Dealing with differing politics in the family

[BroccoliRob]

u can always cut the tension with a top quality joke. like that time i saw Mister Mister in concert and i got back stage and said "hey mister mister, i love you guys" and he turned around and grabbed my collar and said "that's Mr. Mister Mister to YOU, Mister".

see, and just like that, tension absolved.

 

[PhilHill]

u can always cut the tension with a top quality joke. like that time i saw Mister Mister in concert and i got back stage and said "hey mister mister, i love you guys" and he turned around and grabbed my collar and said "that's Mr. Mister Mister to YOU, Mister".

see, and just like that, tension absolved.

    :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: :laughing11: I salute you Sir. ccasion14:

 

[amigarobbo]

Or a cheeky joke, something raunchy but not too on the nose. Something about their obese, promiscuous mother, that sort of thing.

:evil4:

Greetings,

Does anyone deal with a family member that feels that they are on a mission to express their political views in a combative way?

Holy moly Batman, I have an uncle who is hardcore in his political views, which most of the rest of the family doesn't share.  No one goes out of there way to express their views to him, yet, he finds it necessary to confront those that don't share his views.  I found myself multiple times in the last few days replying to him in a massively cutting way, but then delete that text with something more civil and also mentioning that hey, you're family, I love you, but leave this alone, you're upsetting everyone

Any thoughts on how to deal with this?

Let's not beat about the bush about any more. Is your uncle The Guitologist?

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

u can always cut the tension with a top quality joke. like that time i saw Mister Mister in concert and i got back stage and said "hey mister mister, i love you guys" and he turned around and grabbed my collar and said "that's Mr. Mister Mister to YOU, Mister".

see, and just like that, tension absolved.

A well prepped consumption of considerable quantities of garlic pre-event can also provide "distraction opportunities" into such a discussion by the simple of introduction of the passing of wind.  I've found that the hotter the wind, or rather, the lower the frequency of its "burn" say, around 200hz or lower, provides the desired effect to end such a topic, or at least change its direction, and it provides its own punctuation as an added benefit.

 

[NedRyerson]

You should reach to some sore of an agreement of no politics to avoid unnecessary conflict with your relative, and do so before things gets heated

That's the unspoken agreement that exists in our family.  My wife, her mother, and I (as well as my brother-in-law's wife) are in the distinct minority in our political views compared to the rest of the family.  We (all of us) do not bring any of it up.  The only ones who tend to in family gatherings are those who are kinda' on the outer circles who don't quite get that agreement.

When we leave politics out, we all have a lot of fun together.

But that doesn't sound like what Uncle wants to do.  It sounds like he's just itching to pick a fight because he knows he can trigger an argument and just wants to win.  He's not in it for debate.  He's in it for combat.  And there's no reasoning with that kind of mentality.

 

[mayfly]

Or a cheeky joke, something raunchy but not too on the nose. Something about their obese, promiscuous mother, that sort of thing.

:evil4:

Greetings,

Does anyone deal with a family member that feels that they are on a mission to express their political views in a combative way?

Holy moly Batman, I have an uncle who is hardcore in his political views, which most of the rest of the family doesn't share.  No one goes out of there way to express their views to him, yet, he finds it necessary to confront those that don't share his views.  I found myself multiple times in the last few days replying to him in a massively cutting way, but then delete that text with something more civil and also mentioning that hey, you're family, I love you, but leave this alone, you're upsetting everyone

Any thoughts on how to deal with this?

Let's not beat about the bush about any more. Is your uncle The Guitologist?

ok, I read this and beer snorted uncontrollably out of my nose!

 

[Seamas]

Or a cheeky joke, something raunchy but not too on the nose. Something about their obese, promiscuous mother, that sort of thing.

:evil4:

Greetings,

Does anyone deal with a family member that feels that they are on a mission to express their political views in a combative way?

Holy moly Batman, I have an uncle who is hardcore in his political views, which most of the rest of the family doesn't share.  No one goes out of there way to express their views to him, yet, he finds it necessary to confront those that don't share his views.  I found myself multiple times in the last few days replying to him in a massively cutting way, but then delete that text with something more civil and also mentioning that hey, you're family, I love you, but leave this alone, you're upsetting everyone

Any thoughts on how to deal with this?

Let's not beat about the bush about any more. Is your uncle The Guitologist?

LOL.
I liked him when he serviced amps.

 

[ghotiphry]

My mother is 85 and is succumbing to dementia, however, not when she talks political things. Then she has a spark. So I talk politics with her all the time. It is a good thing we share the same views.

However, there are a lot of people in my family on the other end of the spectrum. I haven't spoken to them in quite a while. I avoid them on social media. To your question, I have no answer, as I've been struggling with it myself.

We are a nation divided. It reaches deep, and disrupts close ties. Friends, family, it knows no boundaries.  And I don't think we've even begun any healing. I'm hopeful, but doubtful.

 

[Seamas]

I understand the urge to only discuss politics with like-minded people --but that is what helps people end up in a bubble.
It helps foster the us vs them mentality, and really helps people get entrenched and sucked into a confirmation bias spiral.
The discussion of politics with people of differing viewpoints is actually desperately needed. But it really needs more honesty.
What is missing really isn't having common ground on opinion, it is that there are no ground rules on the discussions.
Too many people go into their discussions loaded with insults, strawman arguments, massive generalities.
Politics is ugly, but the alternative is far worse. People just need to have a better clue about HOW to behave.

 

[War_in_D]

I understand the urge to only discuss politics with like-minded people --but that is what helps people end up in a bubble.
It helps foster the us vs them mentality, and really helps people get entrenched and sucked into a confirmation bias spiral.
The discussion of politics with people of differing viewpoints is actually desperately needed. But it really needs more honesty.
What is missing really isn't having common ground on opinion, it is that there are no ground rules on the discussions.
Too many people go into their discussions loaded with insults, strawman arguments, massive generalities.
Politics is ugly, but the alternative is far worse. People just need to have a better clue about HOW to behave.

Agree 100% with this, open minded and civil discussion is key to bring everything together..  But since we're talking about honest discussion.. I have an honest question to ask you.  When you said this:

LOL.
I liked him when he serviced amps.

What exactly did you mean?  If you liked him when he serviced amps, but it would now appear that now you don't.  What changed the way you feel about him?

 

[Seamas]

I understand the urge to only discuss politics with like-minded people --but that is what helps people end up in a bubble.
It helps foster the us vs them mentality, and really helps people get entrenched and sucked into a confirmation bias spiral.
The discussion of politics with people of differing viewpoints is actually desperately needed. But it really needs more honesty.
What is missing really isn't having common ground on opinion, it is that there are no ground rules on the discussions.
Too many people go into their discussions loaded with insults, strawman arguments, massive generalities.
Politics is ugly, but the alternative is far worse. People just need to have a better clue about HOW to behave.

Agree 100% with this, open minded and civil discussion is key to bring everything together..  But since we're talking about honest discussion.. I have an honest question to ask you.  When you said this:

LOL.
I liked him when he serviced amps.

What exactly did you mean?  If you liked him when he serviced amps, but it would now appear that now you don't.  What changed the way you feel about him?

I should have said I liked his channel when he serviced amps.
The videos were interesting and instructive. I found it fascinating. Never before did I ever have any interest in actually working in electronics. Now I am looking for some kind of continuing ed classes.

Some time ago he stopped doing that, and devoted most of his content to commentary, with a considerable amount of it being in the form of political rants.
I have plenty of places I can go for that type of commentary.

Maybe he went back to fixing amps. He was better at it and better informed about that.
I unsubscribed months ago.

 

[amigarobbo]

I've been getting into this guy https://www.youtube.com/user/shango066 who repairs old valve radios and valve TVs, great fun.

Even if I have no idea what's he talking about half the time.

 

[War_in_D]

I should have said I liked his channel when he serviced amps.
The videos were interesting and instructive. I found it fascinating. Never before did I ever have any interest in actually working in electronics. Now I am looking for some kind of continuing ed classes.

Fair enough, and a more fitting comment in regards to what you are proposing when it comes to honest and open discussion on political issues.  There is no need to make it personal.  I'll be the first one to say, as in the case of the Guitologist, that maybe a seperate channel for political rantings and viewpoints would have been more apropos.  Or, in other words..  Don't sh*t where you eat.  Although, I'm not sure if doing that would have made any difference. 

However, when you say something like this:

Maybe he went back to fixing amps. He was better at it and better informed about that.
I unsubscribed months ago.

It's more akin to that bubble that you described that we might find ourselves in, and the confirmation bias you pointed out?  That statement implies that you feel that his opinion is somehow incorrect or maybe doesn't line up with what you believe, and as such you no longer want to hear what he has to say about anything.. So you unsubcribed from an othewise engaging channel that you found interesting, over a difference of political viewpoint.

Isn't that what we're trying to avoid? 

 

[swarfrat]

Not necessarily. I have a higher threshold for people I agree with,  but I still unfollow friends I agree with if all they talk about is politics

 

[War_in_D]

Not necessarily. I have a higher threshold for people I agree with,  but I still unfollow friends I agree with if all they talk about is politics

So, in this instance, it's not necessarily a difference of viewpoint but a overall "I'm just tired of hearing it" feeling regarding what the person is saying. Especially if politics is all they are talking about.  I can understand that, and empathize.  I have a friend on Facebook that is exactly this person.  One of my oldest, and dearest friends but the majority of what they post is political in nature.  My sister is the exact opposite.. not that she posts constantly, but I mean that her politics and mine are pretty much diametrically opposed.  Would I unfollow/unfriend either of them (or anyone) because of what they are posting?  No, not as long as things stay civil.  I am a firm believer in the 1st Amendment, and I would defend another's right to state their opinion as fiercly as I would my own as long as it's done with respect and civility.  I care about them both and even though a person's belief system may be different that mine, I still see them as friends and loved ones first.  Doesn't mean we don't have some spirited discussions (but never mean), but at the end of the day I'm not going to let that come between myself and the people that I care about.  It's called being an adult. 

Now, if they feel the need to take their ball and go home in a huff.. That's their decision, and there's nothing I can do about that.   

 

[swarfrat]

SM is not real life. I've unfriended people over creepy friends before, because at some point Facebook decided I wanted to see when my friends comment on people who aren't my friends pages. If I figure out you are the reason Facebook is flooding my feed with creepg clowns, bye.. We can still talk at parties. Unless this bothers you, in which case I guess we weren't really friends anyway.

 

[NedRyerson]

Not necessarily. I have a higher threshold for people I agree with,  but I still unfollow friends I agree with if all they talk about is politics

So, in this instance, it's not necessarily a difference of viewpoint but a overall "I'm just tired of hearing it" feeling regarding what the person is saying. Especially if politics is all they are talking about.  I can understand that, and empathize.  I have a friend on Facebook that is exactly this person.  One of my oldest, and dearest friends but the majority of what they post is political in nature.  My sister is the exact opposite.. not that she posts constantly, but I mean that her politics and mine are pretty much diametrically opposed.  Would I unfollow/unfriend either of them (or anyone) because of what they are posting?  No, not as long as things stay civil.  I am a firm believer in the 1st Amendment, and I would defend another's right to state their opinion as fiercly as I would my own as long as it's done with respect and civility.  I care about them both and even though a person's belief system may be different that mine, I still see them as friends and loved ones first.  Doesn't mean we don't have some spirited discussions (but never mean), but at the end of the day I'm not going to let that come between myself and the people that I care about.  It's called being an adult. 

Now, if they feel the need to take their ball and go home in a huff.. That's their decision, and there's nothing I can do about that. 

Same here.  I've hidden/unfollowed/defriended those whose entire lives were consumed by sharing/reposting/doomscrolling and NOTHING else.  Even if they and I were ideologically similar.  This isn't -- to me -- a freedom-of-speech issue but effective use of time and management of content.

My litmus test is "do they react to anything I post that isn't political, such as things about music, my kids, sci-fi nerddom, or hockey?"  If not, then there's no need to remain connected.  We're little more than coworkers at that point.

But like I said earlier, there's a difference between presenting one's opinion and needling & provoking to pick a fight.  I think everyone here is grown-up enough to know the difference, even if subconsciously.  I feel that the issue, however, is that we've been browbeaten into believing that "freedom of speech" means "unlimited freedom to talk without responsibility."

Because i think we also know at least a handful of people who resort to that immediately upon being confronted about not what they say but HOW.  The lack of understanding of appropriate time and place.  Those who want to pick a fight will do so at the slightest of provocation, and retort "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!" out of place and out of context.

The rule here on this forum is "no politics," yes?  Then the behavior I describe is if I just immediately launched into a political diatribe about something, the mods come in to warn me off against it because it's against the rules, and I defiantly just sniff "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!" <middle finger>

Social media has made it much easier to communicate with one another, but that comes with both good and bad.  What is being said is often overshadowed instead by how.  Therein, I feel, lies the first issue that stands between where we are now and civility, but is also, at this point, the most impossible to resolve.

 

[PhilHill]

My understanding has always been that Freedom of Speech applies to the Public Square. It doesn't apply to social media, as these are private forums and subject to the rules of said forums directors. Any such forum can decide for themselves what is and isn't allowed. If the folks posting don't like the rules, their proper course of action does not lie in the Constitution. instead it should take the form of finding another forum that is agreeable to their views. At least that's the way it seems to me.............. :headbang:

 

[Seamas]

That statement implies that you feel that his opinion is somehow incorrect or maybe doesn't line up with what you believe, and as such you no longer want to hear what he has to say about anything.. So you unsubcribed from an othewise engaging channel that you found interesting, over a difference of political viewpoint.

Isn't that what we're trying to avoid?

I unsubscribed because he STOPPED servicing amps.
It STOPPED being engaging.
As for his discourse, the problems were multitude--it wasn't "beliefs" it was that he so often got his facts very, very wrong. I can deal with someone's opinion, but when the opinion is not based on reality, it's worthless.
And it is also NOT a discourse--which I would welcome-- as there is no back and forth at all.
He also engaged in a lot of piss-taking at other youtubers, often in bad faith and name calling.
It's just him spouting and not doing in with any nod to honesty or fact checking. Who needs that?

I'm reading this thread and I have been consistent in stating my position and what it entails: avoiding ad-homs, avoiding fallacies and straw man arguments, and embracing good faith and back and forth--he wasn't offering that.

 

[Seamas]

My understanding has always been that Freedom of Speech applies to the Public Square. It doesn't apply to social media, as these are private forums and subject to the rules of said forums directors. Any such forum can decide for themselves what is and isn't allowed. If the folks posting don't like the rules, their proper course of action does not lie in the Constitution. instead it should take the form of finding another forum that is agreeable to their views. At least that's the way it seems to me.............. :headbang:

Yep. 1st amendment only describes the limitations' of Congressional power.