I've learned that trying to bring bigger-picture, longer-term perspective into random contemporary political discussions is a way to make myself the object of derision. To paraphrase it politely, I get the "You're the problem," accusation, get my gender and race thrown in my face, etc. It's a noble thought but be aware angry people aren't in the mood to step back and consider other vantage points.BWND wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:46 pmHi everyone,
Has anyone ever experimented with trying to avoid political discussions on the 'micro' level, reserving their engagement for the 'macro' stuff? It's something I have been pondering for a while as a strategy for myself to reduce frustration and to try and improve the quality and tone of debates/conversations.
Like-minded folks seem pretty few and far between nowadays, but when I find them there is really no temptation to take politically-flavored discussions to the micro-level, aside from the longstanding American tradition of poking fun at all politicians. The natural discussion is broader in scope. Most of us in this country go our whole lives without an individual politician having a direct long-lasting material influence on it.
Ere, more specifically FI, has something to do with my outlook. Having put a check into one of life's major boxes means I have the bandwidth to contemplate a future that, while somewhat modest, is more than wishful thinking. At the same time my propensity to be a forward looking probably contributed to getting on a path to FI to begin with. Still, knowing that engaging "The Man" is voluntary is major shift in perspective.
Age has something to do with it. Observing politics from a safe distance and relatively neutral position over a handful of decades allows one to spot patterns, or at least potential patterns, that often belie contemporary narrative.
This is going to sound sappy, but the biggest seismic shift came from the first time holding a grandchild. Knowing that in some way I was responsible for the baby's existence, and that most of the child's life will be lived after I'm gone, caused me to think seriously and deeply about what happens after I'm pushing daisies more so than I ever had before.
So in a conversation with a bunch of 25 year olds (common occurrence at work) I'm seen as a bit obtuse and anachronistic. And they tease me in a good natured way. Fortunately they are all generous souls and allow me to see things in a peculiar way (peculiar from their perspective) without tossing me on the Nazi or Commie discard piles.
Point is, I guess, that if you can find one or a group of discussion partners that are willing to disconnect politics from the personal and from personalities and emotion, the conversations can indeed be much more productive and enjoyable.
However, all that said, I also believe it is important to recognize that there are real people out there who are really struggling and sometimes suffering. Today. Uniformly rolling them up into a statistic or dismissible demographic is inhumane. Ditto for framing everything in one's future doomsday scenario of choice. In such instances (dialogue with those people or those who see themselves as advocates for those people) trying to draw the interaction into a more abstract idea-based realm is something I've had exactly zero success with. And to be fair, no one who wakes up every day on the south or west side of Chicago with a realistic fear their child will catch a bullet loosed in a gang battle should give two shits about peak-this or hyper-that. The more uncertain surviving the present day is, the less meaningful what might happen next year or thirty years from now becomes. The danger in retreating into the happy realm of political philosophy (or of hyper-partisan mudslinging) is losing empathy for those people.
It's a much smoother road to just find a suitable echo chamber in the podcast world, choose a hero, and participate in the discussion vicariously. I do admit I succumb to the temptation at times, though in my defense I also sometimes listen to people who, frankly, piss me off, in an attempt to try to walk the walk and understand where they are coming from. Yet as time goes on I do less and less of the latter.
One of my fatal flaws is being a habitual peacemaker, meaning I can't take my own advice that really when it comes to politics, it's best to speak only when spoken to, and even then say as little as possible. I think we desperately need more and broader empathy right now, but with the machine working overtime to narrow or obliterate it, meaningful attempts to preserve or rekindle general empathy are beyond my competencies. I used to refer to my little cabin-in-the-woods as my hideout in a very tongue-in-cheek manner. That's now evolving to a serious metaphor. I'll probably still open my mouth on occasion until one day when I'll regret it so much I just stop. Anyone who asks, I'd say opt out of politics talk, at least until cancel culture is obliterated, and let your vote do your talking for you.