But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy.
The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. The most likely outcome, as you’ve noticed, is that we both leave convinced that each other are idiots. The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. So what’s the point?
It accomplishes a better understanding between people and a less divisive society.
Which is also what we need to stick it to the man. They want us to fight and bicker and be divided into camps and never agree on anything. That’s how they can keep doing whatever they want. Even better if we convince each other that talking about this stuff is taboo and unproductive.
Remember: A populace than can work together is a scary populace, if you’re in power.
> But what’s the point? Political conversations, even civil ones where everyone walks away understanding each other’s POV and agree to disagree, usually aren’t going to accomplish anything concrete, because very few people have the opportunity to affect government policy.
That's true of most conversations - not just political ones. Why put them in a special bucket?
> The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse.
This is silly. There are lots of good case scenarios. Even "I enjoyed the conversation" is a good case scenario, and there are many better outcomes.
> The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist.
If you've convinced yourself an entity doesn't exist, then it will not exist for you.
Frequently, political conversations are personal. When you're debating about whether or not you should be allowed to vote, or whether you should be deprived of money or other rights, it's difficult to simply come away saying "I enjoyed the conversation".
Political conversations are more likely to be fun when they're discussing abstractions. But they can have real effects in a way that few other disputes can. Even though the absolute power of one vote is very small, it's not enjoyable to be told "I'm going to put my small amount of power to making your life worse."
> When you're debating about whether or not you should be allowed to vote, or whether you should be deprived of money or other rights, it's difficult to simply come away saying "I enjoyed the conversation".
Then I would suggest you discuss instead of debate.
> Political conversations are more likely to be fun when they're discussing abstractions. But they can have real effects in a way that few other disputes can. Even though the absolute power of one vote is very small, it's not enjoyable to be told "I'm going to put my small amount of power to making your life worse."
Many political discussions need not be that personal. This thread mentioned Israel/Palestine. I guarantee you that 99% of the people who have strong opinions about this are not at all impacted by it either way.
But yes, certainly issues about health care, taxes, guns, abortion, etc could be very personal. And that generally is a start for a good conversation. I grew up in the camp of abstract discussions, and while I still enjoy them, they're mostly useless when it comes to political/social issues. I put very little weight to well thought out analyses done in the abstract. When it starts involving real people, and clear "in your face" impact is when the conversation becomes useful. It may also become heated, too. But avoiding a heated conversation for an abstract one is not at all an improvement. And believing that a heated conversation is the only outcome is very flawed.
I personally feel very odd in discussions like the one you mentioned: Israel/Palestine. For those 99% of people with strong opinions but aren't impacted, 99% of them have based their strong opinion on information that's at best incomplete and most often wildly biased.
At best, you can hope for a genuine conversation where two extremely incomplete views come together to produce a state that is merely quite ignorant. That's an improvement, I guess. But I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about it. Especially since, if they did indeed come in with "strong opinions", the best case seems unlikely.
I myself have tried to aim for "weak opinions strongly held". Which is to say, recognize both my ignorance and the large amount of effort it would take to produce a state of genuine knowledge. I'm not kidding when I say that I have little interest in the opinions of anybody on the state of Israel and Palestine who doesn't speak at least one of Hebrew or Arabic fluently... and preferably both.
It's far from sufficient, but I find it weird how few people consider it necessary for holding strong opinions. As you say, these are real people, and if you're not able to speak their language, anything you know about it is at least one step removed -- and likely more.
The best case scenario is that talking about politics doesn’t make your relationship worse. The most likely outcome, as you’ve noticed, is that we both leave convinced that each other are idiots. The good outcomes of more ordinary conversation, where we learn from each other and put what you learn into action, doesn’t exist. So what’s the point?