How do you deal with political differences with family and friends?
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
My impression of the right wing's view of freedom of religion is this: "You are free to belong to any religion you want, as long as it's identical to mine and you believe exactly as I do."
It's depressing how many people still can't wrap their minds around the realities of being atheist. A social worker once dismissed a problem I had and said, "Talk to your church" and he seemed flabbergasted and annoyed when I told him I couldn't do that because I don't have a church.
Religion doesn't have to be a divider. It isn't one in my family, anyway.
My dad and I are Lutherans, and my stepmom and her side of the family are all Catholic. Yet we never had a single religious argument. Not once.
Although my dad likes to kid me about my church which is more 'contemporary' than his (even though as I said, we're both Lutherans, and even the same synod). He doesn't have a serious problem with where I go, he just likes to poke fun at how we supposedly all wave our hands in the air and hug everybody and sing rock songs during the service. Which we don't really do.
At least not all the time.
My dad and I are Lutherans, and my stepmom and her side of the family are all Catholic. Yet we never had a single religious argument. Not once.
Although my dad likes to kid me about my church which is more 'contemporary' than his (even though as I said, we're both Lutherans, and even the same synod). He doesn't have a serious problem with where I go, he just likes to poke fun at how we supposedly all wave our hands in the air and hug everybody and sing rock songs during the service. Which we don't really do.
At least not all the time.
Atheism or Agnosticism? Atheism was originally a belief that no God exists and Agnosticism was originally a belief that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. I never understood how someone could claim to know with certainty that no kind of higher power exists since we have no evidence to prove it. Agnosticism always seemed like a more logical point of view to me.
You are welcome to think that. I don't share your view. It would take overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to even begin to convince me that there's a shred of validity in any of the creation myths that have been created by humans.
As Carl Sagan said in Cosmos, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far I haven't seen any extraordinary evidence - or even plain ordinary evidence - that would convince me that anything supernatural created the universe.
But since this thread is supposed to be about politics rather than religion, we shouldn't get sidetracked into an argument about creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/science.
"Belief" implies that it's something most atheists spend a great deal of time thinking about, when in reality it's just something that doesn't really concern you. It's like worrying about being impaled by a unicorn horn. There's zero evidence to support the existence of unicorns, so it's not something that weighs heavily on my mind. I don't actively set out to disprove unicorns or work hard at not believing in them, and I don't participate in groups of people who have a disbelief in unicorns, it just is. It's a more passive form of atheism than the Hitchens/Dawkins variety, but it's a step beyond agnosticism.
Last edited:
The irony is in Western Europe which has official religions, we are less gungho about religion compared to the USA which has no official religion.
Maybe our history of burning people at the stake just for thinking differently has taught us a few things.
As a churchgoer myself, I prefer a secular society than a fascist theocratic one any day.
My father, my aunt, and virtually all of my cousins are avid supporters of Trump. "Genius" has been said more than once to describe him by all of them. So needless to say, I avoid any and all political discussions with 90% of my family. I just don't say anything.
I'm a Libertarian, myself. My birth family is entirely Democratic, some fairly liberal; my in-laws are mostly Republican, some fairly conservative. Hubby is a libertarian-leaning Republican, and our son falls somewhere in-between me and his dad. I love all of these people, and try very hard to keep that in mind when having political conversations with them! After many years, I've mostly learned what subjects I can raise and which I should avoid with any of these people, and they usually practice similar forbearance with me. If we do venture into territory which is likely to be touchy, I try to explain myself calmly (sometimes I'm more successful than other times!) and listen patiently (ditto).
That's the thing to remember, I think.
That's the thing to remember, I think.
Thankfully, there are no Trump supporters in my family. Many of us are Republicans, but even we hate him. So there's no disagreement on that point!
I put together news packages for a public access station and I was told -- for a recent story -- not to mention Trump. I never would've been told that about Obama or even Bush.
There was even a thread in the DSC Forum -- I won't say which one -- where I had to stop myself from posting "I'd rather argue about Discovery than argue about the current political situation." I knew as soon I would've said that, someone would've brought up Trump even though I myself would've tried to phrase it such a way so as to avoid it, and then it would've potentially gone in all kinds of directions. So I figured: Nope. I just won't type what I wanted to. Tempting as it was.
But I did attend the Women's March in RI three days ago. So, I'm doing my part and getting involved. It's just a matter of when and where are the best places. Not everywhere and not every time is.
There was even a thread in the DSC Forum -- I won't say which one -- where I had to stop myself from posting "I'd rather argue about Discovery than argue about the current political situation." I knew as soon I would've said that, someone would've brought up Trump even though I myself would've tried to phrase it such a way so as to avoid it, and then it would've potentially gone in all kinds of directions. So I figured: Nope. I just won't type what I wanted to. Tempting as it was.
But I did attend the Women's March in RI three days ago. So, I'm doing my part and getting involved. It's just a matter of when and where are the best places. Not everywhere and not every time is.
Well, let's see.
My mom, dad, and brother voted for Trump.
My dad passed away in September, so at least I don't have to deal with that. He was the one most able to spar with me intellectually, but he had a HUGE paranoid blind spot regarding his firearms (and probably transferred a lot of his beliefs about them to me, excepting that one.)
My mother... is coming around, I think, slowly. Last month we had a conversation where I learned she's no longer against gay marriage, and she's always been pro-choice.
My brother unfriended me on FB because I took him to task for posting anti-vaccine nonsense (much of which he was taught at chiropractic school because those people are con artists.) I talk to him as little as possible about politics because he deals VERY poorly with being contradicted - like, physically shakes with rage.
My mom, dad, and brother voted for Trump.
My dad passed away in September, so at least I don't have to deal with that. He was the one most able to spar with me intellectually, but he had a HUGE paranoid blind spot regarding his firearms (and probably transferred a lot of his beliefs about them to me, excepting that one.)
My mother... is coming around, I think, slowly. Last month we had a conversation where I learned she's no longer against gay marriage, and she's always been pro-choice.
My brother unfriended me on FB because I took him to task for posting anti-vaccine nonsense (much of which he was taught at chiropractic school because those people are con artists.) I talk to him as little as possible about politics because he deals VERY poorly with being contradicted - like, physically shakes with rage.
Perhaps his "genius" was in his ability to con people into voting for him.
So much of this discussion strikes me as just... sad. Personally, I love discussing and debating political issues. I study American politics and public policy for a living; I'm currently finishing up a PhD in the subject(s). So I'm well aware of how dramatically polarized contemporary politics have become... but I'm also committed to the principle that free and open political discourse is essential for a democratic system to work. It's one of the main reasons we have constitutional protection of free speech, for heaven's sake. This thread is like a case study in how polarization is shutting down discourse and undermining the very foundations of our system of government. 
People should be able to talk about this stuff. They shouldn't have to fear that doing so will cause visceral overreactions and end personal relationships.
Some particular comments stand out to me and compel a response...
Certainly the notion that age brings wisdom doesn't pass even cursory exposure to the real world. Indeed, the obvious counterpoint is something more like this...
Meanwhile...
)
I also have a smattering of friends who are conservative. A (small) handful even supported Trump, although not anybody who's genuinely close to me. I recall the day after the election in 2016, a group of us were hanging out over drinks at a local bar; everybody was stunned by the results and talking about their reactions. One close friend who is fairly religious, fairly conservative, and generally Republican, asked if the anyone was curious how he voted, and I assured him that he didn't have to share that if he didn't want to... but he did, specifically because he wanted to reassure everybody that he had not voted for Trump. Conservative, yes; batshit crazy, no — that's a distinction he wanted to make sure was clear in our minds.
I am a firm believer that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That's true when it comes to discussion of Star Trek (as I think these forums demonstrate most of the time), and it should certainly be true when it comes to the governing processes that actually affect all of our lives on a daily basis.
Basically, it's a case study in people not being reasonable. With that sort of person, family or not, I can understand avoiding political discussions. Or any other kind, frankly.
On the other hand, though, there's an argument to be made that it's important to speak up against people like that. Otherwise they get to express their views as if they're reasonable and rational, without challenge, and the lack of rebuttal only helps to normalize such things, while people whose views actually are reasonable and rational stay silent. It's an imbalance, a feedback loop that perpetuates itself and degrades the quality of politics as it goes.
As a general rule I find the people who can't discuss politics reasonably, who insist on taking everything personally — whether IRL or online — tend to be the people who hold views that they simply can't defend or support reasonably, so getting emotional about things is their only recourse.
It's not an evenly distributed problem, either; not something that's equally bad on "both sides." Political polarization is very much an asymmetric phenomenon. By and large, the politics of liberals and Democrats in this country have stayed fairly consistent over the last 40-odd years (things pushed a bit to the right on economic and foreign policy under Clinton and other DLC types, and nudged a bit to the left on LGBT rights and a few other social issues in response to shifts in public opinion, but on the whole they haven't changed much)... while in that same timeframe the politics of conservatives and Republicans have shifted far, far to the right, growing narrower and more strident as they've moved, and currently occupy a lot of ideological territory that used to be completely beyond the pale in this country. In Congress, for instance, you still find quite a few moderate-to-conservative Dems (Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Bill Nelson, Tim Kaine, and so on)... but the liberal Republican, a commonplace in the 1970s, is flat-out extinct.
To some extent, right-wing media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) has exacerbated both the tone and the content of this shift. It's pushed to normalize views that are more extreme than ever before... and the more extreme those views, the less rationally defensible they are, leading to the kind of discourse dominated by shouting matches and (as described above) Gish Gallops and trolling. It's not just family and friends doing this; we see it modeled by professional pundits and commentators. And that's a damn shame.
But those of us who still care about the future of our country, and who actually understand how to have a reasonable conversation without making things personal, and how to mount an argument grounded on consistent principles, demonstrable evidence, and valid logic, owe it to ourselves... and our families, and our friends!... not to let the worst elements of today's politics drown out everyone else. Even it it's sometimes emotionally stressful, we should speak up and express ourselves. If we don't, things will just keep getting worse.
People should be able to talk about this stuff. They shouldn't have to fear that doing so will cause visceral overreactions and end personal relationships.
Some particular comments stand out to me and compel a response...
This way of thinking is baffling and alien to me. Whether a person and his/her views deserve respect is entirely a function of how that person behaves and what the substance of those views is. What does anyone's age have to do with it?
Certainly the notion that age brings wisdom doesn't pass even cursory exposure to the real world. Indeed, the obvious counterpoint is something more like this...
Meanwhile...
This I can relate to. To the best of my knowledge, no living relative of mine is conservative. In the recent presidential race, for instance, there was never any possibility than anybody would be voting for Trump or any other Republican; the more interesting issue was during the primary season, concerning whether to support Clinton or Sanders. That's something we had some disagreements about... but we were able to express and debate those disagreements rationally, like adults. (I remain firmly convinced that Sanders was the best presidential candidate we've seen in years; that had he been nominated he would have won; that Clinton was a terrible candidate in terms of both policy content and personal demeanor; and that she was nevertheless head-and-shoulders better than Trump or any other Republican running... and I'm happy to explain and defend those views at length to anyone who disagrees, so long as they don't take any personal offense.
)Very much so. Looking beyond family to my circle of friends, most are fairly progressive to one extent or another, but certainly there are disagreements over specific issues or candidates. These things are not only reasonable to talk about, they're interesting and important to talk about.
I also have a smattering of friends who are conservative. A (small) handful even supported Trump, although not anybody who's genuinely close to me. I recall the day after the election in 2016, a group of us were hanging out over drinks at a local bar; everybody was stunned by the results and talking about their reactions. One close friend who is fairly religious, fairly conservative, and generally Republican, asked if the anyone was curious how he voted, and I assured him that he didn't have to share that if he didn't want to... but he did, specifically because he wanted to reassure everybody that he had not voted for Trump. Conservative, yes; batshit crazy, no — that's a distinction he wanted to make sure was clear in our minds.
I am a firm believer that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That's true when it comes to discussion of Star Trek (as I think these forums demonstrate most of the time), and it should certainly be true when it comes to the governing processes that actually affect all of our lives on a daily basis.
This I don't get. People for whom I feel love, affection, respect... these are people who I can talk to, confide in, share things with. They're the people I know won't get personally offended over a difference of opinion. A relationship in which one person is free to express his/her views openly and the other isn't seems fundamentally unbalanced to me.
This is another set of dynamics entirely. The first thing you describe (rapidfire absurd statements) is a technique called the Gish Gallop, sadly commonplace on the right these days; the second (deliberately baiting someone) is plain and simple trolling. Neither of these tactics has anything to do with genuine communication; they characterize people who are more concerned with "winning" or simply getting a reaction than with whether or not anything they say is actually right. They are not honest interlocutors. The "marry my dog" argument is transparently invalid, for instance (marriage involves consent, and a dog is incapable of it), which your Dad surely understood, so he had no excuse for a "spiel" like that.
Basically, it's a case study in people not being reasonable. With that sort of person, family or not, I can understand avoiding political discussions. Or any other kind, frankly.
Yikes. You're not kidding about the patriarchy thing! With or without the anti-semitism added in, that's the kind of attitude that pretty much defenestrates any possibility of respect for the speaker. If someone's not willing to offer at least provisional respect for someone else's views as independent views, that pretty much rules out any possibility of respect in return. It has to be a two-way street.
Yikes again. On the one hand, this is another classic example of unreasonable people... downright delusional, from the sound of it. Public support for Trump these days is dropping perilously close to the Keyes Constant — that is to say, the roughly 27% of the population who can be counted on consistently to put party identification or personal prejudice ahead of rational judgement. Avoiding them is understandable.
On the other hand, though, there's an argument to be made that it's important to speak up against people like that. Otherwise they get to express their views as if they're reasonable and rational, without challenge, and the lack of rebuttal only helps to normalize such things, while people whose views actually are reasonable and rational stay silent. It's an imbalance, a feedback loop that perpetuates itself and degrades the quality of politics as it goes.
It is indeed. Politics shouldn't be a minefield, with people worried that one wrong step will cause an explosion. It certainly shouldn't be terrain where one group of people gets to express their views freely and openly, while others forebear from doing so out of fear of how those in the first group might react.
As a general rule I find the people who can't discuss politics reasonably, who insist on taking everything personally — whether IRL or online — tend to be the people who hold views that they simply can't defend or support reasonably, so getting emotional about things is their only recourse.
It's not an evenly distributed problem, either; not something that's equally bad on "both sides." Political polarization is very much an asymmetric phenomenon. By and large, the politics of liberals and Democrats in this country have stayed fairly consistent over the last 40-odd years (things pushed a bit to the right on economic and foreign policy under Clinton and other DLC types, and nudged a bit to the left on LGBT rights and a few other social issues in response to shifts in public opinion, but on the whole they haven't changed much)... while in that same timeframe the politics of conservatives and Republicans have shifted far, far to the right, growing narrower and more strident as they've moved, and currently occupy a lot of ideological territory that used to be completely beyond the pale in this country. In Congress, for instance, you still find quite a few moderate-to-conservative Dems (Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Bill Nelson, Tim Kaine, and so on)... but the liberal Republican, a commonplace in the 1970s, is flat-out extinct.
To some extent, right-wing media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) has exacerbated both the tone and the content of this shift. It's pushed to normalize views that are more extreme than ever before... and the more extreme those views, the less rationally defensible they are, leading to the kind of discourse dominated by shouting matches and (as described above) Gish Gallops and trolling. It's not just family and friends doing this; we see it modeled by professional pundits and commentators. And that's a damn shame.
But those of us who still care about the future of our country, and who actually understand how to have a reasonable conversation without making things personal, and how to mount an argument grounded on consistent principles, demonstrable evidence, and valid logic, owe it to ourselves... and our families, and our friends!... not to let the worst elements of today's politics drown out everyone else. Even it it's sometimes emotionally stressful, we should speak up and express ourselves. If we don't, things will just keep getting worse.
Last edited:
And yet Americans keep voting for the same kinds of people. It's almost like Americans like having strong opinions on topics they don't really think through.
You don't get the government you want. You get the one you deserve.
As for me, I asked an in-law if he supported that child assaulting pervert Roy Moore. He said "yes". I said "interesting". I thought "I now know every single thing you've ever said about morals is garbage".
And now I'm trying to live my life with less of him and his like. Because we all have differences in opinion and priorities, but if you're so craven for power you'd give authority to a man like that...you've lost the goddamn plot.
Truthfully in debating politics with my Mum she gets offended and hurt when I disagree and I don't want to see her that way. My father-in-law is a different story. He will not abide dissension on practically anything. I was told to get out of his house once for defending my mother-in-law's right to have a blessed mammogram. Yet either way they are my 'elders' and are not going to change their views because of me airing mine. Does that mean I internally respect their views? I do somewhat with Mum because she is a decent person and I love her. She's very liberal and quite polar to me on most matters, but we do have some common ground and I respect her intelligence.
Yeah, see, that last sentence about "elders" is the part where you confuse me. He's obviously an unreasonable person; fuck him and the horse he rode in on. But if he's not open to considering alternative views, it's because of his unreasonableness, not his age. Similarly, that age doesn't win him any automatic respect... and even if he did deserve it, respect is not the same thing as deference, and doesn't foreclose disagreements or discussion thereof.
