I enjoy talking about religion and politics too. It would appear that the warning to not talk about religion and politics is intended to avoid conflict related to these deeply personal subjects. However, avoiding discussion of these subjects seems to increase the the sensitivity people have regarding these subjects. Perhaps the better approach to take to the possible conflict that can arise from discussing these subjects is to warn people to always have an open mind when discussing these subjects.
Agreed.
Tragically, this sensitivity has gotten even more pronounced over the years. It honestly has gotten to the point where one needs to be careful around those that might be easily offended. This is especially the case in the workplace, where all that it might take is for such an individual to go directly to HR. Granted, the workplace isn’t the best possible forum to have such conversations to even begin with. But still, the sensitivity is quite absurd.
It seems like something has drastically changed over the last decade, as there appears to be a prevalent perspective that words can be violence, and that speech should be censored to avoid any potential discomfort or harm. However, sometimes uncomfortable conversations are necessary in order for us to progress forward. Sometimes the most harmful thing that we can do is to *not* have these conversations.
Because politics and religion generally devolve into battles over beliefs and tribalism. People can get quickly offended if you criticize someone's beliefs as an attack on their identity. This is why most people avoid getting into conversations.
I suppose if approach from a point of curiosity and you want to learn about politics or a religion. I think most people would be happy to explain it.
Well said!
Honestly, my approach is to ask people out of curiosity what they believe and to get them to expand upon their ideologies. As you alluded to, problems generally arise from attempting to challenge their ideologies. At that point, it no longer is a conversation, but an attack on their beliefs, and sometimes even their identity.
It’s unfortunate because I myself enjoy having such conversations, but many people are not comfortable with doing so. Especially if they are ideologically entrenched to the point where even respectfully questioning out of curiosity can be perceived as an attack. Sadly, I have encountered this phenomenon on both sides of the aisle (democrat/republican, atheist/theist, etc.). Many people are no longer comfortable with these conversations.
You'll not find what you want on social media. It isn't what you think. I got a warning from some uk group and said they may as well ban me because I'd say it again. They banned me from another group as well with no warning and no way of complaining to the mod or the other group.
This is not democracy.
What you have, is opinions, or in the case of the above two bans, a non so subtle take-over by the woke brigade who deny words from history.
Best grab a bottle of wine and invite some friends round to your place for a proper debate.
Indeed. Social media is where we are starting to see these echo chambers proliferate, and banning individuals from these platforms only tends to further the divide. A prime example is banning Trump and many of his supporters from Twitter and other social media platforms. As a result of being banned from the digital town square, Truth Social and Gettr became the predominant echo chambers for many of these individuals.
Sadly, these echo chambers tend to be reinforced by the news media. Many of which carry their own ideological bias.
I myself tend to be politically agnostic nowadays (and the same goes with spiritual/religious beliefs). I don't entrench myself on either side, but rather, I enjoy exploring multiple different perspectives.
If ever I see a news story which is "important" I try to get it from multiple media sources for balance. I often don't bother because of advertising. Our local rag tends not to pop up a driving alert until the problem is cleared. Even then, when you look back, all it says was "there has been an incident". Far more efficient to fire up google maps.
Most of our local rags are owned by the same group. Different colours, same behaviour.
For some strange reason, news on my phone popped up news in india for a couple of days. There was a fire and on the same day they were reporting how it happend etc. Ditto with a road accident.
Why can't ours do that?
Its frowned upon because amicable discourse is dead. Very few people can speak on those topics objectively without their bias ruining the respect of the debate. This is because sharing perspectives concerning these subjectives is literally sharing the framework by which one lives their lives or their beliefs about how the world should work so any criticism of that framework can easily be perceived as a criticism of one's self.
It’s because very few people know how to talk about politics and religion.
Rather what they do is argue blindly about it, refusing even entertain any point. It frequently becomes two babies crying about something that they believe in strongly while simultaneously knowing very little about it.
That said. Politics and religion are shoved in your face constantly, almost everywhere. So it’s nice if, when you go home to family dinner to not have to listen to uncle Jerry whine about the republicans or Aunty May chastise lady Gaga for being the Antichrist
I enjoy talking about religion and politics too. It would appear that the warning to not talk about religion and politics is intended to avoid conflict related to these deeply personal subjects. However, avoiding discussion of these subjects seems to increase the the sensitivity people have regarding these subjects. Perhaps the better approach to take to the possible conflict that can arise from discussing these subjects is to warn people to always have an open mind when discussing these subjects.
Agreed. Tragically, this sensitivity has gotten even more pronounced over the years. It honestly has gotten to the point where one needs to be careful around those that might be easily offended. This is especially the case in the workplace, where all that it might take is for such an individual to go directly to HR. Granted, the workplace isn’t the best possible forum to have such conversations to even begin with. But still, the sensitivity is quite absurd. It seems like something has drastically changed over the last decade, as there appears to be a prevalent perspective that words can be violence, and that speech should be censored to avoid any potential discomfort or harm. However, sometimes uncomfortable conversations are necessary in order for us to progress forward. Sometimes the most harmful thing that we can do is to *not* have these conversations.
Because politics and religion generally devolve into battles over beliefs and tribalism. People can get quickly offended if you criticize someone's beliefs as an attack on their identity. This is why most people avoid getting into conversations. I suppose if approach from a point of curiosity and you want to learn about politics or a religion. I think most people would be happy to explain it.
Well said! Honestly, my approach is to ask people out of curiosity what they believe and to get them to expand upon their ideologies. As you alluded to, problems generally arise from attempting to challenge their ideologies. At that point, it no longer is a conversation, but an attack on their beliefs, and sometimes even their identity. It’s unfortunate because I myself enjoy having such conversations, but many people are not comfortable with doing so. Especially if they are ideologically entrenched to the point where even respectfully questioning out of curiosity can be perceived as an attack. Sadly, I have encountered this phenomenon on both sides of the aisle (democrat/republican, atheist/theist, etc.). Many people are no longer comfortable with these conversations.
You'll not find what you want on social media. It isn't what you think. I got a warning from some uk group and said they may as well ban me because I'd say it again. They banned me from another group as well with no warning and no way of complaining to the mod or the other group. This is not democracy. What you have, is opinions, or in the case of the above two bans, a non so subtle take-over by the woke brigade who deny words from history. Best grab a bottle of wine and invite some friends round to your place for a proper debate.
Indeed. Social media is where we are starting to see these echo chambers proliferate, and banning individuals from these platforms only tends to further the divide. A prime example is banning Trump and many of his supporters from Twitter and other social media platforms. As a result of being banned from the digital town square, Truth Social and Gettr became the predominant echo chambers for many of these individuals. Sadly, these echo chambers tend to be reinforced by the news media. Many of which carry their own ideological bias. I myself tend to be politically agnostic nowadays (and the same goes with spiritual/religious beliefs). I don't entrench myself on either side, but rather, I enjoy exploring multiple different perspectives.
If ever I see a news story which is "important" I try to get it from multiple media sources for balance. I often don't bother because of advertising. Our local rag tends not to pop up a driving alert until the problem is cleared. Even then, when you look back, all it says was "there has been an incident". Far more efficient to fire up google maps. Most of our local rags are owned by the same group. Different colours, same behaviour. For some strange reason, news on my phone popped up news in india for a couple of days. There was a fire and on the same day they were reporting how it happend etc. Ditto with a road accident. Why can't ours do that?
Its frowned upon because amicable discourse is dead. Very few people can speak on those topics objectively without their bias ruining the respect of the debate. This is because sharing perspectives concerning these subjectives is literally sharing the framework by which one lives their lives or their beliefs about how the world should work so any criticism of that framework can easily be perceived as a criticism of one's self.
Society is built on enjoyment. Deep topics are seldom enjoyed by majority of the population
It’s because very few people know how to talk about politics and religion. Rather what they do is argue blindly about it, refusing even entertain any point. It frequently becomes two babies crying about something that they believe in strongly while simultaneously knowing very little about it. That said. Politics and religion are shoved in your face constantly, almost everywhere. So it’s nice if, when you go home to family dinner to not have to listen to uncle Jerry whine about the republicans or Aunty May chastise lady Gaga for being the Antichrist
Why? Because dead horses, sleeping dogs, and morons who think they're smart.