I’ve spent most of my life surrounded by people with opposing views, whether it’s my pro-KMT parents or somewhat-woke siblings. I also live in Austin, which is almost 70% Democratic, but have spent a considerable amount of time this year quarreling with conservative Covid-deniers online.
Being amidst people of similar political views would feel a bit odd to me. I don’t like echo chambers.
I generally avoid arguing politics. Many of my family and friends are conservative kool aid drinkers. For example: My adopted brother went to a symposium where Wayne La Pierre spoke and came away with a lifetime membership in the NRA. He doesn’t own a gun, nor does he hunt.
Confirmation bias runs rampant in my family and friends.
I’m very comfortable but no one else in the room will be.
Comfortable? Well, I can be, so long as we are not discussing politics or social views I find abhorrent. I can golf, play music, and otherwise socialize w/ folk who are strongly religious, or politically conservative - but a part of me questions the rationale behind their beliefs. IMO, they are either selfish, prejudiced, ignorant, or a combination of all of the above and more.
I get no satisfaction out of arguing politics ad religion. I used to, but I have never persuaded anyone to change their minds, nor have they changed mine. In one instance, such discussions harmed a close friendship.
I have some close friends who are religious. We tend to just not discuss it. I can ignore that someone I otherwise like and respect is simply ignorant and irrational on this one issue. More problematic if they are extreme, hating gays and such. I have no close relationships with anyone who evangelizes.
Re: politics, I’m pretty certain I have no Trump supporters among my closest friends. Some family members are quite conservative politically, and FIL and his wife are Trumpists. We do not discuss politics, and I think less of them for their beliefs.
As has been graphically demonstrated (within the past week in fact) I can get along swimmingly with people with different political/religious opinions as long as nobody broaches the subject. But if somebody finally broaches a political/religious opinion, I will respond, and generally will not pull punches.
So I’m real comfortable around those with different political opinions as long as they shut up about it.
I’m fine with people of different political opinions. I’m something of a centrist and can see both sides of many issues. Even the pretty hot-button wedge issues, I can easy see merit to the arguments against my beliefs/opinions.
Lately, though, it seems that a difference of political opinion is less founded on different values and societal goals, and more on a completely different perception of reality. It seems to be getting more difficult to find common ground.
This is one of those subjects where I look at two different aspects - the “what”, and the “how”. Someone may have political opinions that diverge from mine in any direction - that is the “what”. My comfort level with them as a person is tied into the “how” - how they express themselves to me. If they are generally respectful of me, and express themselves regarding what is important to them and why - even if I disagree - then I am comfortable with that. If instead, they loudly parrot garbage falsehoods and get gleeful pleasure out of “owning” someone else with their heated rhetoric - well then, I don’t need to spend any time around them.
I have several close friends that are conservative, varying on the scale from fiscally conservative/socially liberal to “build the wall!”. Our group, which includes liberals on the scale from supporting BLM and marriage equality to “Bernie!”, does a lot of activities together such as cycling and snow sports. We all get along fine and can discuss current events, usually with humor with an effort not to insult the person, but focus on the issue or statement someone made, backed up with data and cites.
We don’t call each other names - there is a semblance of respect, and we do not try to change minds, just inform, challenge, and learn. It is not a bad thing to have your views challenged from time-to-time - these men have helped me evolve my thinking on some things, and I believe they have evolved their views on some things as well. Dialogue is good - bubbles are bad.
Everyone is intelligent and has their reasons for their opinions. It all begins with respect, and besides, we enjoy each other’s company doing other things and don’t talk about politics ALL the time.
I agree with Pantastic, tho - there are those that are just beyond the pale and no productive conversation is possible. I stay clear of those people.
Anyone who thinks the Dope is an echo chamber apparently has very poor reading comprehension skills, because I see liberal vs. liberal arguments all the time here. In the Kamala Harris thread there are plenty of opinions on her nomination all over the spectrum, from “best choice!” to “You have got to be kidding me.”
Meanhoo tho, we have plenty of quotes there from media & political righties that are mind-blowingly racist &/or sexist. There’s a rational difference of opinion, and then there’s that.
Just because the differing liberal viewpoints contend with each other doesn’t mean that the place is not a liberal echo chamber in wider terms. It’s a matter of degree- there are some definite widely held beliefs here that are if not sacrosanct, certainly agreed to in principle, if not degree. The viability and necessity of single-payer universal health care is one example. It’s just accepted here that it’s needed and viable in the US, without much recognition of any issues the US may face, be they historical or practical.
I generally don’t have issues with people whose views differ from mine, especially when they’re closer overall to me, even if they’re on the other side of the aisle. I mean, I’m fairly center in my beliefs (right of center on some, left of center on others), so I’m more likely to agree with moderate Democrats and Republicans than I am extremists from either side.
I generally can get along socially with extremists on either side, although I do admit that I tend to gently bait them if they’re particularly vocal or impassioned about their beliefs. An acquaintance(“Cletus”) is my brother in law’s brother in law, and he’s something of an idiot, and the worst example of the ignorant right-wing. He’s the sort of dumb-ass who goes on about a hypothetical North American currency union (the “Amero”) or about how Obama was enacting all the environmental restrictions on vehicles with the express intent of hurting country people. And a bunch of other half-thought out ignorant nonsense. He’s not racist as best as I can tell, but he’s not exactly a paragon of critical thought or common sense. I get along fine with him- he probably likes me because I’ll talk to him, even if I do yank his chain subtly and rile him up even more.
Extreme liberals who aren’t trying to guilt me into believing or doing anything are cool too. I had a college acquaintance who was something of a neo-hippie in the early 1990s, and he was a completely cool guy who was very thought provoking. Part of it was that he put his money where his mouth was, and went out and spiked old growth trees, demonstrated in public, etc… And most of all, he wasn’t in the business of deliberately trying to make the rest of us feel ashamed or guilty. Which is a big failing of many modern liberals- if someone doesn’t agree, they shouldn’t try to tell them that they’re morally wrong, or should be ashamed, etc… that only pisses people off and hardens hearts.
This I think is the biggest issues, and I thank @iamthewalrus_3 for bringing it up. I have for a long time considered myself a moderate, fiscally conservative, social liberal. And I own firearms, having gone through appropriate training for a CCW permit for that matter. I used to argue with the extremes on both sides, but that was when I could, to use STMB standards, demand someone provide a cite to back up claims.
But these days, fact based arguments are gone - when someone uses conspiracy theories as the ‘facts’ and ‘people are saying’ as support for their POV, it is exhausting. When Republicans won’t even call out those on their own side that have stated and repeated easily verifiable, blatant falsehoods, I can’t support them, even if I often agree with some of their other points of view. So as others have said, it has become a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ situation for me in my very purple state.
I stand by my thoughts up-thread, that it’s worth it to find out if the person of a differing opinion is willing to argue the facts of a matter, but if not… well, I walk away. Now if only I could use that tactic with my COVID-denier father-in-law…
I think the Walrus nailed a big part of it. It used to be that debating someone over something political was like two sports fans going at it; who’s better, the Bears or Packers? etc. etc. but at least they’d be going off of common facts.
Now it’s like two fans going at it, but they can’t even agree on how many points a touchdown is worth, what the definition of a “field goal” is, or how many Super Bowls a given team has won. Making matters worse, it’s not even like one is correct. Instead of one fan correctly arguing that a touchdown is worth six points and the other fan saying “nuh-uh,” you have one fan claiming that it’s worth one point and the other saying it’s worth ten.
This is like saying Free Republic isn’t a right-wing echo chamber because conservatives disagree with fellow conservatives over there.
Well, but that’s not really communication is it? It’s argument. You might, for example, start by digging deeper into what their specific views are about some topic, with open-ended questions to elicit further information, and then say “well, I don’t agree with that part, because…” Communication isn’t challenging and correcting, it’s finding out their point of view and communicating your own, with respect. You have to be actually willing to change your mind when confronted with an unpleasant truth, and so do they.
If there is a disagreement about the facts, that’s where you have to be prepared to support yours with evidence, and to examine their evidence objectively.
It should not be necessary to add, this only works with someone who is as reasonable (sounding) as the OP’s other person. If you are dealing with non-reality-based people, then why are you wasting your time?
Also, we got both kinds of music here!
Discovered this weekend that my cousin has gone over to the dark side and was ranting about how the Democrats are deliberately trying to discredit the use of hydroxychloroquine (which is totally effective, of course) so that more people die and it makes President Trump look bad and that’s just how totally evil the Democrats are and anyway Uganda uses it and only had 13 deaths so it makes you think. I settled for pointing out that Uganda has in fact stopped using it because it’s not been shown to have any effect; this was followed by the goalposts making a mad dash for the horizon. The statement that you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into holds sadly true.
I enjoy discussions (as opposed to arguments) with people who disagree with me politically, especially when those people are well-informed and I can learn something from them.
My enjoyment ends when I hear some form of, “you’ll never change my mind on this,” the discussion devolves into name-calling, or the other person tries to pigeon-hole me. Owning a gun doesn’t make me a Republican and thinking Trump is a horrible human being doesn’t make me a Democrat.
That is an absolutely awesome analogy. I’ll be borrowing it!
It’s incredibly annoying that since the COVID-19 pandemic began everyone thinks they’re a statistician.
I hope I’m not repeating myself but I have a condition that must be met before I will even attempt to discuss politics with a Trump supporter. If they say that if DJT and his coterie use antidemocratic tactics and happen to grift the odd billion or ten while doing so and that’s a lot less than what progressive policies will cost the nation, we can at least debate the policies.
If they insist that Donald is “the best president of our lifetimes” and that he is a victim of liberal persecution, then no conversation is remotely possible.
well I guess the important thing is that you are keeping an open mind.
If you are serious I think that is a unhelpful approach to take if you are truly interested in open discussion. You are in effect asking someone to agree that you are right before discussing why they might be right.
It is the equivalent of me starting a conversation with a catholic with the condition that they accept there is no god, their doctrine is a sham and their organisation hierarchy is full of paedophilic, homophobic and misogynistic hate-mongers who are concerned only with accrual of power and money. I don’t think that shows good faith inquiry and openess on my part.
Of course I said “if” you are interested in open inquiry, you actually may not be, and so such an unrealistically high bar is useful for you.
I’m perfectly happy to be around different political opinions, that has been the case with family and friends all my life and I’ve never fallen out with them yet.
Minds have been changed on both sides on various subjects and the way I think of it is to come at such discussions with a attitude of concern and care for the person you are speaking to.
I don’t want to criticise them just for the purpose of winning an argument and I make the assumption (until I see evidence otherwise) that they are aguing their point in good faith too. They don’t want me to be wrong or misinformed and vice versa. Like a healthy familial relationship you want those you care about to be as well informed and educated as possible and taking/giving crticism in that spirit is healthy.
I get that constructive criticism vibe from some on this board but the point scoring and bad-faith argumentation is also sadly prevelant and always turns me off. I walk away a lot more than I used to whenever I sense it.
I suspect, unfortunately, it is an inherent function of the online world, in the real world with physical connections and face-to-face interactions such tactics would be less on show but it may be that the polarised and confrontational nature of social media is infecting that too.
All of this depends on what the “opinions” are, doesn’t it?
I’m totally unafraid of anyone, regardless of political opinions. I’m a big white guy, so the law protects me, with the bigness serving as a backup. But if I hear someone expresses an opinion that 100% correlates with being a racist, bully, or asshole, they’re out of my life, with a dose of shaming on the way out the door.
Is it out of the bounds of imagination that someone’s political views make them an asshole? Do assholes get a pass just because they characterize their opinion as politics? Not in my world.
Libertarians are those crazy uncles at dinner parties who believe humans will somehow self organize into efficient gangs of self-actualizing enlightened rational actors. It’s kinda fun to hear their opinions about whether exponential accumulation is a problem at all, or whether all entrenched corruption can be overcome with sufficient merit and sheer human potential unshackled from the oppression of demotivational democracies. Or something like that. It’s not a philosophy I’m able to subscribe to, but at least it’s internally consistent for the most part, if a bit out of touch with reality.
Republicans and Trumpers, on the other hand? These days it’s mostly just “I wonder which of us will shoot first.” 
It’s not a matter of comfort anymore. I’d sooner have a conversation with Bin Laden than one of them. I can only pray Yellowstone goes off before the civil war starts.