I adopted a "no politics" stance with my birth family years ago, with great results. Granted, this is only two-three days a year. It wouldn't work with constant contact, I don't think. Also, there is no jerk in my family who won't leave the subject alone. That wouldn't work, either.
I actually think that in general refusing to discuss political views with people you respect but disagree with is a bad idea. For example everyone I respect agrees that there is too many people being killed in some neighborhoods and also agrees that most of these killings are by people of the same social group. I would not respect you if you think the number of killings is acceptable (which would make you a Nazi) or that they are mostly by the police (which would make you ignorant). We will also agree that having police forced into “suicide by cop” is bad. We may well disagree about what instrumental approach is needed but even here we will agree about much – better training about mental health crises and more resources to deal with them are not that controversial. Beyond that we are trying to predict the future, which is always difficult. I have opinions about what would work but these are not moral opinions and I am not certain that my solutions would be best. Starting a discussion with our mutual moral positions and only then moving to presumed solutions does three things: it identifies us as members of the same moral group, it acknowledges that we actually do not know exactly what the best solutions are, and it provides both of us with a way to learn from each other. Social problems are difficult and complicated. If you do not doubt your own solutions you are a fool and if you demand that others agree with them you are posturing and not discussing.
I agree that avoiding political discussions with people you respect is a bad idea: discussing subjects you disagree about seems like a perfect opportunity to help bridge the partisan divide, since you already know a lot about these people's values and can use that to frame the discussion. This FiveThirtyEight article says it better than I can: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-and-republicans-should-argue-more-not-less/
That said, the Dispatch subscriber should definitely send some boundaries while discussing politics with his/her family, and if the family refuses to respect those boundaries, Kat's advice to refuse to participate further is entirely reasonable. For example, if the family wants to disparage The Dispatch, they should probably read a few of its articles first, and they should avoid personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, sticking instead to facts and their personal beliefs and values.
Yes, but what you suggest will lead to long political debates which may well be acrimonious and not the best way to spend a relatively short period of time with family. People who are submerged in the liberal media information ecosystem are seeing a fundamentally different reality and likewise for conservative media. If someone is a close friend or romantic partner, you can hold a series of discussions to clarify things, but it is a project. Not everyone may be up for that kind of exchange. Most people aren't. If his family really thinks subscribing to The Dispatch makes someone a right wing extremist, then they are not likely to be quite extreme and very sure of their point of view.
Agreed with everything here, but I think her point was to avoid doing this in contentious no-holds-bar type family environments. Obviously, if the family is respectful and open to differing opinions and all enjoy, then by all means.
Understood. It may have taken me years to learn but stepping back and saying "I agree but what I worry about is ..." seems to work almost all of the time.
Good responses this week, Kat
I adopted a "no politics" stance with my birth family years ago, with great results. Granted, this is only two-three days a year. It wouldn't work with constant contact, I don't think. Also, there is no jerk in my family who won't leave the subject alone. That wouldn't work, either.
I actually think that in general refusing to discuss political views with people you respect but disagree with is a bad idea. For example everyone I respect agrees that there is too many people being killed in some neighborhoods and also agrees that most of these killings are by people of the same social group. I would not respect you if you think the number of killings is acceptable (which would make you a Nazi) or that they are mostly by the police (which would make you ignorant). We will also agree that having police forced into “suicide by cop” is bad. We may well disagree about what instrumental approach is needed but even here we will agree about much – better training about mental health crises and more resources to deal with them are not that controversial. Beyond that we are trying to predict the future, which is always difficult. I have opinions about what would work but these are not moral opinions and I am not certain that my solutions would be best. Starting a discussion with our mutual moral positions and only then moving to presumed solutions does three things: it identifies us as members of the same moral group, it acknowledges that we actually do not know exactly what the best solutions are, and it provides both of us with a way to learn from each other. Social problems are difficult and complicated. If you do not doubt your own solutions you are a fool and if you demand that others agree with them you are posturing and not discussing.
I agree that avoiding political discussions with people you respect is a bad idea: discussing subjects you disagree about seems like a perfect opportunity to help bridge the partisan divide, since you already know a lot about these people's values and can use that to frame the discussion. This FiveThirtyEight article says it better than I can: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-and-republicans-should-argue-more-not-less/
That said, the Dispatch subscriber should definitely send some boundaries while discussing politics with his/her family, and if the family refuses to respect those boundaries, Kat's advice to refuse to participate further is entirely reasonable. For example, if the family wants to disparage The Dispatch, they should probably read a few of its articles first, and they should avoid personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, sticking instead to facts and their personal beliefs and values.
Yes, but what you suggest will lead to long political debates which may well be acrimonious and not the best way to spend a relatively short period of time with family. People who are submerged in the liberal media information ecosystem are seeing a fundamentally different reality and likewise for conservative media. If someone is a close friend or romantic partner, you can hold a series of discussions to clarify things, but it is a project. Not everyone may be up for that kind of exchange. Most people aren't. If his family really thinks subscribing to The Dispatch makes someone a right wing extremist, then they are not likely to be quite extreme and very sure of their point of view.
Agreed with everything here, but I think her point was to avoid doing this in contentious no-holds-bar type family environments. Obviously, if the family is respectful and open to differing opinions and all enjoy, then by all means.
Understood. It may have taken me years to learn but stepping back and saying "I agree but what I worry about is ..." seems to work almost all of the time.