why people get so upset when talking politics?

[Dancing Fire]

are you one of those?

 

[joflier]

I have opinions, yes, but I don''t get bent out of shape when others disagree. Everyone has the right to believe as they wish. (even if they are wrong)

 

[Lady_Disdain]

I don''t understand it either.

It really irks me that people can take any subject and turn it into a political/ecological/whatever soapbox. I decided to drop another forum I used to post in because of this. I don''t like to be judged, specially by people who are unwilling to hear my views and to look at my life as a whole (instead of tinsy bit they read about and disagree).

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 6/2/2010 9:43:55 AM
Author:Dancing Fire
are you one of those?

It depends. If someone’s view is what I consider detrimental to my way of life, then yes I can get bent. But like Lady_disdain said, I don’t get people that turn everything into politics.

 

[monarch64]

People get so passionate about political views because it affects their entire way of life. I don''t have a problem with people getting worked up over their political convictions. They''re standing up for what they believe in. As long as they don''t personally attack others with different opinions then a heated discussion is ok. Changes in life don''t occur without differences of opinion and discussions of them, and a lot of times those conversations are very intense.

 

[Puppmom]

It takes a lot to offend me and I tend not to get worked up about these things. I do however HATE when people try to force their political views on me. Now that works me up.

 

[yssie]

I only get upset when people want changes that impose on other people's lives, and yet have absolutely no bearing on their own *cough 8 cough*. Too often it's at its base a religious argument.. whatever happened to separation of church and state? I hope that's not just a myth.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 6/2/2010 12:37:01 PM
Author: yssie
I only get upset when people want changes that impose on other people''s lives, and yet have absolutely no bearing on their own *cough 8 cough*. Too often it''s at its base a religious argument.. whatever happened to separation of church and state? I hope that''s not just a myth.

Amen to the first bolded part, and WORD to the second. I find there is an overwhelming religious motivation to the politics and policies that I disagree with, and thus I easily get offended by those with opposing views because those views infringe on the personal freedoms of myself and others, and stem from religious oppression.

If the church was truly stripped from the state, I wonder what those policies would become ... what excuse people would have for oppressing others when they could no longer hide their religious agenda behind politics.

 

[HollyS]

Why do people get so upset . . .

There will always be diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both sides believe they are right. I know I am.

This isn''t a new concept; you could review the politics of any civilized nation over the last two hundred years and see at least two distinct groups battle it out over and over again. The subject matter just changes. Two hundred thirty-four years ago in the U.S., the two groups were British loyalists and colonists who wanted independence.

There will always be people who disagree. People get touchy because the issues are important and life changing. And nation changing. And world changing.

Give me a little flap anyday to passive acceptance.

 

[partgypsy]

I was pretty unpolitical throughout my youth (20''s) when alot of people were into activism. I always wondered why they were getting so worked up about things politically say about homelessness, versus volunteering at the soup kitchen.

I do have to admit I have been the person who was was worked up, angry, even scared about what I saw were trends that were undermining the stability of the country, during the 8 years a certain president was in office...

Now I am just trying to get back to how I was, work towards being a better person internally, and if I have additional time, to make my local community better. The constant minute by minute update/ fear mongering/ bad news emphasis of the media outlets is an equivelant of the news focusing on car wrecks and child abductions. It increases the fear factor without being illuminating. I have a particular in-law that loves to talk politics, and start arguments by making very extreme statements (You can tell the people who listen to talk radio; two different people will use the EXACT SAME phrases and words. Rather eerie). I told him I''m taking a break from politics for the next 3 years : ).

 

[HollyS]

And, of course, there will always be those who firmly believe that the opposing viewpoint is represented by people who have lost their minds. They are obviously unhinged. And not to be engaged.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/2/2010 1:29:50 PM
Author: HollyS
And, of course, there will always be those who firmly believe that the opposing viewpoint is represented by people who have lost their minds. They are obviously unhinged. And not to be engaged.

and we know who they are.

 

[doodle]

Because it''s personal. For many people, if you tell them you dislike ____, they take it as a personal attack if that statement applies to them as well. It''s the same with religion. It''s difficult to discuss with some without them feeling like you''re making a judgment on them. For me personally, I can keep my cool all day long as long as the person with whom I''m speaking isn''t disrespecting my views just because they disagree. I would never belittle someone''s view just because it''s different from my own, so I''ll be very quick to call someone out for doing so to me. I have very few people that I''ll discuss politics or religion with because so many people DO get easily ruffled--and as a nonpartisan agnostic in predominantly Christian Republican Georgia, I''m usually the minority opinion, haha!

 

[ChinaCat]

I don't mind healthy arguing and I am all for a good protest. I totally believe in free speech, even if I hate what someone is saying.

What I have a problem with is one a person stridently identifies with one "side" or party and then regurgitates the party line, no matter what the issue or the facts. It is especially disconcerting to me when the same issue arises but when it's one on "their side", it gets passionately defended and when it's the "other side" it's reviled and rejected.

BOTH parties do this and it makes me frustrated and sad.

The other problem is when people make it personal. Politics these days have flash words. You say one thing and you get labeled or even worse, lumped into some brainless category. It's insulting. I do the research and I believe what I believe based on facts and how I best interpret them. Not because I ascribe to a certain moral or world view that the parties have co-opted, but often don't put into practice themselves.

I guess I have a problem with hypocrisy.

ETA: To answer the question, I think people get upset because 1) it's become personal and 2) people feel threatened and scared and they feel like the "other side" is out to destroy that which they hold dear.

 

[Dancing Fire]

one night i made a mistake of opening up my big mouth at a family dinner...

i said to my daughter (jokingly)...did you know your uncle P owns a i hate "O" T shirt ?

then the SIL ( the wife of uncle P''s younger brother) said...if he had wore that T shirt i would shoot him!

i didn''t know she was sucha radical liberal until that evening.

 

[TooPatient]

Date: 6/2/2010 1:02:37 PM
Author: HollyS
Why do people get so upset . . .

There will always be diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both sides believe they are right. I know I am.

This isn''t a new concept; you could review the politics of any civilized nation over the last two hundred years and see at least two distinct groups battle it out over and over again. The subject matter just changes. Two hundred thirty-four years ago in the U.S., the two groups were British loyalists and colonists who wanted independence.

There will always be people who disagree. People get touchy because the issues are important and life changing. And nation changing. And world changing.

Give me a little flap anyday to passive acceptance.

I absolutely agree. (great example BTW)

The only time I get upset when discussing politics is when a person or people keep repeating the same standard line they''ve heard others on "their side" saying and are not able to support it. I''m all for a good debate but in order to debate the people participating need to be aware of the facts and willing to listen to "the other side" rather than yelling louder and louder the same line or getting offended that someone doesn''t agree with them.

The disagreements and debates are what have formed this country and kept it around this long. Imagine where we would be if the colonists had all just sat by and let the Loyalists lead -- or if the Loyalists had ducked into a corner and let the colonists start a fight for independence sooner.


I enjoy a good political debate (and do so at least once a day with my boss

) and would be happy to participate in more -- with the right people. By right people, I mean people who have some facts to back up their position, are willing to share those facts in a respectful way, listen respectfully as I share my opinion and facts to support it, and can agree at the end of things that we may disagree but can still be respectful of each other.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/2/2010 12:37:01 PM
Author: yssie
I only get upset when people want changes that impose on other people's lives, and yet have absolutely no bearing on their own *cough 8 cough*. Too often it's at its base a religious argument.. whatever happened to separation of church and state? I hope that's not just a myth.

I agree with this. I do admit I have grown up where and in an environment it is not quite the same - i.e. your political affiliation is not determined by your religious views or the other way around - but I do see this a lot in the wider sphere (i.e. on discussion forums, or by commentators in the media, and so on). There is a popular sentiment I think that if "you don't stand for something, you fall for anything". Aside from the great peculiarity with that statement (is not someone's anything, another person's something and vice versa and so on?) I see that as taken to some extremes.....in a way that has someone totally closed off to new possibilities and they just sort of "stand" for something as a whole package, rather than being flexible in choosing what fits for them and what does not. TooPatient speaks of people who stand by what someone on "their side" has touted as being the end-all-be-all truth. For no other reason then that is part of the package. I do not understand that, and make my own assumptions it is out of fear, or a lack of critical thinking or independent thought.

I don't mind not being easily identifiable to a specific political thought or discourse. I can pick and choose what fits for me, without worrying too much about "party lines" and so on. There are things that work for me, and things that don't. I don't mind talking politics at all. I have opinions, which I do not mind sharing, but I don't feel personally attacked by others opinions. Personally, I don't feel threatened if someone thinks differently. There are times my own views have shifted after learning new information. I just don't appreciate when others try to dictate my life choices, or make judgments of "good" and "bad" without any critical thought or appreciation for shades of gray. I think however there are some people who consider talking "politics" to be a way to push or impose a certain agenda (and see opposing views as personal attacks of sorts), rather then to have an open discussion. I just don't discuss politics much with those people though.


I notice a big difference between those who have gone to university or college (and taken some liberal arts and so on) and those who have not, when it comes to discussing political issues too. I am not going to make any particular statements on that, aside from what I already said, just that I notice a difference in how people handle discussions which may bring in opposing viewpoints.

 

[HollyS]

"I notice a big difference between those who have gone to university or college (and taken some liberal arts and so on) and those who have not, when it comes to discussing political issues too. I am not going to make any particular statements on that, aside from what I already said, just that I notice a difference in how people handle discussions which may bring in opposing viewpoints."


Obviously a college education (or even just a few courses) allows a superior viewpoint, and fosters a more intelligent discussion of the issues.

Dancing Fire, I give you example A of "Why".

 

[partgypsy]

Wow toopatient, you can have political discussions with your boss? Where I work right now political discussions are actually frowned upon (federal) which is actually refreshing. Prior place I worked my boss had certain views, hated the Clintons, especially Hillary so every day she would go on and on about about Hillary being gay, but also having an affair with Hal Foster and getting him offed, Clinton killing black boys near a train track (not sure what that one was about ???), then blowjobs and cigars, like EVERY DAY. She did not tolerate dissent so the other coworkers would kiss up to her to get on her good side (I just wouldn''t say anything, which she ALSO didn''t like). It all came to a head after I decided to have a kid, which she didn''t agree with, so there went my job. Unfortunately that colored my views about conservatives, so I''m pretty gun shy about getting into heady political conversations with people.
Another reason is, and I don''t know if I''m old fashioned this way, but even when I completely disagreed with how Bush II ran the country, I did not like people making denigrating and basically 4th grade comments about him, because he still held the office of the presidency. That doesn''t seem to be the case anymore, which I feel is unfortunate.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/2/2010 4:02:55 PM
Author: HollyS
'I notice a big difference between those who have gone to university or college (and taken some liberal arts and so on) and those who have not, when it comes to discussing political issues too. I am not going to make any particular statements on that, aside from what I already said, just that I notice a difference in how people handle discussions which may bring in opposing viewpoints.'




Obviously a college education (or even just a few courses) allows a superior viewpoint, and fosters a more intelligent discussion of the issues.

Dancing Fire, I give you example A of 'Why'.

Oh gosh, that is not what I meant at all. This is why I did not make any particular statements, nor did I in any case say that one fostered a more "intelligent" discussion. In no way did I indicate one had a better viewpoint, or was more intelligent, as they went to university or college either. What I said was that I noticed differing viewpoints often were approached in a different way in discussions by people with different educational experiences in a way that can affect the discussions. In no way did I make a value judgment on one's views being better as they did, or did not, go to college.

People who have gone to university or college aren't by the fact of having gone more intelligent or smarter than someone who has not (the majority of my family has NOT been to university or college and they are brilliant people). Plenty of them being far smarter than me. And there are plenty of people who have gone to university or college who have a hard time tying their own shoelaces. Myself included at times.

It was not a personal attack on anyone - on you or anyone else for that matter.

Again, I was stating a a personal observation on how I have noticed differences in how people APPROACH political discussions and particularly differing viewpoints (or how they put their own viewpoints across). It was not a general statement about anyone's intelligence, their views or anything else.

You can interpret it however you want, and make me an "Example A", but my experience is that there is a different approach to political discussions from people of differing educational backgrounds.

 

[monarch64]

Date: 6/2/2010 4:28:52 PM
Author: RaiKai

Date: 6/2/2010 4:02:55 PM
Author: HollyS
''I notice a big difference between those who have gone to university or college (and taken some liberal arts and so on) and those who have not, when it comes to discussing political issues too. I am not going to make any particular statements on that, aside from what I already said, just that I notice a difference in how people handle discussions which may bring in opposing viewpoints.''




Obviously a college education (or even just a few courses) allows a superior viewpoint, and fosters a more intelligent discussion of the issues.

Dancing Fire, I give you example A of ''Why''.

Oh gosh, that is not what I meant at all. This is why I did not make any particular statements, nor did I in any case say that one fostered a more ''intelligent'' discussion. In no way did I indicate one had a better viewpoint, or was more intelligent, as they went to university or college either. What I said was that I noticed differing viewpoints often were approached in a different way in discussions by people with different educational experiences.

People who have gone to university or college aren''t by the fact of having gone more intelligent or smarter than someone who has not (the majority of my family has NOT been to university or college and they are brilliant people). Plenty of them being far smarter than me. And there are plenty of people who have gone to university or college who have a hard time tying their own shoelaces. Myself included at times.

It was not a personal attack on anyone - on you or anyone else for that matter.

Again, I was stating a a personal observation on how I have noticed differences in how people APPROACH political discussions and particularly differing viewpoints (or how they put their own viewpoints across). It was not a general statement about anyone''s intelligence, their views or anything else.

You can interpret it however you want, and make me an ''Example A'', but my experience is that there is a different approach to political discussions from people of differing educational backgrounds.

I thought Holly was making herself the example? I am so confused.

I took your statement a completely different way--SO has actually worked on many political campaigns, in fact he is a strategist for one right now, has a pretty great education, and I thought it was more of a dig at the educated rather than the uneducated! LOL

And that''s how we get into heated debates. Everyone''s perspective is different!

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/2/2010 4:44:02 PM
Author: monarch64

Date: 6/2/2010 4:28:52 PM

Author: RaiKai

Date: 6/2/2010 4:02:55 PM

Author: HollyS

'I notice a big difference between those who have gone to university or college (and taken some liberal arts and so on) and those who have not, when it comes to discussing political issues too. I am not going to make any particular statements on that, aside from what I already said, just that I notice a difference in how people handle discussions which may bring in opposing viewpoints.'





Obviously a college education (or even just a few courses) allows a superior viewpoint, and fosters a more intelligent discussion of the issues.

Dancing Fire, I give you example A of 'Why'.

Oh gosh, that is not what I meant at all. This is why I did not make any particular statements, nor did I in any case say that one fostered a more 'intelligent' discussion. In no way did I indicate one had a better viewpoint, or was more intelligent, as they went to university or college either. What I said was that I noticed differing viewpoints often were approached in a different way in discussions by people with different educational experiences.


People who have gone to university or college aren't by the fact of having gone more intelligent or smarter than someone who has not (the majority of my family has NOT been to university or college and they are brilliant people). Plenty of them being far smarter than me. And there are plenty of people who have gone to university or college who have a hard time tying their own shoelaces. Myself included at times.


It was not a personal attack on anyone - on you or anyone else for that matter.


Again, I was stating a a personal observation on how I have noticed differences in how people APPROACH political discussions and particularly differing viewpoints (or how they put their own viewpoints across). It was not a general statement about anyone's intelligence, their views or anything else.


You can interpret it however you want, and make me an 'Example A', but my experience is that there is a different approach to political discussions from people of differing educational backgrounds.

I thought Holly was making herself the example? I am so confused.


I took your statement a completely different way--SO has actually worked on many political campaigns, in fact he is a strategist for one right now, has a pretty great education, and I thought it was more of a dig at the educated rather than the uneducated! LOL


And that's how we get into heated debates. Everyone's perspective is different!

Now I am confused! Maybe she was making herself the example, but I read it as she was using me as the "why people get upset" part?

Yes, exactly - I did not actually mean it EITHER way - a dig at either - but I do find discussing politics or live issues is different, depending on the educational background.

And I definitely do not think discussing them with the highly educated is always a better (or more intelligent!) experience!

 

[TooPatient]

Date: 6/2/2010 4:19:56 PM
Author: part gypsy
Wow toopatient, you can have political discussions with your boss? Where I work right now political discussions are actually frowned upon (federal) which is actually refreshing. Prior place I worked my boss had certain views, hated the Clintons, especially Hillary so every day she would go on and on about about Hillary being gay, but also having an affair with Hal Foster and getting him offed, Clinton killing black boys near a train track (not sure what that one was about ???), then blowjobs and cigars, like EVERY DAY. She did not tolerate dissent so the other coworkers would kiss up to her to get on her good side (I just wouldn''t say anything, which she ALSO didn''t like). It all came to a head after I decided to have a kid, which she didn''t agree with, so there went my job. Unfortunately that colored my views about conservatives, so I''m pretty gun shy about getting into heady political conversations with people.
Another reason is, and I don''t know if I''m old fashioned this way, but even when I completely disagreed with how Bush II ran the country, I did not like people making denigrating and basically 4th grade comments about him, because he still held the office of the presidency. That doesn''t seem to be the case anymore, which I feel is unfortunate.

We''re pretty informal here. Just the two guys (age 65+) I work for and me. We all have different views on stuff but are able to back them up. It is usually really enjoyable and I think we''ve each learned a bit about what others think and why.

I''m sorry you had a boss like that. That sort of behavior bugs me (even when it is done by people I agree with). People are entitled to their own opinions and the things they have seen in their own lives add a lot to how they view stuff. That, to me, is far more important than having people agree with me. I like to hear what people think and why -- and am not so set in my ways that I can''t learn and let that influence my viewpoints in future.

 

[Demon]

Date: 6/2/2010 4:19:56 PM
Author: part gypsy
Wow toopatient, you can have political discussions with your boss? Where I work right now political discussions are actually frowned upon (federal) which is actually refreshing. Prior place I worked my boss had certain views, hated the Clintons, especially Hillary so every day she would go on and on about about Hillary being gay, but also having an affair with Hal Foster and getting him offed, Clinton killing black boys near a train track (not sure what that one was about ???), then blowjobs and cigars, like EVERY DAY. She did not tolerate dissent so the other coworkers would kiss up to her to get on her good side (I just wouldn''t say anything, which she ALSO didn''t like). It all came to a head after I decided to have a kid, which she didn''t agree with, so there went my job. Unfortunately that colored my views about conservatives, so I''m pretty gun shy about getting into heady political conversations with people.
Another reason is, and I don''t know if I''m old fashioned this way, but even when I completely disagreed with how Bush II ran the country, I did not like people making denigrating and basically 4th grade comments about him, because he still held the office of the presidency. That doesn''t seem to be the case anymore, which I feel is unfortunate.

" Clinton killing black boys near a train track"

Wow, I thought I''d heard them all! Clearly I had not!!

 

[kenny]

. . . because politics, like religion, is about one way being forced onto everyone.
This ONE way is seen the ONLY way, the RIGHT way.

Political and religious groups compete to be the largest and dominant group.
Both are about power, control and intolerance of diversity.

 

[HollyS]

And the "intolerance of diversity" pendulum swings both ways.

Just because we all have opinions, doesn''t make us right, wrong, important, unimportant, valid, or invalid, smart, or stupid. We merely have - and are entitled to have - opinions. And having an opinion that falls in line with conventional wisdom, well, even that doesn''t guarantee that we''re right. It just means we''re in step with a crowd; not that we''re smarter than the average bear.

 

[kenny]

Sure.

 

[Tuckins1]

Date: 6/2/2010 12:54:55 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 6/2/2010 12:37:01 PM

Author: yssie

I only get upset when people want changes that impose on other people''s lives, and yet have absolutely no bearing on their own *cough 8 cough*. Too often it''s at its base a religious argument.. whatever happened to separation of church and state? I hope that''s not just a myth.

Amen to the first bolded part, and WORD to the second. I find there is an overwhelming religious motivation to the politics and policies that I disagree with, and thus I easily get offended by those with opposing views because those views infringe on the personal freedoms of myself and others, and stem from religious oppression.


If the church was truly stripped from the state, I wonder what those policies would become ... what excuse people would have for oppressing others when they could no longer hide their religious agenda behind politics.

Yep. You both read my mind...

 

[Lula]

Q. Why do people get so upset when talking politics?

Some possible answers:
A. Fear of people who are different from them.
B. Fear of ideas that are different from their own.
C. Ignorance of the issues.

Become informed about the issues and vote your conscience. I hope in my lifetime we see the end to legal discrimination against gays/lesbians in this country. So many of my good friends are treated as second class citizens when it comes to insurance, marriage, etc.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 6/2/2010 6:04:05 PM
Author: HollyS
And the ''intolerance of diversity'' pendulum swings both ways.

Just because we all have opinions, doesn''t make us right, wrong, important, unimportant, valid, or invalid, smart, or stupid. We merely have - and are entitled to have - opinions. And having an opinion that falls in line with conventional wisdom, well, even that doesn''t guarantee that we''re right. It just means we''re in step with a crowd; not that we''re smarter than the average bear.

Holly...you were always right

way right.