Poll: 6 in 10 Americans too scared to share political views

[Dill]

(11-01-2017, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: In my mind discussing politics/religion is less about finding people who agree with your stance on the issues and more about finding someone who agrees on the manner by which discussion is approached/accepted.  A lot of people can proudly state their views on something and then become very offended or defensive when you ask why they believe what they believe.  It's quite interesting.

I would jokingly relate it to me saying "Oh, I'm a huge Beatles fan and I love them and they're the best" and then getting shocked or offended if someone asked me which of their albums is my favorite, or why I even like them.   Personally, I like it when people ask me why I believe what I believe because it gives me a chance to elaborate on my views, as well as practice and refine them.  Sometimes you have to hear yourself say something out loud before it really clicks, anyways.

But anyways, it's quite astounding that we can base our entire lives around something we love to divulge but hate to discuss.

That's a good point. Some people do not know how to carry political discussions across party lines.

E.g., once name-calling is assumed "normal" and acceptable behavior then, given the absence of initial common ground, any discussion quickly degrades. If the other side won't reciprocate, then it just stops.

Other problems arise from differing levels of competence managing arguments. Some know how to explore arguments, examining premises and recognizing implicit assumptions and unstated logical entailment and the like.  When both sides know how to follow this process there is little problem.  But when one doesn't discussion breaks down quickly. Authoritarians can only state and restate claims. They go by impression and instinct, and if you don't accept their claims at face value then you are attacking them and, by their logic, they must counter attack ("hit back 10 times harder" as our authoritarian-in-chief puts it).  So after the statement/restatement of positions there follows a downward spiral of personal abuse unrelated to premises, claims and inferences. Or, as I said above, if the other side chooses not to take the low road, discussion stops.

Still other conflicts arise on what counts as evidence or authoritative sources.  Calm and focused discussants can wend their way through such difficulties. Authoritarians cannot. They have  told you what they think and shown you their links and don't have time for questions or counter-evidence. Offering such just shows you cannot be reasoned with--though if you are one of those people who explores arguments that is exactly what you thought you were doing: reasoning.