As I am sure is the case for many of you, I have a tendency to contribute to political discussions much more readily on RHP than in the real world. Obviously virtual anonymity is more comfortable than consequential confrontation.
With that said, I was curious to know: how likely are you to weigh in on casual political discussions in the real world? Do you usually only talk with acquaintances or friends, or would you weigh in on a discussion on the street? Are you more likely to open up to people with like-minded perspectives, or are you eager to rebut arguments from your ideological opposites single-handedly? Do you interrupt the conversation, or do you wait until your opinion is sought?
I for one am the polar opposite of my persona here on RHP. More often than not, I will refuse to contribute to a conversation under any circumstances, unless somebody asks for my opinion. I assume that in our hyper-political society, nobody would care (or pretend to care) otherwise. Even then, if the other person in the conversation has opinions completely disparate from my own, I usually try to steer the conversation away from politics altogether, as I assume the confrontation isn’t worth the potential substance of the discussion.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by wittywonkaUsusally when discussing politics, what you are essentially doing is visiting belief systems people have which are needed to help them understand and explain what makes the world go round. It is like telling an atheist about God or vise versa. Those belief systems will be defended to the death, otherwise they are faced with a crisis of sorts as they admit to themselves that they need a new belief system because the current one they are using is "faulty". Such belief systems are vital to help extrapolate the data.
As I am sure is the case for many of you, I have a tendency to contribute to political discussions much more readily on RHP than in the real world. Obviously virtual anonymity is more comfortable than consequential confrontation.
With that said, I was curious to know: how likely are you to weigh in on casual political discussions in the real world? D ...[text shortened]... s I assume the confrontation isn’t worth the potential substance of the discussion.
Thoughts?
For example, global warming comes to mind. Sure the climate is getting warmer. Sure there are carbon emissions. And? Then comes the extarpolation aided by a particular belief system that brings the two together.
I suppose the desire is, if I can only make them "see the light". But inevitabely, with our well constructed logic we fall short becuase a lot is riding on the line. There are those rare and inexplicable moments, however, where people actually tear down and rebuild a particular belief system. It's an event wrapped in mystery and one I think we strive to initiate every day.
Originally posted by wittywonkaI enjoy political discussions in 'real life' but, as I am living outside the Europe-U.S.A. domain, I often find myself offering a bit of devil's advocacy when confronted with people brandishing stereotypes or misconceptions, e.g. I often encounter rather blunt and detail-free condemnations of the U.S. and it is more fun to confront them than let them go by.
As I am sure is the case for many of you, I have a tendency to contribute to political discussions much more readily on RHP than in the real world. Obviously virtual anonymity is more comfortable than consequential confrontation.
With that said, I was curious to know: how likely are you to weigh in on casual political discussions in the real world? D ...[text shortened]... s I assume the confrontation isn’t worth the potential substance of the discussion.
Thoughts?
If I am in a situation where I am training people, I tend towards facilitating them expressing themselves rather than telling them what I personally think. That is certainly the case when lecturing undergraduates.
There are many situations where, quite clearly, there is no battle to be won or lost over opinions - like with clients and certain colleagues, in which case I tend not to bother.
Originally posted by whodey... It is like telling an atheist about God or vise versa. Those belief systems will be defended to the death, otherwise they are faced with a crisis of sorts as they admit to themselves that they need a new belief system because the current one they are using is "faulty".
Ususally when discussing politics, what you are essentially doing is visiting belief systems people have which are needed to help them understand and explain what makes the world go round. ...
This is utterly not so for about 75% of the people I've discussed things with in depth over the last 20 years. Most people I talk to are happy to trade ideas and are not doing anything remotely like "defending [their outlook] to the death" or "facing a crisis of sorts" when talking to someone with whom they do not agree. Nothing like this at all.
Indeed, the majority of people I engage with quite clearly recognize that there's much more to 'debate' than "[to] see the light" on one hand or be objectively "faulty" on the other, and I rarely see people "tearing down and rebuilding[their] particular belief systems". Do you? What a shocking intellectual landscape you seem to be describing! Good grief. Are you being tongue in cheek?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by wittywonkaYes to all of that, but weighing in on RHP is making me more prone to weigh in generally with beings I can actually see🙂.
As I am sure is the case for many of you, I have a tendency to contribute to political discussions much more readily on RHP than in the real world. Obviously virtual anonymity is more comfortable than consequential confrontation.
With that said, I was curious to know: how likely are you to weigh in on casual political discussions in the real world? D ...[text shortened]... s I assume the confrontation isn’t worth the potential substance of the discussion.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by wittywonkaI don't believe that the anonymity is a great factor. The reason, primarily for me is to test my ideas, the goal ulimately is to be right, to know what is true. Although due to time restrictions and maybe some laziness I stick to things that I already know to be right, then it's just the satisfaction of kicking control freak butt.
Obviously virtual anonymity is more comfortable than consequential confrontation.
Outside of RHP most people I know are aware of my politics, it doesn't get too much of an airing because most people unfortunately aren't interested in politics one way or the other, and that is unfortunate not because we don't get to have some beauty debates, it's unfortunate because they don't recognise the growth of state interference in our lives, the slow boiled frog scenario, and we get young folk like KN thinking that nanny state is the way it should be and can only be.
Originally posted by whodeyIt is like telling an atheist about God or vise versa.
Vice versa? What, you mean it's like telling God about an atheist? Do you have a hotline to God? Anyway, surely God knows there are atheists already.
Those belief systems will be defended to the death, otherwise they are faced with a crisis of sorts as they admit to themselves that they need a new belief system because the current one they are using is "faulty".
Some of us try not to adhere to an overarching belief system at all, let alone defend it to the death. We try to make decisions about particular problems on the basis of the available evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, as you claim it is for global warming, then we form our opinion on the basis of the balance of probabilities. New evidence, of course, may shift our attitudes on a range of topics sufficiently for this to consitute a change in worldview, but this is nothing more than the sum total of tiny individual shifts in perspective. No need for a whole worldview to be torn down and rebuilt in the way you suggest.
Originally posted by FMFDiscussing ideas is one thing but changing world views it quite another. From the first thread on this site has much changed regarding your world view? If so, I haven't seen it.
[b]... It is like telling an atheist about God or vise versa. Those belief systems will be defended to the death, otherwise they are faced with a crisis of sorts as they admit to themselves that they need a new belief system because the current one they are using is "faulty".
This is utterly not so for about 75% of the people I've discussed things ...[text shortened]... landscape you seem to be describing! Good grief. Are you being tongue in cheek?[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThis thread is about 'real life' away from here, not what you've seen or not seen on threads here. Did you not understand that from the OP?
Discussing ideas is one thing but changing world views it quite another. From the first thread on this site has much changed regarding your world view? If so, I haven't seen it.
If, in real life, you find discussing politics - as you claim - involves the people you talk to "defending their opinions to the death" or "facing a crisis of sorts" because someone disagrees, and such drama, then that may go some way to explaining your general demeanour on these threads. Perhaps.
Have you done anything over the years to improve - in real life - the political/intellectual environment you find yourself in.
I love political debates and around the extended family dinner table, I'll take virtually any position just to keep the debate going. Usually this means taking the liberal position, as the society I hang out in tends to be very conservative, especially on social issues and foreign policy.
BTW, whodey, I for one am willing to change my political beliefs and have done so. Since I've joined RHP, I've become:
1) More liberal on social issues, since I can never seem to defend state interference with people's lives in a manner that I feel comfortable posting
2) More in favor of a natural rights theory. In 2009 I posted on this forum that rights in the US are only as broad as the Constitution dictates. No1 (mainly) has convinced me otherwise and I now subscribe to a Lockean/Madisonian natural rights theory (though I'd still define the set of natural rights more narrowly than does No1)
3) Less religiously inclined since debating exercises plainly show that it's almost impossible to rationally defend any specific religious belief (though I still firmly believe in the hand of some sort of higher intelligence being involved in the creation of the Universe)
4) More opposed to socialism for socialism's sake (ie., redistributing wealth for the sake of social justice) as I see the kinds of facist-like excesses that sort of thinking can lead to.
etc.
I debate politics regularly, also with people I don't know very well (though I tend to be a bit more reserved then). It's a common thing to do in Dutch culture, and things tend not to heat up that much because there are about 10 (significantly differing) political parties and you always assume the other guy doesn't share your opinion in the first place. Having said that, the left-right dichotomy does appear sometimes, despite not being applicable to Dutch politics in any meaningful sense.
Originally posted by FMFI find that people often shy away from political debates. This is often due to not wanting to offend other people and/or a lack of knowledge about politics.
If, in real life, you find discussing politics - as you claim - involves the people you talk to "defending their opinions to the death" or "facing a crisis of sorts" because someone disagrees, and such drama, then that may go some way to explaining your general demeanour on these threads. Perhaps.
Those that due usually try to sway those around them and have an axe to grind. Usually the conversation ends in futility.
The same can be said of religious subjects.
Originally posted by sh76Ron Paul 2012 !!! 🙂
1) ... liberal on social issues...
2) ... in favor of a natural rights theory.
3) Less religiously inclined...
4) ... opposed to socialism
I pretty much only weigh in on political discussions with people I know well, or in one on one situations. Participating here at RHP has helped me challenge and test my own beliefs, and like sh76 I've changed a few of them.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI can't support Paul because complete economic anarchy is impractical and almost as dangerous as socialism and because his lala land isolationism is silly. But I will say this for the man: He's not afraid to tell it like he sees it.
Ron Paul 2012 !!! 🙂
I pretty much only weigh in on political discussions with people I know well, or in one on one situations. Participating here at RHP has helped me challenge and test my own beliefs, and like sh76 I've changed a few of them.