why people get so upset when talking politics?

[ZestfullyBling]

I know...politics can be a very touchy subject for some.

I''m not one of them. I''m the one that gets silent when the debate happens.Don''t really have any opinions one way or the other.

I just pay my taxes and keep on steppin.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Yes, I am one of those people. I have very strong feelings about politics. I have very few friends who sit on the other side of the fence and my tolerance for them is usually because they are either not wholehearted about policy, they''re not vocal about it and we never discuss it, or they have a really good sense of humor about their party.

I am very much a live and let live sort of person but when it comes to politics you have found my most red hot intolerant button. Loathe is a word that comes to mind when I think about "the other side".

 

[doodle]

Date: 6/2/2010 11:58:49 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
Yes, I am one of those people. I have very strong feelings about politics. I have very few friends who sit on the other side of the fence and my tolerance for them is usually because they are either not wholehearted about policy, they''re not vocal about it and we never discuss it, or they have a really good sense of humor about their party.


I am very much a live and let live sort of person but when it comes to politics you have found my most red hot intolerant button. Loathe is a word that comes to mind when I think about ''the other side''.

LOL! I have to say that I respect your honesty about it. I know far too many people who go, "I don''t get bent out of shape about it...just everyone who has ever spoken to me in my entire life seems to think I do!" I admire your passion for what is important to you. Just a question, and I hope you don''t think I''m being demeaning in any way, but do you think that sometimes your intolerance may lessen the validity of what you''re saying because it doesn''t consider the other side, or have you still been able to engage in fruitful conversations regarding the subject? Or do you just avoid the subject altogether so as to prevent conflict?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/2/2010 10:52:36 AM
Author: 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.

I don''t attack people for their beliefs, and I very rarely will get into a heated discussion or debate about it - but I do tend to not include them in my inner circle. At the core of it is my intolerance for intolerance. It''s really what it''s all about for me. I know it''s hypocritical but it is what it is.

 

[Cehrabehra]

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*.

That''s it for me as well - I am more tolerant over fiscal differences of opinion - but only to a point.

 

[Cehrabehra]

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.

just a note on passive acceptance - that''s what they have here in china and to SOME extent I really understand how and why it works and to SOME extent I support it. You really have to be able to trust your leaders though... and I don''t think I could embrace it myself, but every day I understand a little more about why it works here.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/3/2010 12:11:16 AM
Author: doodle

Date: 6/2/2010 11:58:49 PM

Author: Cehrabehra

Yes, I am one of those people. I have very strong feelings about politics. I have very few friends who sit on the other side of the fence and my tolerance for them is usually because they are either not wholehearted about policy, they''re not vocal about it and we never discuss it, or they have a really good sense of humor about their party.

I am very much a live and let live sort of person but when it comes to politics you have found my most red hot intolerant button. Loathe is a word that comes to mind when I think about ''the other side''.

LOL! I have to say that I respect your honesty about it. I know far too many people who go, ''I don''t get bent out of shape about it...just everyone who has ever spoken to me in my entire life seems to think I do!'' I admire your passion for what is important to you. Just a question, and I hope you don''t think I''m being demeaning in any way, but do you think that sometimes your intolerance may lessen the validity of what you''re saying because it doesn''t consider the other side, or have you still been able to engage in fruitful conversations regarding the subject? Or do you just avoid the subject altogether so as to prevent conflict?

Hmm... I think when I meet people I semi-consciously look for signs as to certain values and if I get the sense that we are more or less aligned I will say something like, "Oh I am so glad..." but if I get the idea that they differ, then I tend to just make a mental note to never discuss it with them. Once I do I have a very hard time letting it go. I can be friendly or even to an extent friends, but it is so much more than just a political debate, it has to do with the basic values with which someone bases the fundamental beliefs in their life on.

I am all for people having the right to live in any way that suits them and I have no tolerance at all for people who dictate how others should be living. That''s my line. I suppose on fiscal issues that may seem hypocritical, but I tend to be a bit idealistic and look at this planet not as colors or sexual orientations or lines drawn on a map - but as a sphere in space where we are all in this together and should be helping one another get through... I embrace people who view the earth this way and avoid (but not fight with) people who don''t. If I didn''t mention the hypocritical intolerance for intolerance thing - that''s how I feel. There''s a part of me that understands that having a broader acceptance for opinions other than my own but there''s usually too much red in my vision to think clearly and I just turn and walk away from it.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/3/2010 12:27:48 AM
Author: Cehrabehra
At the core of it is my intolerance for intolerance.

I could not have said it better.

 

[doodle]

I totally get you on the intolerance for intolerance (and the hypocrisy of it) as I am the same way. I find that sometimes it can be hazy though as to when someone is being intolerant versus merely different (or ignorant, which I freely admit I also have little tolerance for!). I don''t have a problem with someone expressing a view different from my own, but back it up already--I can''t respect a copycat opinion that is stated without any personal basis. If the person can actually substantiate their beliefs though, I may not agree, but I can respect our differences.

 

[kenny]

I don't think anyone needs to substantiate their beliefs; after all they ARE just beliefs.
I'm not talking about what 2+2 equals.
It equaling four is not a belief; it's a fact.

Beliefs needing to be substantiated leads to the idea that there is only one truth out there, so everyone better get on board with it.
At the far extreme this is what leads to passionate believers flying commercial jets into buildings.

Substantiation means it is universal, whereas I see beliefs as personal.
Substantiation also means it must meet my standards.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/3/2010 1:13:45 AM
Author: kenny
I don''t think anyone needs to substantiate their beliefs; after all they ARE just beliefs.

I''m not talking about what 2+2 equals.

It equaling four is not a belief; it''s a fact.


Beliefs needing to be substantiated leads to the idea that there is only one truth out there, so everyone better get on board with it.

At the far extreme this is what leads to passionate believers flying commercial jets into buildings.


Substantiation means it is universal, whereas I see beliefs as personal.

Substantiation also means it must meet my standards.

well said kenny I never thought of it that way...

thankfully most opinions are the variety, "I like chocolate and you like vanilla and I think chocolate is superior and you think vanilla is superior and we can agree to disagree." But as soon as an opinion about chocolate vs vanilla becomes a policy that only ONE can be served ever... now we have a problem.

I was thinking about that in the armpit hair topic... the people who allow their hair are like yeah whatever, grow it or don''t... but some of the people who are firm shavers use very strong words that describe the look of those who don''t. We saw a few, "I think it''s gross" to those who don''t shave but no "I think you''re superficial" to those who do lol Even on topics like circumcision, I have a very strong opinion about it but as long as someone isn''t trying to pass a law telling me what to believe or how to behave I can be tolerant.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

It scares me how passionate people are when they know so little about it
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2356

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 6/3/2010 2:26:31 AM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
It scares me how passionate people are when they know so little about it

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2356

I don''t think you need to be a history major to understand the implications of yet-another-failed bond for your local school system, nor do I think you have to be current on every latest world event to be granted an opinion on a vote regarding a basic human right.

I do not say this as a defense of the ignorant, but I don''t think one must see every detail of the big picture to feel passionate about the issues within it that resonate.

 

[doodle]

Date: 6/3/2010 1:13:45 AM
Author: kenny
I don''t think anyone needs to substantiate their beliefs; after all they ARE just beliefs.

I''m not talking about what 2+2 equals.

It equaling four is not a belief; it''s a fact.


Beliefs needing to be substantiated leads to the idea that there is only one truth out there, so everyone better get on board with it.

At the far extreme this is what leads to passionate believers flying commercial jets into buildings.


Substantiation means it is universal, whereas I see beliefs as personal.

Substantiation also means it must meet my standards.

Kenny, perhaps "substantiate" wasn''t quite the word I was going for. If there were only one truth out there, that would no longer BE a belief; it''d be a fact, so that definitely wasn''t my intent! I totally agree that beliefs are personal, which is why I think it''s more important to be able to explain a belief versus a fact. I can google a fact online and learn about it all day long, but understanding someone else''s viewpoint requires that the person understand it him or herself. I''m also not saying that everyone must constantly defend their beliefs; I''m specifically talking about when two people are engaged in a conversation over such beliefs, in which case, it''s difficult to interact with each other if neither can explain their perspective. I also totally disagree that beliefs are JUST beliefs--if that were the case, there wouldn''t be instances of believers flying commercial jets into buildings.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/3/2010 1:39:12 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/3/2010 1:13:45 AM
Author: kenny
I don''t think anyone needs to substantiate their beliefs; after all they ARE just beliefs.

I''m not talking about what 2+2 equals.

It equaling four is not a belief; it''s a fact.


Beliefs needing to be substantiated leads to the idea that there is only one truth out there, so everyone better get on board with it.

At the far extreme this is what leads to passionate believers flying commercial jets into buildings.


Substantiation means it is universal, whereas I see beliefs as personal.

Substantiation also means it must meet my standards.

well said kenny I never thought of it that way...

thankfully most opinions are the variety, ''I like chocolate and you like vanilla and I think chocolate is superior and you think vanilla is superior and we can agree to disagree.'' But as soon as an opinion about chocolate vs vanilla becomes a policy that only ONE can be served ever... now we have a problem.

I was thinking about that in the armpit hair topic... the people who allow their hair are like yeah whatever, grow it or don''t... but some of the people who are firm shavers use very strong words that describe the look of those who don''t. We saw a few, ''I think it''s gross'' to those who don''t shave but no ''I think you''re superficial'' to those who do lol Even on topics like circumcision, I have a very strong opinion about it but as long as someone isn''t trying to pass a law telling me what to believe or how to behave I can be tolerant.

Wow. I hardly know how to begin with that one. I would say that there IS a huge need in many, to substantiate - I would call it "legitimize" their "just beliefs" into something less airy-fairy and palatable to the modern evidence-demanding mind: beliefs without evidence worked in the Middle Ages, not so well these days. And that battle plays out in our public schools every day.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 6/3/2010 3:29:35 AM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/3/2010 2:26:31 AM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
It scares me how passionate people are when they know so little about it

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2356

I don''t think you need to be a history major to understand the implications of yet-another-failed bond for your local school system, nor do I think you have to be current on every latest world event to be granted an opinion on a vote regarding a basic human right.

I do not say this as a defense of the ignorant, but I don''t think one must see every detail of the big picture to feel passionate about the issues within it that resonate.

And still, passion and ignorance is an explosive mix, resulting in such catchy already-going-down-in-history-as-synonymous-for-irony slogans as "Keep your government off my Medicare!". In my opinion, there is far too much passion, and far too little real knowledge or depth. Nowadays it''s not about what you know about the world, but how you feeeeeeeeel about it.

Of course no one can see every detail of the big picture, but not being able to name the century that the American Revolution happened in, or thinking the war of 1812 happened prior to The Revolution is pretty darn ignorant. And it''s willful ignorance at that. Can anyone here honestly say that they were not taught these things? There is nothing anyone can do if people choose to ignore - choose to be ignorant.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/3/2010 8:52:44 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 6/3/2010 1:39:12 AM

Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 6/3/2010 1:13:45 AM

Author: kenny

I don't think anyone needs to substantiate their beliefs; after all they ARE just beliefs.



I'm not talking about what 2+2 equals.


It equaling four is not a belief; it's a fact.



Beliefs needing to be substantiated leads to the idea that there is only one truth out there, so everyone better get on board with it.


At the far extreme this is what leads to passionate believers flying commercial jets into buildings.



Substantiation means it is universal, whereas I see beliefs as personal.


Substantiation also means it must meet my standards.

well said kenny I never thought of it that way...


thankfully most opinions are the variety, 'I like chocolate and you like vanilla and I think chocolate is superior and you think vanilla is superior and we can agree to disagree.' But as soon as an opinion about chocolate vs vanilla becomes a policy that only ONE can be served ever... now we have a problem.


I was thinking about that in the armpit hair topic... the people who allow their hair are like yeah whatever, grow it or don't... but some of the people who are firm shavers use very strong words that describe the look of those who don't. We saw a few, 'I think it's gross' to those who don't shave but no 'I think you're superficial' to those who do lol Even on topics like circumcision, I have a very strong opinion about it but as long as someone isn't trying to pass a law telling me what to believe or how to behave I can be tolerant.

Wow. I hardly know how to begin with that one. I would say that there IS a huge need in many, to substantiate - I would call it 'legitimize' their 'just beliefs' into something less airy-fairy and palatable to the modern evidence-demanding mind: beliefs without evidence worked in the Middle Ages, not so well these days. And that battle plays out in our public schools every day.

Ditto, ksinger.

As an instructor of an undergraduate class, the first thing I tell my students is that they are allowed to have beliefs -- we all have them -- but that beliefs aren't magically placed into your brain; rather, they come from somewhere or someone. I require students to identify and state their support for their beliefs. At the beginning of the semester they struggle with how to do this -- I guess a lifetime of talk radio and product advertising doe this to you -- but by the end of the semester, they are all able to state their beliefs and identify where they came from, and, more important, discuss the reasons why others may have beliefs different from theirs.