on the race relations situation. The race issue in New Zealand hinges on the Treaty of Waitangi, which is New Zealand's founding document. The New Zealand government was guilty of some major treaty violations,especially over land, and since the 1980s there has been a major effort to compensate Maori tribes. Some tribes seem to be doing well. They've established businesses and set up scholarship schemes. Others have governance problems, and big money has been lost on shonky investments. My son-in-law, who's from a North Island tribe, hates the whole process. He thinks life's too short to wait around for politicians and lawyers to fix everything.
But at least New Zealand is trying. For all the problems, I think New Zealand has done pretty well on race relations compared with Australia, America, and Japan (the Ainu, Burakumin, ethnic Koreans).
Civil discourse is not a serious part of the American political environment at this time. Partly I blame that on the two major parties who can not seem to define their principles clearly and resort to propaganda and demonizing their opponents. Partly I blame it on the American people who do not educate themselves and leave themselves open to media manipulation.
I lean towards left-libertarian and usually leave that out of on-line conversations unless I am prepared to defend my positions against attacks from all angles, not all rational.
If you want to hear a shit and thunder storm coming your way mention Ayn Rand. Holy Crap!
@chimp3
"I lean towards left-libertarian and usually leave that out of on-line conversations unless I am prepared to defend my positions against attacks from all angles, not all rational."
The new freedom of speech: I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to your death my right not to be offended by hearing you say it.
Haha. An accurate definition!