What's new

political discussions in social circle

Searcher

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Dec 24, 2021
Messages
226
I have been on this forum for sometime and the insights I get into many situations is quite valuable.

These days in most social circles, politics have gone on steroids.

I generally don't like to discuss politics in social circle game but it is unavoidable when the topic comes up.

there are people in the social circle who basically parrot whatever suits their confirmation bias.
any disagreements is met by personal attacks.
calling it out is further met by doubling down on it.

some of these are social circles are unavoidable at the workplace(a very left leaning and some hobbies.

How do I respond in such cases?
 

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
5,246
I have been on this forum for sometime and the insights I get into many situations is quite valuable.

These days in most social circles, politics have gone on steroids.

I generally don't like to discuss politics in social circle game but it is unavoidable when the topic comes up.

there are people in the social circle who basically parrot whatever suits their confirmation bias.
any disagreements is met by personal attacks.
calling it out is further met by doubling down on it.

some of these are social circles are unavoidable at the workplace(a very left leaning and some hobbies.

How do I respond in such cases?
you just act curious, help them elaborate, and never show your card (your political, religuious, or your leanings) just play stupid, and/or say you got taught early own not to talk about politics or religuion never ends well... and change topics
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,233
@Searcher,

If you need to talk to them about it (i.e., they corner you / badger you), use the Socratic Method. That's where you just ask leading questions about the person's beliefs, statements, positions, etc.:


Like Skills said this will get them elaborating on their viewpoints. You never reveal your own. At most you just say, "Hmm that's interesting," and ask more questions. Depending on your goal you can just ask questions until you reach the point where they reveal they have no idea what they're talking about -- but I wouldn't advise that for the workplace. You'll just make enemies (the Athenian elites poisoned Socrates with hemlock after he pissed them off enough with his question-asking!).

Personally with agitated political people I will ask a few questions like this to get them to explain their views a bit, basically just bring them to the precipice to where they start to feel uncertain about what they're saying, then I will change the subject. Gets them off their high horse, but avoids robbing them of face; the topic change lets them save face, so they end up being grateful. They also realize that talking to you about politics risks exposing them as idiots so they refrain from bringing it up with you again in the future and just stick to more agreeable subjects.

(so for me the technique is: don't go all the way into making them feel like idiots, just bring them close enough to it that they can feel that talking to you anymore about this would be a bad idea for their face)



Otherwise, if you do NOT need to talk to them (i.e., they are not badgering you or cornering you), and it's just bugging you listening to it, it helps to understand Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory:

e.g., if they are liberal and you are conservative, you will value

  • Care/harm
  • Fairness/cheating
  • Loyalty/betrayal
  • Authority/subversion
  • Sanctity/degradation
  • Liberty/oppression

Meanwhile they will ONLY value

  • Care/harm
  • Fairness/cheating

You both have equivalent amounts of "fucks to give", but yours are distributed among six categories of values while theirs are concentrated into two. To your ears they will be OVEREMPHASIZING the importance of those two while seeming morally bankrupt on the other six; to their ears (if you start spouting politics back) you will have weirdly misplaced values on values spectrums that TO THEM are not even moral dimensions at all; meanwhile you will not value the two moral foundations that to them are the only ones that actually matter nearly enough, which makes YOU seem "morally bankrupt."

This is a largely unbridgeable gulf, because you cannot get them to view your extra values as "moral values" except in the abstract, and only if they are very open-minded (most people aren't). So it is better just to understand that people with opposing views to yours are simply operating from a different set of morality at a foundational level and there's no point trying to argue with them about surface-level politics. You'd have to totally change their moral foundations first, which you almost certainly cannot (i.e., your first task before you deal with superficial politics is to get Mr. Liberal to decide it is important to respect authority, honor loyalty, maintain purity, and value liberty. You will not succeed at that, which makes the superficial conversation moot).

Once you understand it then you can just shrug, because that conversation is irrelevant to you.

Also, arguing politics with peons is just totally pointless, unless you work in a Senator's office or something. If you could change their minds, would that change your government's policy? Unlikely! So it's just a colossal waste of time and productive energy.

Chase
 
you miss 100% of the shots you don't take

Searcher

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Dec 24, 2021
Messages
226
@Searcher,

If you need to talk to them about it (i.e., they corner you / badger you), use the Socratic Method. That's where you just ask leading questions about the person's beliefs, statements, positions, etc.:


Like Skills said this will get them elaborating on their viewpoints. You never reveal your own. At most you just say, "Hmm that's interesting," and ask more questions. Depending on your goal you can just ask questions until you reach the point where they reveal they have no idea what they're talking about -- but I wouldn't advise that for the workplace. You'll just make enemies (the Athenian elites poisoned Socrates with hemlock after he pissed them off enough with his question-asking!).

Personally with agitated political people I will ask a few questions like this to get them to explain their views a bit, basically just bring them to the precipice to where they start to feel uncertain about what they're saying, then I will change the subject. Gets them off their high horse, but avoids robbing them of face; the topic change lets them save face, so they end up being grateful. They also realize that talking to you about politics risks exposing them as idiots so they refrain from bringing it up with you again in the future and just stick to more agreeable subjects.

(so for me the technique is: don't go all the way into making them feel like idiots, just bring them close enough to it that they can feel that talking to you anymore about this would be a bad idea for their face)



Otherwise, if you do NOT need to talk to them (i.e., they are not badgering you or cornering you), and it's just bugging you listening to it, it helps to understand Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory:

e.g., if they are liberal and you are conservative, you will value

  • Care/harm
  • Fairness/cheating
  • Loyalty/betrayal
  • Authority/subversion
  • Sanctity/degradation
  • Liberty/oppression

Meanwhile they will ONLY value

  • Care/harm
  • Fairness/cheating

You both have equivalent amounts of "fucks to give", but yours are distributed among six categories of values while theirs are concentrated into two. To your ears they will be OVEREMPHASIZING the importance of those two while seeming morally bankrupt on the other six; to their ears (if you start spouting politics back) you will have weirdly misplaced values on values spectrums that TO THEM are not even moral dimensions at all; meanwhile you will not value the two moral foundations that to them are the only ones that actually matter nearly enough, which makes YOU seem "morally bankrupt."

This is a largely unbridgeable gulf, because you cannot get them to view your extra values as "moral values" except in the abstract, and only if they are very open-minded (most people aren't). So it is better just to understand that people with opposing views to yours are simply operating from a different set of morality at a foundational level and there's no point trying to argue with them about surface-level politics. You'd have to totally change their moral foundations first, which you almost certainly cannot (i.e., your first task before you deal with superficial politics is to get Mr. Liberal to decide it is important to respect authority, honor loyalty, maintain purity, and value liberty. You will not succeed at that, which makes the superficial conversation moot).

Once you understand it then you can just shrug, because that conversation is irrelevant to you.

Also, arguing politics with peons is just totally pointless, unless you work in a Senator's office or something. If you could change their minds, would that change your government's policy? Unlikely! So it's just a colossal waste of time and productive energy.

Chase
Thanks for taking the time to write this long post. the analysis is beautiful.

I agree with the analysis that its pointless to change their mind. it will be a waste of my energy.
the analysis on moral foundations theory is not something i had heard until now.

I work in a software company, so its like walking into a left wing party headquarters.

At the same time I can't deny that it does irk me when they spew hatred of anyone who doesn't blindly trust them (basically calling them "fascists", "Nazis", etc), the amount of blatant lies, the outright denial to even listen to other points.

I guess I will have to learn to ignore them for my own benefit.
 

ChrisXKiss

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jul 31, 2023
Messages
415
At the same time I can't deny that it does irk me when they spew hatred of anyone who doesn't blindly trust them (basically calling them "fascists", "Nazis", etc), the amount of blatant lies, the outright denial to even listen to other points.

I guess I will have to learn to ignore them for my own benefit.
I’d say that this is the most important part. If you have to be around these people and collaborate, then the best way for it to work is to simply accept their views on politics as something they really value for their own reasons, without letting it trigger you.

The way I try to do it is by seeing most people that talk about politics somehow like we want to see girls as silly and cute. I recognise that they are believing something strongly, and generally this seems a bit silly and cute to me, because there is not an absolutely perfect political system we should all be agreeing on, so them getting very passionate about their positions has a lot to do with how they are wired to see the world, which they don’t fully realise.

It’s not even about what they believe, if they just strongly believe it and would only ever debate it to prove someone else how right they are, to me that’s some silly and cute behaviour.

And not in a condescending way. I believe it helps to accept people for their nature, and these kind of behaviours are an interesting part of the human experience.

So you can be a part of the group, treat them really well like the lovely people they are and not let the expression of their views affect you.

I believe this goes a long way towards effectively cohabiting with people especially in such scenarios, where you are kinda close and need to interact a lot, but not really that close that is important for your beliefs to be so aligned.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,233
At the same time I can't deny that it does irk me when they spew hatred of anyone who doesn't blindly trust them (basically calling them "fascists", "Nazis", etc), the amount of blatant lies, the outright denial to even listen to other points.

I have come to view 100% of all impassioned, non-deliberate/reasoned politics as "self-preservastionist."

i.e., whatever politics the individual is passionately espousing, he believes that allegiance to that political group is vital for the preservation of his current way of life.

For these Silicon Valley types, for instance, they are extremely reliant upon a U.S. military-financial empire that is able to extract resources from the rest of the world and funnel that into the U.S., which then funnels into tech stocks and tech employment. Many of them are also foreign-born and feel a lot more comfortable with the political party that wants them there (because they're cheaper for Big Tech to pay than natives) rather than the political party that does not want them there.

Take Google. Google has not made anything profitable aside from Google Search and Google Ads (formerly AdSense).... maaaybe YouTube. It's not clear if YouTube makes money or not:

When I worked [at Google] a long time ago execs were routinely asked about whether particular products were profitable and the answers made clear that they usually had no idea. Too much shared infrastructure that can't be clearly accounted to any one product, and many products justified with hard to measure things like making web search better.

I guess Google Chrome would technically be something Google made other than Google Search (that is entirely profitable because its default search engine is Google Search; thus, Google Ads).

Instead, Google just acquires infinity techs that have the potential to disrupt its ad business, tries to make them work for itself, fails, then sunsets them:


Google has an ENORMOUS amount of bloat and is filled with completely unnecessary people working on unnecessary projects.

Every one of these mega corps is this way. People think "capitalism is efficient." Once a corporation achieves market dominance, it loads itself up with inefficiencies and bloat; it makes more money than it knows what to do with, then squanders it on a million pointless people and hires. This is only possible because there is so much money floating around in the American sphere that these corporations can afford to have all this bloat, instead of having to shave themselves down and run lean, so they end up hiring all these mostly-useless people doing mostly-dead-end things.

Universities are another example. Take a look at this chart:

MSMFreePress_raw_illus_04-1200x692.jpg


That has been happening at the same rate at universities across the U.S. It is a big part of why college has gotten so expensive. Why do universities need 260% more administrators today than they had in 1990, when the student body has only grown 75%? These are useless people employed in make-work roles that are dependent upon government largesse and policies that encourage their hiring (e.g., "Director of Equity & Inclusion"). All these people will be ferociously partisan against people with politics who, if their politics was ascendant, would jeopardize these people's livelihoods.

For me, whenever I hear partisan politics, I hear, "I need the government because [X]."

Partisan left-wing politics is "I need the government to suck in money from taxes and globalist policies and give handouts and also welcome me and more people like me here."

Partisan right-wing politics is "I need the government to kick ass elsewhere in the world and get money through military adventurism and push people to believe what I believe about faith and country."

Both of these people are secretly terrified of what will happen to them without Big Daddy Government there to do whatever they desperately want it to do. That terror manifests as hysterical attacks against their political opponents.

Once you realize it is fear driving them (fear of loss of status, inability to self-preserve, etc.) you view it differently.

They may still be dangerous if they start viewing you as "the enemy."

But you can understand their lashing out as impotent rage at an existential threat. Those partisans on the other side really do threaten their way of life. If you want to know who is fearfully dependent on government to prop their lives up, just look for the partisans.

Nowadays, someone around me says "PARTISAN STUFF!" and I hear it is "OMG DON'T TAKE MY HANDOUTS AWAY PLZ!"

No matter which side of the political aisle they're on...

You just view them as weak and afraid. Hard to take it much personal after that.

"Thinking men" they are not.

(there are also the young kids, who have just been programmed/indoctrinated. In that case, they think they are dependent, but as they age some of them will start to feel less dependent and will shrug off their indoctrination, or even flip and conclude the side they thought was protecting them actually stands against them, etc.)

Chase
 

West_Indian_Archie

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
418
some of these are social circles are unavoidable at the workplace(a very left leaning and some hobbies.

How do I respond in such cases?

Having seen versions of this conversation for the past 25 years.. Juggler used to talk about being a Conservative Republican trying to pull girls in Man Francisco...

As someone that's pretty much on the deep left, you don't need to SAY anything for me to know that you're a right winger.
  • What you talk about - subjects
  • How you talk about things - emotion, lack thereof
  • Words you use - if someone ever says "admixture" - I already know they're on some BS
  • What you don't talk about
  • Words you don't use
  • How you listen
  • Facial Expressions
  • Body Language
  • etc
^these are all major tells.

Folks that don't participate, always on the outside, when this stuff comes up = Right Wingers.

Agree with them on 99 issues out of 100? That 1 issue makes you a right winger.

And please believe it when I tell you that Lefties apply purity tests to other Lefties. (It's why we can never get anything done. Even my saying that, is tantamount to fascism)

So the reality is that for whatever space you're in, they already suspect or know that you're on "wrong" side.

Trying to use rhetorical devices to "hide" your position only puts a spotlight on your wrong position.
Devil's Advocates are always representatives of the Devil.

All that said - you have to be more interesting and more captivating - and bring more value to these group settings. It's not a question of "off setting" your "bad" characteristics.

This would be the same strategy if you were a Leftie, if you did agree with them.

or changed social scenarios to be with more right wingers.

Once you start in the PUA world, and start being strategic about socializing - there's no turning back.

WIA
 
Top