The "politics is not a good conversation topic" phenomenon

We've all been told growing up to "never talk politics, especially controversial politics".

I've generally followed this rule despite a desire to break it, and often. When people around me express empirically wrong or just plain asinine political opinions, I usually hold myself back from verbally backhanding them cause I'm East Asian and polite like that...

But don't you find it strange that everyday political discourse has become taboo in Western Culture? From what I understand, open, informal political discourse has been a central pillar of Western intellectualism since the days of Socrates. How did this crucial and noble tradition become a taboo?

 

People are no longer taught how to critically think by educational institutions, so most throw out unreasoned discourse as retorts. The result is escalated tensions, and you get what you see here on these forums: galvanized political hacks who have no interest in the truth and only wish to defend their side for better or worse.

 

Present company excluded, of course.

 

This is hardly a new phenomenon, it goes back to the beginning of societies. Politics as well as religion or sports are just controversial.

 

That is the reason why most you people are nothing more than indoctrinated sheep - slaves to your rulers!

 

Right... cause Americans and Europeans are not.
You guy invented political correctness and it's enforcement. Fortunately we're still free of that, and can still speak our minds in social circles on issues of race and ethnicity.
There's a lot more freedom of speech in China, not freedom of publication, but what you say to friends and family is unrestricted.

If anything it's the West that's enslaved, and worst of all you're enslaved not even by your own people, but by "those" people who shall go unnamed.

 

The phenomena of political correctness is the other side. The mediocre side.

One on ones are easy. Groups are tougher. Would it surprise you that recently I've been presenting the purpose of free speech, and specifically trying to present it to groups?

I'm finding it is actually easier in groups because it is so simple and basic, founded in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. It is so out of the box but so common sense that people in groups hesitate to challenge it as prime constitutional intent.

If it's challenged in a group it is challenged as a political strategy based on the fact it is so idealistic and out of the box, to offset that I explain those facts in the beginning.

It seems to be kind of refreshing for people that are open minded who have a positive outlook.

 

Because we became too lazy about teaching our kids how to discuss politics and much more importantly when to drop it. As long as a topic whatever it is, interesting , stimulating and positive ,it should be acceptable for discussion. When things get uncomfortable or heated, just let go and change the subject.

I think we have done a terrible disservice to this country by selling this notion. The pollitical discourse that we get exposed to, now only occurs on a tv or a blog or on a site like this, between folks who have a decided interest in a lack of civility, a lack of decorum and a lack of any interpersonal stake in a civil result or between folks who are preselected to agree with us all along. I don't think it is a coincidence that as we have stopped discussing this among friends, families and co-workers, so we have elected Congressmen that can no longer debate civilly and honor the idea of moderation or compromise. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is first a skill we learn from example and practice by listening to our parents and their friends/ family and then starting with baby steps to do it ourselves. We learn how to discuss politics , without labeling each other, without making it too personal, without getting too stubborn and to end things by practicing those social skills and seeing them used. It can stay fun and be a real positive learning engagement when both parties use the same rules of social interaction that they might when disagreeing about sports or how to barbeque a steak. you don't make it personal, an you don't take it personally, and once someone does, its time to ask about the weather.

 

Who are those people then?

but seriously, I've spent a lot of time in East Asia and no-one ever says anything, what are you scared of??

 

Well since you're a white tourist guy, no one really takes you seriously. And most East Asians have enough civility to just politely ignore you.

 

Not sure I would call it lazy. I'd say fearful. Social fears, like nazi Germany, but more dynamic than that.

Rather than lazy, another dynamic with fear. Like disabled. Media took over for us. Ordinary people became unworthy of valid opinion if it was not coinciding with the topic of media, which is everywhere over the continent at once for the most part.

A lot to be said for that. Consider that subject priority or purpose could actually temper peoples ability to avoid anger and instead probe difficult issues more deeply.

Therein is where I could state that the purpose of free speech, as a subject for discussion really shines. Shines really bright.

It changes the value of all discussion to probe it's purpose seriously. The capacity for tolerance increases once the gravity of the purpose is grasped. Free speech in the biological sense has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Or, to become angry and disabled from productive discussion defeats the purpose.

The Indigenous American people of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy shared a perspective upon the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" that was perfectly relevant to this issue at this point replying to your post. Good post BTW! It gets to the heart of the matter. The practice of free speech.

"The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is found through the practice of it. From that understanding can be developed. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That has been removed from our written history. However, through the oral histories of Native people, it has been returned.

"between folks who have a decided interest". Key phrase when covert infiltrators bent upon getting things "uncomfortable or heated," are able to remain covert and do so.

Herein is where the purpose of free speech becomes a tool.

Covert infiltration has the purpose of preventing effective unity within groups of people. Therefore, if a group of people agrees to agree upon the purpose of free speech, the infiltrator CANNOT agree without countering their own agenda.

Why would someone failing to agree with the purpose of free speech be afforded enough standing in discussion to make things "uncomfortable or heated"?

 

It's simple,

It takes guts to speak the truth.

Many are afraid of being called a Racist or actual retaliation for speaking the truth.

The left wing Socialist Racist have been very successful at installing and enforcing political correctness.

All of this is supported by the modern Democratic Party, this is not our fathers party, it has been hi-jacked by Radicals.

 

It takes guts to speak truth when everyone is afraid of it.

Fight for a society that welcomes truth because decisions benefitting all of us are easy to make when the truth is known.

The federal government was hijacked at the civil war by English financiers of the union army. Yes, socialists and communists have been picking at the moral and ethical bones of our dying national spirit as a covert colony.

Left and right are subterfuge and both suck. The principals of the constitution are the only thing worthy of any Americans time. If they are dumb enough to spend time on that party nonsense, their children will pay.

 

Politics is not a good topic for conversation if you your goal is a nice and calm conversation. Politics is just a topic which makes some people lose their civility. Some people will raise their voices, put on their aspergers hat, refuse to listen to any argument, and take any political differences as a personal offence, and will dislike people for their opinions. Other people will be discomforted that other people are dramatically arguing. Some people will undoubtedly embarass themselves by holding ridiculous views.

If you want to ruin a calm get-together and make everyone uncomfortable and possibly dislike eachother, by all means, bring up politics.

 

It hasn't been an accident that we've been bullied into not talking about race, gender issues, religion, or politics. There are those in our society who openly hate the First Amendment. Sen. Harry Reid comes to mind. The Politically Correct Brownshirts come to mind.

 

Basically, the old saying is "Never talk religion or politics in polite conversation." Those two topics are bound to result in hard feelings.

 

The nation has unconsciously become a Masonic Lodge, 24/7/365 in all locations.

 

I thought you were old enough to know the old saying "Never talk politics or religion in polite conversations." The idea has been in print since about 1840. It predates PC.

 

At least as long as I've been alive, the GOP has been generally inclined towards masculinity and the Dems towards femininity. This being the case, political conversations between husbands and wives can easily lead to marital strife.

 

The only reason people get upset is because Americans think that people have to be the same as them and obey them.

Otherwise, this kind of crap really doesn't have to happen.

 

To my understanding, there are many differences between Eastern and Western Culture. The avoidance of politics is just one of the differences. In the West we are not taught good communication and trust of the group, rather we are taught to stay away from the group. Open, honest opinion and feelings are only shown to the smallest, most trusted group such as immediate family or closest, most trusted of friends.

From the time we are born we are taught to value the individual, not the group. We are told of cowboys living by their wits and gun alone. We celebrate the individual athlete even on team sports. We are taught to expect nothing of the community or family and rely only on ourselves for success and wealth. The world is full of child predators, rapists, and robbers, never trust anyone and always carry a gun to protect yourself. The Government is evil and filled with those only concerned with wealth and power, we should never believe the Government or expect any help from officials because they are all corrupt. Coworkers are only out for themselves and will always blame or use you to further their own interests. Never offer help or expect it. Trust no one, defend yourself, don't risk offense, see to your own business. Hide. Fear.

Is it any wonder we avoid talking politics? the surprise is we still talk at all.

 

This is a good point, one which I hadn't considered.

You're right in that East Asia has a stronger tradition of collectivism vs. the Germanic West (I say "Germanic" to distinguish it from the "Latin" West where collectivism is quite strong). And that for us, East Asians we are more likely to share even controversial opinions so long as it's within the social circle.

Though... for political discourse, I see this as an inherently "public" topic, because by its nature, it is regarding the collective, the public, the state, not oneself alone.
I have enormous respect for the great political theorists of modern and ancient West. And I highly doubt if even a single one of them didn't form their opinion based on years of discourse with their peers. In today's world, that would be rather difficult due to the polarizing effect of the internet, and the general taboos surround political discourse in a casual social context.

 

Why ruin a good time by talking politics??

 

The NWO loves you!

If the truth of events, forces and potentials of control in the world are not discussed, in order to properly make decisions, then there may be no good times.