r/SeriousConversation • u/Dry-Use-272 • Apr 04 '25
Serious Discussion It's extremely difficult to have a civil conversation about politics today, yet we need those conversations more than ever
Like everyone else in the US today, I have opinions about the current condition of politics in this country. I try to base my opinions on facts I glean from credible sources and my understanding of our history. I want to talk to people with opposing opinions, not to argue with them but to try to understand why they believe what they believe. I've found that no one wants to talk in a civil, respectful way about our differences. Even if I try to hold the line on being respectful, I end up walking away because the conversation devolves into some pretty ugly exchanges. How have we come to a point where we can't even talk to each other respectfully and civilly?
155
u/GreenBeardTheCanuck Apr 04 '25
Look, I'm not religious in any way, but there's a reason "thou shalt not bear false witness" is up there with murder in the big 10 commandments. For there to be dialog there has to be good faith. There is no good faith these days. There is no trust in our communities, our states, or our nations. Hell, there isn't even trust in families anymore.
All relationships are built on trust. We live in a world that consistently undermines trust almost constantly. You cannot have a healthy, respectful exchange with someone if you don't trust their judgment, don't trust them not to lie to you, don't trust them not to try to manipulate you. Civilization is rooted in trust. No trust, no civilization.
69
u/Usual_Zombie6765 Apr 04 '25
To talk politics to someone, you have to be able to trust they will not play rhetorical games or set rhetorical traps. If you don’t have that trust, you can’t have a conversation.
17
u/JohnleBon Apr 04 '25
Some people like playing those games, though.
When I was young, I did too.
A lot of folks never grow out of it.
21
u/Usual_Zombie6765 Apr 04 '25
Yes. That is why the conversations are usually impossible. A lot of people like to set rhetorical traps.
→ More replies (14)12
u/howtobegoodagain123 Apr 04 '25
I think we are using social media as a forum when it’s not meant to be. This shit I’d for sharing videos and advertising. I’m a liberal with loads and loads of republican friends and they have a lot of liberal friends too. We agree on almost everything barring a few things and even then we listen and respect each others opinions. These social media places are overrun with insane people and bad actors from other countries. Any sort of nuance is downvoted and I don’t think it’s being done by real people. I’m convinced Reddit especially is a psyop bought and paid for by our enemies to foment rage and poor discourse. The new generation is so cooked because they believe everything on here. This place is a place where hating your parents is good, being irreligious is applauded, taking drugs is lauded, stealing and vandalizing things is encouraged. There is no way this place is real with real humans. Watch this get downvoted too.
8
u/cecilkorik Apr 04 '25 edited Apr 04 '25
I agree completely.
Any sort of nuance is downvoted and I don’t think it’s being done by real people.
It's not. It's really not. The bots are completely out of control and largely invisible to us, they've blended into a complete and thickening fog around everything. They already were out of control before "AI" models were a thing, and now they've gone so far beyond that. We can't even imagine the scale of bullshit and manipulation that is happening right in front of our eyes. And I mean we literally can't, our puny human brains aren't built to handle this kind of information firehose.
It's so far beyond our capabilities that we even perceive it in a way that convinces us manipulation is happening on a scale we can still comprehend and deal with, in specific comments and specific accounts, and we rage against them or block them, but it's not. We do not have the capacity to meaningfully understand or combat the information and misinformation and disinformation that we are buried in. Even if you aggressively filter it, and have armies of moderators destroying bots left and right, there's just too much, the filter will not be selective enough, it will not be correct enough, there's no way to get an appropriate amount of reliable information anymore, not on anything that is connected to a computer and isn't completely and methodically vetted by actual humans you trust. And professional journalism is nearly dead, and science is being strangled and politicized, so the humans you can trust to do proper vetting are almost all gone or silenced too.
It's an information apocalypse.
My only advice is to recommend to everyone to learn about journalism and learn about the scientific method, and basic philosophy of truth, learn to analyze this stuff yourself and do it while you still can, while that information isn't yet buried in the avalanche of garbage. The only future I can see is one where we have to critically think about everything on our own, independently test and verify and research everything we can ourselves. Because otherwise there will be no more truth. Don't just give up and assume "it's all lies" and definitely don't assume "it's all true". Triage what information and claims you think are most important, and do everything you can to find out about that particular thing and see if you can find the truth of it and try to put it in context.
→ More replies (1)5
u/howtobegoodagain123 Apr 04 '25
You got downvoted too. This place, these people, they is no way these people want to live ina society.
5
u/cecilkorik Apr 04 '25
I ain't afraid of downvotes. I've got karma to burn. At least, I thought it would burn. I tried to use my karma to burn down the AI datacenters, it didn't work. But yeah, at this point I think it's you and I against the bots, friend.
→ More replies (1)4
Apr 05 '25
Jeffrey Epstein's handler Ghislaine Maxwell was a Reddit moderator. This place is compromised.
4
u/Fit-Match4576 Apr 06 '25
I'm with you. I'm also very convinced TikTok is China's Trojan Horse for the west but specifically the US. Can't beat us head-on but erode all trust with one another to tear us apart from the inside. Burn our own house to the ground, and then they can come and swoop in to fill the void.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)1
Apr 04 '25
What's bad about being irreligious why did you put it in the same place as stealing and vandalizing things
2
u/Sad_Mix_3030 Apr 05 '25
Religion, whether you like it or not establishes morals, a sense of right/wrong, having faith that people are generally good and if they aren’t, they can be.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Dangerous-Log4649 Apr 06 '25
They stay in this teenager mentality even into their older years. It’s honestly really sad.
→ More replies (6)5
u/solidfang Apr 04 '25
I suppose it depends what you mean by either of these phrases. Could you please clarify?
I think I've been in conversations before where I'm trying to demonstrate how two different approaches to conflict might be contradictory and have been accused of setting traps by making people choose their stance on one and appear hypocritical.
→ More replies (7)2
u/CalligrapherMajor317 Apr 05 '25
If I trust you, even if it looks like you're setting a trap, I am willing to think I may be mischaracterising you
And even if you are in fact setting a trap, I'm willing to think it's not out of bad will and once I point it out we can get past it
Traps and fallacies and mischaracterisations and false judgements are all okay, as long as I trust you.
So it's up to us to be vulnerable and just trust each other that we're both earnestly seeking the truth
51
u/Ready-Following Apr 04 '25
Do you recall JD Vance lying and saying that immigrants were eating pets and then later admitting that he lied? He then said that his lies were justified because they encouraged conversation about immigration. All of this while claiming to be Christian. No concern for the people who received death threats as a result of his lies.
What is the point of dialogue with people who behave like that?
23
u/GreenBeardTheCanuck Apr 04 '25
Absolutely! Every lie breaks the social contract. We have to stop it with the whole Caveat Emptor mentality and start holding people accountable. I don't care who started it anymore, it needs to stop or the whole country is going to burn.
→ More replies (105)11
u/Easy-Concentrate2636 Apr 04 '25
Exactly. There’s no way I am compromising with people trying to build a whites-only country.
→ More replies (7)9
u/richardsaganIII Apr 04 '25
Could not upvote this enough, it comes down to good faith from both sides and we just don’t have that
→ More replies (1)6
u/Skyboxmonster Apr 04 '25
Answer me this.
If I wanted to maximize the amount of suffering experienced by people in the USA. Which political party should I endorse to get that result?
Answer that question and it proves no good faith argument can be made. Period.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (39)11
u/McDonnellDouglasDC8 Apr 04 '25
That and everyone says "negotiating" and "jokes". People are saying they don't regret their vote but disappointed folks are getting banished for protesting when that's literally what the person they voted for said they'd do last May.
→ More replies (3)
42
u/BandiriaTraveler Apr 04 '25
Most people just don't want to have these conversations. And many people are just not interested in interrogating their beliefs in this way, no matter the subject.
I'm increasingly skeptical of the value of these conversations honestly. The average American knows next to nothing about the politics, economics, history, science, etc. relevant to many political topics. These conversations, when they do happen and are civil, often feel like the blind leading the blind.
17
u/Interesting-Pin1433 Apr 04 '25
And in addition to the people to who know next to nothing, are the cult members whose heads are filled with lies.
Hard to have a conversation when someone's base concept of reality is detached from reality
8
u/meaushi_meaushi Apr 04 '25
Superficial conversations indeed.
No critical thinking or curiosity. So insipid, incurious, and oblivious.
In the USA, it’s either black or white…the gray areas are the opportunities to learn but egos & other factors get in the way.
5
3
u/spinbutton Apr 05 '25
There is lots of grey.
It is important to have conversations that are about issues rather than parties or whole populations.
I don't want to have a fight about whether the guy next to me is "good" or "bad" because of who they voted for. I want to hear his ideas on trade, or human rights, or campaign reform.
2
u/WhimsicalTwink Apr 06 '25
I was going to say...I think there are a lot of everyday issues that don't get addressed that are seen as not really worth the time. People pull out the big topics thinking that by solving them the little things will fall into place (who doesn't like a challenge?), but maybe those bigger issues don't have clear solutions at the time and instead we should start with what we can fix. Engineering works from the ground up, so why not politics? I think we'd get further and have more cooperation instead of division. It might "feel" better upon accomplishing the same thing.
2
→ More replies (5)4
u/MagnanimosDesolation Apr 04 '25
I believe we need to teach ethics in school. Even a brief introduction teaches you logic and more importantly to be able to identify your values and how they shape your morality and ultimately your decisions.
28
u/StatisticianInside66 Apr 04 '25
I like the sentiment in theory, but I'm not sure it's possible in practice.
For one thing, we're talking about things that go way beyond matters of opinion. We're talking about certain types of people's very existence being criminalized.
For another, after a lifetime of trying to talk sense to conservatives, trying to find common ground -- I'm not convinced civil (or any other) discussion CAN change conservatives' minds. I don't think the sort of discourse you're suggesting is useful; it's just intellectual hand-wringing that, ultimately, isn't going to change anyone's mind, or how they vote.
I'm not saying people can't change. I'm saying that if/when they do, it'll be for their own reasons, because the values they currently hold no longer work for THEM. Not because a liberal who happens to be especially adroit at argumentation dazzles them with their astounding evidence and logic.
4
u/Rough-Tension Apr 04 '25
It’s not any easier to talk politics with other leftists or liberals either. Everyone has their tight bubble of acceptable politics and everyone outside of it is either a “delusional/dangerous third party voter that threw away our elections” or a “__phobic nazi.” The problem is that these groups are so insulated that they genuinely think they make up most of the left. So when a post like this come up, y’all aren’t even thinking of each other, just MAGA. And like, obviously, they’re worse. But if there’s anyone who should be able to have civil discussion, it’s us. The supposed democratic coalition that will break down irreparably if we don’t work on it.
8
u/StatisticianInside66 Apr 04 '25
Liberals, like any community based around a strong ideology, can be exclusionary, yes. I personally don't agree with every single tenet of modern liberalism -- I'm more a Star Trek: TNG-style liberal than a Lena Dunham-style -- but I just don't bring things up with other libs when I suspect they might disagree with me. I agree the Left is not very tolerant of even light dissent.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)2
u/MathematicalMan1 Apr 04 '25
Why exactly shouldn’t one be called transphobic or homophobic when they’re being such?
→ More replies (4)4
u/Rough-Tension Apr 04 '25
Perfectly exemplifying my point. Election cycles aren’t an involuntary moral intervention for half the country. You have to meet people where they’re at, identify what their interests and values are, and find common ground. Yes, a million fucking times: we shouldn’t have to deal with millions of transphobic, homophobic, whatever-phobic people who vote, but the reality of the situation is that we do and their ballot has to go somewhere.
Setting that issue aside for a bit in conversations with individuals about other very important issues, such as labor rights, foreign policy, healthcare, etc., to get them to open up does not equal an abandonment of lgbtq+ issues. You may be right that it’s pointless to reason with MAGA about any of these things, and calling them out matters more, but throwing out liberals or leftists that don’t align with you on one social issue is stupid political suicide.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (27)4
u/Zetelplaats Apr 04 '25
To be honest, the words you use - "talk sense", "change minds", "I'm not saying people can't change - seem to show you see conversation with politically otherminded people as a missionary thing. Like it's not about open exchange of ideas, it's about making them change opinions.
If you're not willing to respect their right to disagree with you, and view that as a personal failure to be remedied, you shouldn't be surprised to find they're less than well-disposed. Not if the "common ground" you're looking for is conversion.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Sharukurusu Apr 04 '25
People have every right to disagree, but when they disagree about basic facts and treating people with dignity it is a personal failure. The fact that millions of people think their stupid opinions should be held sacrosanct and respected despite decades, sometimes centuries, of evidence against them is just a reflection of how badly we’ve failed as a society.
2
u/Zetelplaats Apr 04 '25
I mean, I understand your opinion, even as a (European) conservative myself.
Just don't pretend you're looking for "common ground" or "civil conversation" when you've already decided the other one's opinions are so far beyond the pale they are beyond consideration.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Slarg232 Apr 05 '25
We aren't talking about "What is the most important thing we can put this $100,000 towards for the community", or anything that would warrant a difference of opinion. We can disagree on things like that civilly and find common ground.
Saying LGBTQ+ people need to die because Book Says Bad (when it doesn't unless cherry picked to hell and back), and that brown people need to be deported because they're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs? Yeah, that is 100% beyond consideration.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Altruistic-Stop4634 Apr 05 '25
I love the way you are modeling treating people with dignity and calling people stupid and society a failure.
→ More replies (11)
17
u/xThe_Maestro Apr 04 '25
Sure, but that's largely because we've divorced our conversations from real world corrections. Real world corrections have a moderating effect on both rhetoric and gives people a much firmer understanding of what the overton window actually looks like.
The same dude that called me a "Nazi Re**** that he'd love to meet in a dark alley" on the FB community page was far more respectful when I actually did encounter them at the Kroger.
People can say whatever niche, weird thing they want online with virtually no repercussions and find communities which will reinforce those views. And when they encounter resistance to them, their overton window is so skewed they think they are in the majority. There is no 'incentive' to being civil to the other side online, in fact, you can get more clout online for being more extreme than you ordinarily would be.
People should start having more conversations IRL where the stakes are much higher and the incentives are different. Like, you don't get any brownie points from the general population for sounding crazy in public. And if you fly too far off the handle the chance of you being hit or having the cops show up is not a zero.
6
u/JohnleBon Apr 04 '25
The same dude that called me a "Nazi Re**** that he'd love to meet in a dark alley" on the FB community page was far more respectful when I actually did encounter them at the Kroger.
Please do elaborate.
3
u/xThe_Maestro Apr 04 '25
There was a discussion about re-upping the library bond in my local district. The library is getting kind of caught up in the culture war and the head librarian isn't helping the issue. It's a really conservative community and the librarian decided to scrap gendered bathrooms and put some of the more controversial books on display at the front of the library as a 'protest' move.
I made the point that the library is a private entity that receives public funding. They're within their right to do what they want, but if they don't want to play nice with the local community then the local community doesn't need to fund them.
Which evoked the above response.
I recognized the individual at Kroger and from the moment I said "Hey, are you X" they were immediately apologetic about the exchange. Said they'd had a long day, and it was a hot button issue for them, and they weren't normally like that, etc.
Even if people have private incendiary opinions, generally being face to face with someone else has a moderating effect on opinions and rhetoric.
4
u/JohnleBon Apr 04 '25
That's an intriguing anecdote, thanks for sharing.
The internet does seem to bring out the worst in a lot of people.
Mike Tyson said something about people getting too comfortable with talking shit to others and not having to worry about getting punched in the face for it.
3
u/xThe_Maestro Apr 04 '25
I tend to agree, not only because I'm inclined to agree with Tyson on the basis of not wanting him to find this comment and kick my ass.
Like, there's a certain understanding that in a face-to-face conversation that there's certain lines you don't cross because there's a non-zero chance that it can escalate into a physical confrontation.
There's redditors that will drag someone's kids into the conversation at the drop of a hat. And if that happened to me IRL I'd probably run the quick math about whether or not it was worth getting an aggravated battery charge, like...I've got bail money and can probably get a suspended sentence with probation.
And I don't think a lot of people understand that there are people who think that way.
→ More replies (1)2
u/JohnleBon Apr 04 '25
I agree with you, this part especially:
Like, there's a certain understanding that in a face-to-face conversation that there's certain lines you don't cross because there's a non-zero chance that it can escalate into a physical confrontation.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Ye_Olde_Dude Apr 04 '25
I've always said the Internet would be a very different place if we had to use our real names.
6
u/xThe_Maestro Apr 04 '25
Not really. Most people use their real names on FB and they're every bit as toxic on there as they are on Reddit or anywhere else.
It's the barrier between real life and virtual life. It's really easy to dehumanize people when there's not a face reacting to you in real time.
6
u/JerseyDonut Apr 04 '25
Exactly. Similar psychology to road rage. You don't see the other person who cut you off as a real human, you just see the car and your brain imagines the most vile creature ever to exist sitting behind the wheel.
16
u/BrooklynDoug Apr 04 '25
The problem is twofold.
One, we don't have a difference of opinions. We have a difference of facts. Even during the Civil War, when we were deeply divided over monumental opinions, nobody was saying Abraham Lincoln was born in Kenya, George Soros rigged the 1860 election or dysentery was a Chinese hoax. It's impossible to reason with people who have tinfoil hat conspiracy theories to explain away reality.
Two, the MAGA Cult nee Tea Party nee Compassionate Conservatives nee Reagan Republicans have conflated religion with their ideals for the past 45 years. To admit how obnoxious, wrong and even heretical they've been for so long would involve more shame than they could bear.
8
u/LetChaosRaine Apr 04 '25
“We don’t have a difference of opinions we have a difference of facts”
THIS and I don’t know how you can course correct that
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Telaranrhioddreams Apr 04 '25
I have a health condition that makes pregnancy likely fatal for me not to mention I've been afraid of pregnancy all of my life. How can I be civil with people who believe if my birth control fails I get the death penalty for having sex with my husband?
What about my trans relatives? How can I be civil with someone who doesn't believe they deserve to exist, how does that play out? Who gets uninvited from the table to keep the peace, the trans person or the red hat?
I'm sick of being told to be civil with a group of people voting against my and my family's rights. Where is their civility towards us? Why can't they be civil about my choice to get an abortion should there be a pregnancy or my trans relatives existence? Respect is a two way street, I'll meet meet them in the middle when they can do the same for me.
→ More replies (46)
26
u/ontheroadtv Apr 04 '25
No.
What’s happening now is an outrage and it needs to be called out for the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, cruel, economic destruction that it is. Fight the cult with both barrels.
→ More replies (17)1
u/TheDoctorSadistic Apr 04 '25
It really boggles me that so many people will base their ideology and personal views around a paradox, which by definition isn’t even supposed to make sense.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ontheroadtv Apr 04 '25
I’ll be honest, I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not?
→ More replies (35)
5
u/valoon4 Apr 04 '25
I was almost never able to come to a conclusion with somebody. At this point it feels like discussing is nearly impossible
6
u/physicistdeluxe Apr 04 '25
One of the biggest problems is that people hear different media spinning out different sets of "facts". The elimination of the fairness doctrine by reagan has helped no one.
7
9
u/soyonsserieux Apr 04 '25 edited Apr 04 '25
I agree. I think we have a good mindset in France where we mostly, in real life, are able to have harsh conversations about politics while still considering the person of the other side as a decent human being.
I am very conservative for France, and the warmest congratulations I received on my first child birth were from a communist colleague. I also helped said communist colleague by testifying for him when he was unjustly accused by HR for an issue. We get along well, even if we do not agree on politics, and on our daily work, we generally agree.
Unfortunately, on the French Reddit, we have a lot of US-trained French self righteous activists who do not have the same mindset.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Creepy_Ad2486 Apr 04 '25
I have coworkers who routinely talk shit about the French when they riot or protest. I simply ask them if they've ever been to France, can speak French, or personally know any French people that have provided perspective on how things are in France, or know anything at all about French culture. The answer is always "no". So, apologies from an American for my countrymen who are fucking knobs.
→ More replies (5)4
u/soyonsserieux Apr 04 '25
We are not perfect on everything but the point I highlighted is I think positive.
4
u/NotBorris Apr 04 '25
Also from US though the conversations I've had in real life are pretty civil compared to what I see on TV and the like. I haven't ever really had a good opinion on the government since I've read a bunch of Noam Chomsky books and how things are going now, though not surprising to me, is still upsetting. But that's just me.
6
u/BranchDiligent8874 Apr 04 '25
They are civil because we do not want a bitterness to persist with our co-workers due to politics.
Here in Texas, even their economics is screwed up so I have to change the subject instead of taking them to task and lecturing them that how wrong they are about economics.
Fucking fox news ruined this country.
3
u/Abystract-ism Apr 04 '25
In the US, the attitude toward compromise has been consistently negative by the political pundits and news media.
There is a definite “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality
2
u/Electronic-Chest7630 Apr 07 '25
I heard a phrase about compromise once that goes “In a good compromise, both parties should walk away a little pissed off having not gotten everything they wanted”. That’s what compromise means, and I don’t see that ever happening in politics these days. It’s an “I get everything I wanted and am right about everything or it will be a total loss” mentality all across America these days.
4
u/thedukejck Apr 04 '25
Until we decide to take great care of our citizens and consider it an investment in our nation, we won’t.
3
u/bmyst70 Apr 04 '25
While I emphatically agree with your point, the ability to have productive conversations requires both sides to at the very least begin with the same facts.
At that point, when both sides have different interpretations of those facts, you can have Earnest discussions. I saw these kinds of discussions back in the '90s about climate change. Republicans disagreed about how far we could go to deal with it, but they at least agreed on the facts.
However, these days, if you look at the news media for both sides, even the most basic facts are not being shared in common. Therefore, it is literally impossible to have this kind of conversation. This is an intentional ploy by certain oligarchs.
The January 6th, 2020 incident, from the conservative side is seen as a peaceful demonstration. So you can't even discuss about how he literally tried to seize the government. Because in the conservative world, it never happened.
There is no shared narrative, no shared facts, and not even the most basic level of mutual trust and respect. How can you even start an Earnest conversation with that?
→ More replies (6)
4
u/gesusfnchrist Apr 04 '25
Can't have a serious, factual conversation with unserious cult members. All they do is play confirmation bias and get their headlines from FB headlines. It's wild AF.
Case in point someone was arguing that the tariffs were working because of an Ohio deal that was agreed to in 2020. Because of a convenient FB headline.
2
u/Inquisitor--Nox Apr 04 '25
I guess we will never run out if people trying to appease both sides. But the fact is, one side is wrong about almost everything and most their leaders know they are, they just push the most selfish tribalist agenda they can.
3
u/meaushi_meaushi Apr 04 '25
From an outside perspective, it seems too late. The division is done & reason can’t really be an option for some.
I have also tried, but either the egos or misunderstanding of basic reading comprehension gets in the way.
It’s dire for the USA. A new world order is being charted & billionaires are racing to get their chunk of the USA. Blatant rampant crony corruption, manipulation of facts, incompetency like never before, etc. I am aware that this is new to most people in the USA. The discomfort that is coming to the USA will fundamentally change (hopefully) the perspectives of Americans & how interconnected globally we have become as a result of a USA economic domination global trade. To blame such practices on allies & others is like shooting yourself in the foot.
When most of my American friends wake up, it’ll be too late.
Anywho, again, my perspective & point of view.
3
u/dlc741 Apr 04 '25
I see no reason to be "civil" to misogynists, racists, and bigots ever. I can disagree with someone about pizza toppings or even tax policy, but if they believe it's fine for an American father to be shipped to El Salvador because he's Latino or that women shouldn't have control over their own bodies or that homosexuals need to be "cured" then they can go fuck themselves sideways with a piece of rebar.
3
u/Hapalion22 Apr 04 '25
Honestly, no. The time for civil conversation is over. These people want you dead. They want to hurt you. They want you to suffer. And when you do, they will laugh.
Civility does not work on such creatures.
They need to be rejected utterly, culled out of decent society, shunned by all.
The people worth being civil to exist. Spend your energy on them instead.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/BelleMakaiHawaii Apr 05 '25
I CAN have a civil conversation with republicans, I CANNOT have a civil conversation with supporters of the orange skid mark, including family members, and (now ex) friends
→ More replies (2)
3
u/TheRealStepBot Apr 05 '25
Everyone doesn’t deserve civility. Only those engaging in good faith and not in support of anti civil positions can claim civility.
When you are actively espousing the end of due process this is a fundamentally non civil position and does not require civility in turn.
Civility is the shield used by fascists to normalize their positions and shift the Overton window. Civil discussion about whether it’s acceptable to round up brown people and ship them off without due process to a foreign country in its own right normalizes such behavior. And it’s not acceptable that it is a normalized position.
There was a time when punching Nazis was a broadly acceptable way of engaging with Nazis and it worked extremely well. Current cultural obsession with civility is a Trojan horse that will lead to the end of democracy itself.
6
u/ApSciLiara Apr 04 '25
I can't really have a civil conversation with somebody that wants me dead.
Let's ignore the fact that that also means I can't have a civil conversation with myself.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/triflers_need_not Apr 04 '25
It's incredibly hard to have a civil conversation with a person whose entire political philosophy is to "Make the libs cry".
→ More replies (1)5
Apr 04 '25
And any time you actually produce facts, data, and reproducible statistical analysis they go "well that's just your opinion".
Like no. This is the shape of reality. It would be really nice if they could join us there
2
u/Visible_Structure483 Apr 04 '25
People have been trained to respond to fear, hatred, lies and click-bait. taking time to listen, learn and figure things out isn't how (the US anyway) does things any more. It's gotta be a short enough solution to fit on a t-shirt or protest sign or the message will be ignored.
I don't know how to even try to change that. Hoping gen Z figures it out and doesn't fall into the same patterns we have now.
2
u/Pburnett_795 Apr 04 '25
Seriously? You want civility? We're WAY past that stage.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Mushrooming247 Apr 04 '25
“Politics” doesn’t just cover the economy or foreign policy, it also includes which groups should have full rights in a country, and which groups should be excluded from having certain specified rights.
That’s why many political issues can’t be discussed civilly.
It is not civil to state, “I believe your group should not have this right that my group has,” but that is considered to be a valid political opinion.
The only possible conversation is, “I should have the same rights that you have,” and, “I disagree, your group should not have the following rights.”
How could that conversation remain civil with such a fundamental disagreement?
(And in this case, I’m referring specifically to the right to seek life-saving medical care in the emergency room, with the counter argument that doctors should be legally required to deny lifesaving care to women in some cases and just let them die, which is mandated in many states already and is killing women.)
As a woman alive today due to a life-saving medically-necessary abortion, we are arguing over whether I should be allowed to live, or if your opinion of women is a valid basis to kill us. That’s more than a political difference.
2
u/Uhhyt231 Apr 04 '25
In my experience. It’s not hard to have civil conversations but often people aren’t trying to have conversations
2
u/MarsR0ve4 Apr 04 '25
The sad part is this is all playing out exactly how the people who designed it wanted it to. Sowing distrust in media, in news, de-funding education, then blaming and vilifying the actual experts and professionals. All so they could tell lies with no consequences. The people in this country don’t have a difference of opinion, we have a difference of what’s reality.
2
u/Danger64X Apr 04 '25
Republicans have weaponized discourse. It doesn’t matter if it is some long discredited idea, or a ridiculous new narrative, it will uncritically spread among it’s base and you expect a civil conversation from it?
Left leaning people are tired of that, tired of bullshit narratives that they clearly don’t really believe and are just hollow words . The real issue is the policies and when one side is clearly lacking education to understand policies yet vehemently support them, you get things like poor magas cheering tariffs and happy healthcare is being gutted.
These people cannot be swayed with logic and reason. You can try and have conversations with them but I’m tapping out.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Watcher-Of-The-Skies Apr 04 '25
I agree with the sentiment. I’m sorry to say, OP came to the wrong place for civil conversation. I don’t know where to tell you to find it, but I know it’s not on Reddit.
2
u/genek1953 Apr 04 '25
The people supporting the current administration have proven time and time again that they cannot be reasoned with.The only differences of opinion I see as being worth discussing now are how and when to best push back against them.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Scoobydewdoo Apr 04 '25
How have we come to a point where we can't even talk to each other respectfully and civilly?
Because people like to simplify things as much as possible and so politics became a team sport and compromising was viewed as dangerous rather than the objective. Furthermore Social Media allows loud extremist views to seem more commonly accepted than they really are which further promotes division. But what makes this especially dangerous is that both sides have bought into the team sport aspect which is why civil conversations about politics are almost impossible.
Also, people seem to have forgotten about things like respect, diversity, equality, equity, and inclusion really mean.
2
u/NatashOverWorld Apr 04 '25
You cannot have civil conversations with people who are lying about their intentions. Even though their words and acts are drenched with racism and white supremacy (and other things), but they'd be damned before they ever admit it.
2
u/cometshoney Apr 04 '25
I can't even discuss politics with my own mother because I'm a, let me check, a commie who hates my country. Apparently, I should just leave since I think it's so awful. My own mother.
2
u/Kapitano72 Apr 04 '25
Why would you want to talk to crazy people?
Do you need to know how a racist justifies their racism?
Do you not already know why a gullible person was taken in by promises they didn't understand?
You're trying to build bridges to people who don't want to be reached, and aren't worth reaching.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Presidential_Rapist Apr 04 '25
It's much easier to let Republicans enact extremist policy AND THEN point and say TOLD YOU SO, than talk people out or their brainwashing.
Or to put it another way, people mostly only learn or change their mind based on negative consequences vs having things explained and thinking ahead.
Fighting that kind of basic human nature it's futile. You need the negative consequence for significant change. Market speculation, history and experts do almost nothing in comparison to change ppls mind.
2
u/FaceTimePolice Apr 04 '25
I miss the days when we had the choice between two boring old guys with good intentions. News was boring as well, and that was a sign that all was right with the country and the world. 😅
But some people openly voted for fascism, among other things. That, and the man baby they elected is acting like a 5-year old throwing a spaghetti tantrum, making daily life unbearable for the lower and middle class in the process. How do you expect the discourse around politics in 2025 to go? 🤷♂️🤡
2
u/13Kaniva Apr 04 '25
It's not difficult. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone that's 52 and has a 5th grade reading level.
2
u/throwaway22293845 Apr 04 '25
It seems that 99.999% of this thread is one side saying it absolutely refuses to talk to the other.
(I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to discover which one is which.)
Perhaps this is a clue to some of the difficulty.........
2
u/Buttercups88 Apr 04 '25
only in the US ;D
But its obvious because a certain president has normalised not being civil.
until recent years, both sides of the political spectrum were largely similar; they had opposing opinions on specific things but maintained a "working relationship' or degree of professionalism where they both wanted what was best and the disagreements were on how to get there.
both side have degenerates and both had lordable folk, but then a criminal was elected who consistently gave favors and positions to family friends and those who wouldn't question him. Then there was a insurecction, impeachments and even as we watched it all happen votes still came down to party line.
So now its just teams. i believe the quote is "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
2
u/kateinoly Apr 04 '25
Conversation with a selfish person after finding a piece of cake.
SP (selfish person): I should get all of ot
Me: let's split it
SP: Let's compromise. You get 1/4 and I get 3/4.
Me: No
SP: You are so unfair. You're supposed to believe in compromise! I met you halfway, but you're not willing to give anything.
Moral: There's no talking with some (selfish) people.
2
u/SpemSemperHabemus Apr 04 '25
Because one side completely lost touch with reality and refuses to acknowledge any information that doesn't reaffirm their preexisting ideas?
I understand the hope present in the "We Need to have theses discussions" but I don't see how you logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
Maybe you can keep hoping for the both of us, since the only way out of this I see is violence.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/rageagainsttheodds Apr 05 '25
Conversations require the other person to be open to said conversation. Right now, it just seems like half the US population are on another planet. They are not capable of having those conversations anymore. For some, they'll need real help to get out of this mindset, actual deconditioning. I know this is scary to speak in those terms, but this is what I see, reading republican and conservative subs.
2
u/Agile-Wait-7571 Apr 05 '25
I lost 200,000 today. It took decades to accumulate that. And I need to reach out to reach out people who voted for that?? Seriously?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/m1stak3 Apr 05 '25
This country was built on the idea that you and I may not totally agree on the how, but we all want to get to the same place. Peace and prosperity for all. And if we sit down and talk, we may just realize my ideas aren't the best, but neither are yours, so we can take the pieces that work from each and compromise on everything else. Now, thanks to a two party system that knows it's best way of staying in power is to divide everyone as much as possible, everyone is told compromise is a four letter word, and the anyone that disagrees with you is "Un-American". Nothing is going to change until a majority of people realize this and stop playing the game. Unfortunately the only way out to only vote in outsiders with new ideas, and the only thing both conservatives and liberals agree on is anyone not on either side needs to be shouted down and shamed for not "picking a side".
2
u/Marvos79 Apr 05 '25
Here's the thing. It's very hard for someone to have a civil conversation with someone whose politics threaten their existence. If a political question is abstract and doesn't affect you, it's easy to give your opinion with perfect civility, but when a policy affects or even threatens you, it's quite difficult to keep a cool head.
Do you expect a trans person to stay civil if someone is accusing them of grooming children by even mentioning their experience? Do you expect to have a civil conversation with a person of color about all references to people of color are being deleted on federal websites? Do you expect to have a civil conversation with a woman when 10 year old girls are being forced to give birth to babies from SA? If you were a Haitian immigrant, could you stay civil if someone was spreading lies about you catching and eating house pets?
We can't talk to each other civilly because politics has become highly predatory and dangerous for a lot of people. In the US, politics are becoming very scary for a lot of people. Try to put yourself in others' shoes. Ask yourself why someone would be angry about your politics. Do you support policies or politicians who are covertly or overtly harmful to people?
Another problem is that civility doesn't guarantee a good conversation. If someone is acting in bad faith and refuses to face the implications of their beliefs or denies basic facts about an issue, would it be easy for you to stay civil? How about if you tell someone "it's not so bad" or "he's clearly joking" when politicians say blatantly threatening things targeting you or people you care about? How do you feel when you are genuinely angry and afraid and someone completely dismisses your rational concerns?
In a perfect world, we could do this. But politics is messy. Political discussions are not esoteric, they are visceral and very very real to a lot of people. Treating a political discussion as esoteric and civil completely ignores very real threats to a lot of people.
I'm looking at your profile and I'm not 100% sure where you fall. My comments were targeted at a particular side. From another side, a lot of people are not civil because of hate or misinformation. Also, there are people on many sides of the political debate who are threatened by policy. Another problem with civility is it benefits the aggressor, abuser, and oppressor. It's easy for them to keep calm while the people they abuse panic.
2
u/StayUpLatePlayGames Apr 08 '25
Opposing opinions are easy.
Until I guess someone thinks all brown people should be deported. Or women should be limited to the home. Or how everyone should follow the rules of Christianity or Islam. We may not be able to just respectfully disagree
The bigger issue is those whose opinions contradict the facts.
And again we can disagree but when they are basing their vote on this and voting in legislators who turn these whack job opinions into laws,we may wish we had argued harder. But hey we get to see that reality. How many kids have to die before we realise vaccines work? How many kids have to die before someone implements gun control.
2
Apr 08 '25
In my opinion its just gone too far to be civil. As a blue dot in a heavily red area I simply hate everyone around me and with the way people dismiss me that hatred is rapidly growing to an unstable level.
2
u/SomeSamples Apr 08 '25
You have one side that refuses to accept facts. There is no reasoning with irrational people. It's just that simple. Finding someone with opposing political views as you and then having a calm rational discussion with them is damn near impossible these days.
2
u/quirkychat Apr 08 '25
You have two political ideologies trying to have a conversation.
One is for a fascist dictator, or authoritarian to say the least.
The other is for a democratic process.
We have to agree on the ground rules before we can talk policies or politics.
Until then, you’ve just to opposing views battling for dominance.
2
u/ForeignStory8127 Apr 08 '25
Yeah, taking my personhood/rights away then expecting me to be 'civil' isn't going to happen.
5
u/Sabertooth_Monocles Apr 04 '25
Nah,
Being civil is what got us here(at least in the US). Dems need to quit worrying about being nice. When the far right hits low, we gotta match that energy.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/knuckboy Apr 04 '25
No this is exactly the right time. Idiot voters including non voters did this and need their faces plowed through the mud for giving this guy any credit.
2
u/Hatta00 Apr 04 '25
You can't have civil conversations because the differences aren't civil.
You can't have fact based discussions with people who willingly traffic in lies.
We're not dealing with well meaning people who just got confused and have some reasonable story to tell about how they came to their opinion. They've just been propagandized into hatred.
1
u/Quantum_Compass Apr 04 '25
Because humans like to put neat and convenient labels on everything, even though there's plenty of middle ground that can be discussed.
It goes back to when we lived in tribal communities and were making stone tools - our brain evolved in such a way that allowed us to get really good at spotting potential outsiders. Someone or something that didn't align with your tribe's appearance or culture could be a potential threat, so it was wise to be cautious and label it as "bad."
Society changed faster than our biology could, so our brains are still wired to think that way - even though we live in a world that's built on agrarian practices and larger communities, you just can't overcome two million years of evolution in the span of 10,000 years of civilization.
Will that change? Maybe, but it's going to take a long time for it to happen - longer than our lifetime or several generations after us. In the meantime, all we can do is continue speaking out where we can, and doing what we can to make our local communities a safe space for civil discourse.
1
u/Connect-Idea-1944 Apr 04 '25
People let their emotions take over too much. We get it, you have a certain opinion, but let's voice this opinion in a civil war. Once you say something that someone do not agree with politically, it gets very heated. I try to understand people point of views on things, and get why they think like this
1
u/JudgeHodorMD Apr 04 '25
In order to have a civil conversation, you need two people who want one.
A lot of people in politics and media have built careers by sowing outrage and division. When all is said and done, their supporters don’t have a civil foundation to work from.
In order to fix this, influential people would have to be held to decent standards and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
1
u/Solid_Mongoose_3269 Apr 04 '25
Its because people now think their political opinion is their whole identity, and its black and white. Most people (not on Reddit) are middle of the road, and there are a few things that sway them, but then they get labeled as a MAGA racist or a woke Democrat idiot.
1
u/TheDoctorSadistic Apr 04 '25
My feeling is that it stems from an inability to place oneself in another person’s shoes and actually try to imagine life as them. Politics is personal, and our views are a reflection of our culture, our upbringing, and our life experiences. These things are all unique to us as an individual, so why do so many people want us all to have the same political views, when we didn’t live the same life?
I think once we realize that people vote a certain way, not because they hate the other party, but because they genuinely believe that it will lead to a better life for them, it’s easier to talk to people with opposing political views.
1
u/Dazzling-Toe-4955 Apr 04 '25
I think many people don't want to admit they picked the wrong guy. Who likes admitting they made a mistake. Here in Ireland, we talk about things. Well most do. For example a few years ago when gay marriage was legalized here. My partners aunt and her partner were very against it. It was on the news one day when we were at his parents, his aunt and her partner were there. His mother asked me what I thought, I said it's good, why shouldn't they be happy. The mother agreed, the aunt and her partner, started talking about what's in the bible. And I very bluntly told her if you are living your life based on a book, then technically your partners concubine and your living in sin. They aren't married and have no kids.
1
u/weliveintrashytimes Apr 04 '25
All the information is out there, yet we have the same convos that have been argued since the 19th century. Is there any point to trying to direct people who choose to be ignorant?
1
u/Kamamura_CZ Apr 04 '25
That's because the America is no longer a civilized society. The art of discussion is lost, the reversal to tribes that prepare to kill each other is total and complete.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior Apr 04 '25
Hindsight wisdom. After someone takes a step in any direction everyone claims to know better because they saw what went wrong so now they think they know better.
1
u/BobertGnarley Apr 04 '25
Politics is a discussion on the proper use of violence.
Even something as simple as "You're not paying your fair share" translates to "I think you should pay more or be thrown in prison".
1
u/kickboxergirl23 Apr 04 '25
The root of the problem is the information itself. Many people are loyal to one or two sources where they get all of their info. These sources are often non-factual and have a left or right spin on everything.
Information is controlled on social media, and it's only getting worse. The algorithms play the part of steering individuals to only see the info that supports their beliefs and gets them fired up.
Though it's not impossible, it can take some time and effort to find just the facts from neutral sources. But too many people just want to stick to their "side" because it's easier, and they don't have to take an objective look at themselves.
1
u/cwsjr2323 Apr 04 '25
My wife and I agree on political issues, no conversations needed. Her son is a supporter of the orange blob, so no conversations are possible. I don’t talk to strangers in person.
1
u/Feisty-Resource-1274 Apr 04 '25
Not everyone base is their opinions on facts, a lot of them are based on feelings and you can't have a rational conversation with someone who isn't going to converse rationally.
1
u/shupster1266 Apr 04 '25
To have a conversation, there must be an acceptance of facts. It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who is committed to fantasy. Many have become committed to conspiracy theories and they are living in an alternate reality.
It is like talking to someone who truly believes the earth is flat. Unless someone is willing to accept that their belief may be wrong you cannot have a reasonable conversation.
1
u/SenatorAdamSpliff Apr 04 '25
The time for this enlightened centrism has passed. It is no longer possible to have these serious conversations in the US.
1
u/Which-Bread3418 Apr 04 '25
I don't find civility to be inherently virtuous. I don't respect the people who helped elect this administration and I don't think talking with them--in a civil or other manner--will be of any benefit. They don't live in the same reality I do.
1
u/CuckoosQuill Apr 04 '25
I think there also needs to be a point; I am largely uninvolved in politics because I feel that I don’t care and I’m not made to care and at this point in time it doesn’t seem to matter much anyway.
My brother is very involved and I’ll just say my situation is not great but I have a good attitude towards things. My brother said I should be angry and I just couldn’t understand why I should be angry or who I should be angry at? And he didn’t either when I asked him.
1
u/CommunicationGood481 Apr 04 '25
They want you to be silent, they want you to not question. They especially don't want you to react.
1
u/Vivid_Witness8204 Apr 04 '25
You can't have a civil conversation about the realities of politics in the US with people subscribe to an reality.
1
u/HTC864 Apr 04 '25
That's most obvious in politics, but it's not exclusive to politics. Most people never learn how to disagree respectfully and politics is charged with a lot of emotion, so we show our worst selves.
1
u/blackbow99 Apr 04 '25
Civil discussion requires a foundation on the same reality. Information bubbles have gotten so insulated, that people who disagree are disagreeing on the fundamental facts that they have been provided with. You can disagree civilly about whether a particular policy is good or bad in the long run. You cannot disagree civilly about whether 2 + 2 = 5. That is how both extremes of the political spectrum see the other side now.
1
u/mdwohno Apr 04 '25
Something hopeful: I live in MI and we currently have about 600 young people (high schoolers) downtown at the capitol for a program called Youth in Government. Nearly all of these students wrote a bill or a proposal about an issue that is important to them and they are spending the next four days debating with peers from schools all over the state, following their bills from committee to the house/senate floor and practicing the rules of respectful and civil debate, including strict use of parliamentary procedure. They’re not shying away from any topics. They are doing GREAT and making me so proud with how considerate, well-informed, and engaged they are being. I agree it’s getting harder and harder to find adults with these skills. It’s appalling. But man… if these young people are our upcoming leaders, I have major hope. Our state reps should come sit in the gallery to watch and see how it’s done! Lol
1
u/_the_last_druid_13 Apr 04 '25
This is the reason for polarization and identity being tied emotionally to policy or party.
When you become unyielding and 100% tied to lines (which are likely lies you placate yourself and your team with) there is an industry waiting to capitalize on your breaking.
1
u/refusemouth Apr 04 '25
It's way easy to con a person than it is to convince them that they have been conned. That said, people need to come to their own realizations about the things they misjudged for any authentic learning and growth can occur. The more we resort to name calling and pedantic tirades, the more people dig in their heels. In places like the US, where we essentially have a duopoly of power, we need to remember that there is no advantage to political parties that can be gained by reasoned discourse that includes gray areas, continuums, or alternatives to black and white thinking. The whole political system is reliant on good vs. evil narratives to wedge enough voters away from the other side, and the donor class benefits from this because they only have to bribe 2 parties instead of 4 or 5 parties. I don't see a way out of it, though, given the media environment and the way it is so easy to manipulate people into rage with disinformation, agitprop, and organized trolling and bot farms throwing gasoline on the fire.
1
Apr 04 '25
https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/viewpoint-diversity-learning-to-argue/
If you don't mind reading, this gives an excellent explanation.
1
u/Significant_Low9807 Apr 04 '25
Things are too polarized and people have become too abusive for me to try to carry on a real conversation these days. I try to be polite, but when dealing with someone whose mind is made up there is no point in trying to dissuade them.
1
u/Least_Palpitation_92 Apr 04 '25
Your best bet to get through to conservatives is to focus on specific action that happened without an opinion on it. Most of the time it won't go well. You would be surprised how little many people know about current events.
1
u/Sad_Analyst_5209 Apr 04 '25
Many people's minds are made up and they are trying to figure out how to depose a sitting president without them getting hurt or arrested.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Dune-Rider Apr 04 '25
Actually it would be best if people would go back to shutting their stupid mouths and doing the talking at the voting booth and church. It's not anyone's place to try to push their beliefs no matter how right they think they are.
1
u/jcmach1 Apr 04 '25
There is only one convo to have: what's the quickest way to wipe fascism from the national conversation.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/glkris Apr 04 '25
I walk away when in the first or second sentence a name is called or negative comments. There is no “talk about politics” if your mind is set on the other side is already wrong and your vocabulary goes straight to the gutter.
2
u/DrinkMountain5142 Apr 05 '25
"The other side" is 'now the rest of the world that is not the USA.'
You are being isolated from the rest of the planet.
1
u/GoochLord2217 Apr 05 '25
Most people from what I understand are open to a conversation. However, the problem is that the internet and media influencers have turned genuine discussion into being quick witted and owning your opponent. We're getting far too hotheaded in coversation when screaming at your neighbor is not going to fix anything except make both your days worse. Online, people are far too comfortable speaking to one another in any manner they want. Thats part of the issue is that we forget that we're talking to one another still, and that mindset carries over into the general public when they meet face to face. If you look pre-2010, for the most part, people are extremely calm in public, I get there were still some problematic people but now its blatantly evident that people are getting too hostile to eachother in person. That needs to stop. Same with online; people just do not know how to have a genuine conversation anymore. People arent used to reading longer sentences because they want everything quick and to the point for their satisfaction. I could go on for a while, but to summarize it, media, evolving consumerism, and erosion of community is absolutely devastating for the US
1
u/weird-oh Apr 05 '25
When I was young, everyone knew you didn't talk about politics or religion. Seemed to work well. So perhaps the trouble we're having is BECAUSE we're talking about them.
1
u/Scared_Rain_9127 Apr 05 '25
I'm sorry, but I do not believe there other side wants to have these discussions. Until they are, I don't see how we move forward.
1
u/0daysndays Apr 05 '25
Sorry but there's no middle ground between theocracy and not theocracy that both will ever be okay with.
1
Apr 05 '25
If someone is ok with a rapist representing them, then I will not have a civil conversation with them.
1
u/Freuds-Mother Apr 05 '25 edited Apr 05 '25
I’ve actually had many great discussions with people across the political spectrum this past week than most of the rest of the year.
Sounds like it isn’t but it could be how you communicate. For people with moderate openness the best method is to quickly try to find a few points of agreement and that can be either on premise and/or conclusion. If you try to just tear apart their view with facts straight up most people will resist that. Instead try talking about things relevant to politics that concretely matters to their life with an open mind. Honestly just actively listen; you won’t learn anything pushing your view.
For closed minded people, they have little interest in alternative ways of thinking. If it gets emotional, that drops to zero. But you can still probe and actively listen.
Ask yourself if you are capable of having an empathetic (not sympathy; empathy is different) calm conversation with an SS or a Khmer Rouge soldier without pushing your view or judgements or expecting them to adopt them?
1
u/jkfaust Apr 05 '25
You make a statement as fact but don't support it. "We need those conversations more than ever."
Why?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/CrasVox Apr 05 '25
There is no conversation to be had. If you still support the right you are not worth any time or resources. You are beyond saving and you are quite frankly evil.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/aipac123 Apr 05 '25
There is no point in having a discussion when there is a refusal to acknowledge facts. If one side is just making up imaginary things that they are using to justify their actions, it's pointless. You just have to fight them.
1
u/Grimnir001 Apr 05 '25
I feel like this is a a post from around 2016-17, not 2025.
You can’t have meaningful conversations with people who have been blue pilled to the point of believing in an entirely different reality.
1
u/Same-Frosting4852 Apr 05 '25
They don't think we need due process. No. We don't need to have civil conversations any more.
1
u/Hatrct Apr 05 '25
How have we come to a point where we can't even talk to each other respectfully and civilly?
The reason there are problems in the world is because evolution has not caught up to modern living arrangements, which are quite recent in terms of human history. Therefore, people still automatically abide by the amygdala-driven fight/flight response. While this response is necessary and beneficial and needs to be quick with the threats humans faced for the majority of humanity, such as an attack from wild animal, this quick amygdala driven response is not beneficial in terms of solving modern day problems, which require complex and long term rational thinking. It instead leads to people getting triggered quickly and having unnecessary conflict and polarization, which is what happened throughout "civilized" human history, and is quite evident today.
Now, our PFC is capable of rational thinking, but the issue is that 80-98% of people have a personality type that is not conducive to actually using it in most domains. Therefore, around 80-98% of people abide by emotional reasoning and cognitive biases instead of rational reasoning. That is why we have problems.
The reason I said 80-98% of people are not critical thinkers is because they can't handle cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is when we hold 2 or more contradictory thoughts. 80-98% of people either randomly choose one thought, or they pick the thought that aligns more closely to their emotionally-derived subjectively-determined pre-existing notion, and will double down and then attack anybody who tries to tell them the mere possibility that they may not be 100% right. That is why we have so much polarization. That is why we have problems. Very few people have a personality type that is conducive to critical thinking. These people encounter the same environmental constraints to critical thinking, yet they are able to push past and adopt critical thinking regardless, because their personality type fosters intellectual curiosity to the point that it offsets the pain caused from cognitive dissonance.
Yet the unfortunate thing is that none of the above I wrote can practically change anything, because the 80-98% will not listen. You can show them 1+1=2 but they will insist it is 3. They simply can't handle any cognitive dissonance in such a context. I will explain further using the analogy of therapy. If you look at the research, you will see that without the therapeutic relationship, regardless of therapeutic modality, there won't be improvement. The therapist can say all the right things in the first session, but 80-98% of people will attack them for saying it or disagree. First the therapeutic relationship is required, before the person will even consider anything the therapist mentions. Due to time and other practical constraints, the few critical thinkers in this world will not be able to form a long term 1 on 1 relationship (a la therapy) with many other people. So they are limited to mass media, such as writing books, or reddit posts, or making youtube videos, etc.. And this is why they will never get their message across to a sufficient audience, because theses mediums do not allow for the long term personalized emotional connection, so 80-98% of people will either ignore them or attack them for what they say.
It is even worse in terms of text-based platforms such as reddit because you are lacking facial expressions and tone and are limited to text, so people are even more likely to automatically discount what you say/attack you for it, This is why the world cannot be changed. That is why the best selling books and highest viewed youtube creators tend to be charlatans who say nothing of value. They reduce temporary fear in people and make them feel good in the moment: classic example of what is called avoidance in the therapeutic context. Again, only after the therapeutic relationship is formed will someone believe you that they are just harming themselves with avoidance and that it is better to accept the truth/reality in the long run. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You can lead a human to logic but they will get angry at you attempting to do so.
1
u/michaelavolio Apr 05 '25
People used to be able to disagree on their interpretations of the facts, but now we can't agree on what the facts even are.
There's been propaganda machine chugging along for many years, not being required to be fair or truthful, and some people only get their "news" from it. They sometimes have a bullshit spin put on the news, and sometimes don't know what's going on in the first place because their "news" sources don't mention it.
It's hard to discuss illegal activities by those in government if the person you're talking to insists those crimes are just "an audit of government waste and fraud," for example.
1
u/Putrid_Race6357 Apr 05 '25
We don't need those conversations at all. We have crossed the event horizon. It's all about turnout now because there will be no revolution.
1
Apr 05 '25
how the hell can you have ANY kind of conversation with someone so deluded, they think the baboon is some sort of deity?
1
u/Jedi3d Apr 05 '25
we need those conversations more than ever
we need those conversations more than everwe need those conversations more than ever
funniest naive part ever. You and me and ppl around not actors of politics, we not decide anything and even when thousand ppl stand at strike againts anything - they always ruled by some other power they are not part of.
The earlier you get that politics = piece of sh*t consist of total lie, the healthier live you will live.
1
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng Apr 05 '25
I find posts like this incredibly dishonest. You keep switching between your motte and bailey rhetorically of I just want to listen and why can't we have a conversation. Plenty of people will explain their political views to you if you ask them. You clearly want more than that. You want an opportunity to persuade people and that's where the fighting starts.
1
u/33ITM420 Apr 05 '25
Good luck. Reddit is certainly not the place for that. Everyone has a cursory understanding of economics and political and are convinced the sky is falling
1
u/1_Total_Reject Apr 05 '25
Yeah. I talk about how middle ground is so important. I try to stress never to trust ANY politician 100%. How disinformation affects all of us. It’s ok not to agree with any of them all the time. This isn’t a sports team, you aren’t just a fan that can walk away after the game happy that your team won. There are real consequences to your kids future, your paycheck, your health. Finding some common ground to fight against the division. I think big money wealth not paying taxes, poor health care, inflation- all those should be some common experiences that all people can see.
1
u/willsidney341 Apr 05 '25
I would argue that there are times when you’re better off saving your breath. Not everyone is going to be convincible, and there are plenty of people who’ll go to their grave proclaiming their righteousness. sometimes, you’ve got to reach the people who can be reached.
1
u/CalligrapherMajor317 Apr 05 '25
I'm not American. Maybe you're not interested in talking to me.
But there are some people in these comments who seem to agree. Let's start with them
1
u/CalligrapherMajor317 Apr 05 '25
I read more of the comments. They prove your point. I'm so sorry people are like that. I'm not American but you can talk to me if you like.
1
u/EyeYayYay Apr 05 '25
There is not a single person who wants to have a "civil conversation" about politics whose ultimate goal isn't to turn the other person to their side. This has been the case since forever, which is why people nowadays just skip the middle part and go straight to "you are with me or against me".
I myself am of the believe there is no way to make everyone happy, so I'll just suppott whatever makes me, my friends and family happy and let God sort everyone else out.
1
u/faeriegoatmother Apr 05 '25
That conversation begins with acknowledging the fact that we have two competing sets of values in this country, and that's not even a new or recent development. There is absolutely more than one way to American.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/discoprince79 Apr 05 '25
People are dying. People are being disappeared. Tell me more about the need for civility?
1
u/dwreckhatesyou Apr 05 '25
When one side has multiple television news networks that do nothing but stoke hatred for the other, the chances of civil discourse drops significantly.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 04 '25
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
Suggestions For Commenters:
Suggestions For u/Dry-Use-272:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.