Says a letter to the WaPo advice columnist from a woman who finds it "really weird." I find that pretty funny, because I don't think it's weird at all. Some people hate to talk about politics, especially with somebody who's "very passionate." You might think somebody who doesn't want to talk about your issues must be secretly on the other side (or just apathetic), but I can think of lots of reasons to want to avoid conversations with someone who's intense and verbal in support of causes that I support too. If you're getting together with someone, you want to spend time with them, to learn what's going on in their personal world, not to hear something like social media bloviating.
The columnist opines that it's weird, but only "low-key weird."
Here's a reason that I, specifically, do not talk about politics in person even with someone I agree with. I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation, especially if my in-person interlocutor expresses contempt for those people or misstates their reasons for believing what they do. That puts me in a "really weird" position.
Posts
69 comments:
just said that I saw the donor list as a volunteer and I shouldn’t bring it into the family.
Stupid husband! Expecting his wife to show the Slightest Bit of ethics!!!
Such people should never be given access to any list of names, ever.
WRT your last graf: Weird. Sometimes I'm tempted to get that way. I have some acquaintances of such little talent, distinction or accomplishment that their major intellectual achievement is bing born north of the Ohio River. Thus, to maintain their position of superiority, they must slag those not so fortunate at every opportunity.
They may not be entirely clear on the diff between pliocene and kerosene, but, by golly, they can spell evolution. Mostly.
I'll bet the woman who wrote letter is named "Karen".
There's nothing weird about being private and not wanting to discuss one's political views. It is weird to not understand that.
I know a very politically active person who is always imploring me to vote and once even offered to drive me to the polls to get me to vote. I already vote. And probably rarely for anyone this person would like.
As a Social Studies teacher I adopted that same view personally. While my students were having passionate teenage political debates across the spectrum they had no idea where I stood on any issue. Ever. I've carried that over into my personal life too though to a lesser degree.
Exactly, Althouse! In a passionate political convo, intellectual honestly is rarely appreciated. And it’s a lot of work to frame a point in a way that doesn’t blow up. I kinda don’t want to work that hard in a casual conversation.
The other day a friend of mine brought up “the idiotic Supreme Court and their fucking abortion decision.” A literally said I don’t care and that I’ve never voted based on that issue - all true. He flipped out that I didn’t validate his echo chamber. I find that irritating.
There's a podcast by Jordan Peterson and Bari Weiss that I consider the absolute model of how to have a conversation with those with whom you agree. The two are discussing with each other why each chose to leave a prestigious post. It could have been just a festival of bitterness or righteousness, or an exchange of platitudes. But instead it meanders through what is education, what is propaganda, what is a reason to leave the ring of bright futures for the outer darkness and more. It's interesting because they are interesting but also because the one responds to what the other says and because neither knew at the start why the other did what they did. So I have used it as a model so far as I can in conversation with those I agree with and those in my family I disagree with (in a family, obviously there is agreement on many levels, even these days). I meander or else I don't talk about it all at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTA9MJZ4KY Peterson/Weiss
"I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation,"
This is me 100%. Liberal friends think I'm a Nazi but conservative friends think I'm a Commie. This stems from my habit of not letting people get away with badly argued positions, no matter where on the spectrum those positions may be.
I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation, especially if my in-person interlocutor expresses contempt for those people or misstates their reasons for believing what they do.
I maxed out the empathy scale on my Army psych evals. I also maxed out introversion.
People think this is a weird combination but if you think about it it makes sense. Knowing how other people feel and how generally selfish people are makes you very tired.
Your problem Ann is that you are letting the leftists lie. They have been caught repeatedly. The WAPO and NYT's have not printed more than a few honest words in years and most of those were by mistake.
The left cannot support their arguments honestly.
The supporters of Roe are right now realizing the world is a better place now without that disastrous decision.
They cannot support hyper inflationary policies. They cannot support open borders. They cannot support endless wars to protect corruption. They cannot support a double standard for J6 and BLM protests.
So they have to lie.
You feel the need to represent the side that is not represented in the conversation, but you do not honestly represent both sides.
"I am very passionate about politics..."
Look up "How nature says do not touch" by Gary Larson.
I read that yesterday, and the comments uniformly condemn this woman for breaching the confidentiality of the donor list.
The violation of his privacy is rather hypocritical - but entirely expected - if the "national organization" is what I expect it is, known by the initials PP, which rakes in the money.
"…especially if my in-person interlocutor expresses contempt for those people or misstates their reasons for believing what they do. That puts me in a "really weird" position."
I also don't like talking about politics in-person. I never realized this is one reason why.
Personally, I do not talk much politics with most family members.
And when I have been on overseas trips with some, I've had to say to them, "Will you PLEASE turn off the damn TV?" which is of course showing some American cable news program.
Another reason is the really-passionate/always-right people just creep me out.
One key component if representing someone else is that they generally have to agree with your representation.
If they do not agree then it comes down to how the basis of disagreement.
The problem for the left is they cannot be honest about what they are doing. At that point they do not deserve to be represented.
That is the foundation they have built on bad faith.
That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.
If I were this person's spouse, I would get out ASAP. She sounds a little too involved in everyone else's business. The line about her being surprised that the BIL has that much money to donate is somewhat scary. Plus, a volunteer commenting about donor names/amounts is a little uncomfortable as well.
It's funny how in a lot of East Coast/leftish leaning magazines and papers, these type of articles reveal more about the subject than the object. And not in a beneficial light.
Civility BS?
That last paragraph feels like "cruel neutrality" differently expressed.
Blogger Howard said...
That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.
It doesn't seem to have helped you but you do occasionally seem to recognize how crazy Democrats are. Keep coming and we will try to teach you.
I was politically active but never talked about it. But my friends and family heard and acted as though I might explode in their presence.
For all the loose political talk, activism strikes most people as being quite weird.
The other day a friend of mine brought up “the idiotic Supreme Court and their fucking abortion decision.”...He flipped out that...
"He."
He flipped out that he and other men might not be able to drag the women they impregnated down to the abortion facility and demand that she "get rid of it."
I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation, especially if my in-person interlocutor expresses contempt for those people or misstates their reasons for believing what they do.
I'm the same way. People don't really get a handle on me when I play devil's advocate. It's frustrating for me to interact with someone who knows so little about what the other side thinks. Even if we generally agree.
Jefferson's Revenge said...
If I were this person's spouse, I would get out ASAP. She sounds a little too involved in everyone else's business. The line about her being surprised that the BIL has that much money to donate is somewhat scary. Plus, a volunteer commenting about donor names/amounts is a little uncomfortable as well.
Her breach of confidentiality is illegal as well as immoral.
People like this woman were the societal foot soldiers for the cultural revolution in China and the Nazi's in Germany.
They need to be shipped one way to a fascist country where they will fit in better.
I have very conservative/libertarian views but there are very few Republicans I'd want to talk politics with. I want to talk about Foxconn and government overreach and all you want to talk about is stupid conspiracy theories. Nope.
If I were on the other side and I wanted to talk about a pacifist foreign policy, why would I have any interest in engaging with someone I "agree with" blather on a about stupid pee tape?
I bet--I will bet money--that Brad loves to talk about politics. He just doesn't like talking about politics with *you*.
Who is "you": you are "the type of person who spends the time and effort writing to an advice columnist about why your BIL doesn't want to talk about politics with you."
I'm sure Brad knows all her positions and why she passionately holds them.
He has decided she's not worth engaging.
I learned what a minefield it is when a co-worker was disparaging the younger Bush for bailing on some climate treaty. When I pointed out that the Senate voted unanimously to support him, you could see his eyelids flicker like Cousteau's boss before he changed the subject.
That's when I realized he wasn't interested in the truth; he just wanted to rag on Bush and that was the stick he had on hand.
Her husband married a lunatic.
What I see in this story is how people seem to throw ethics out the window in the name of their pet issues. Having insider info based on a position of trust and abusing that trust is abhorrent. I won’t click on the hyperlink, but I have a pretty good guess which side of the aisle this person is in.
People want to be left alone. Maybe he doesn't want her injecting HER political views on him, so he stays quiet. Leave him alone and mind your own business.
This woman has many boundary issues.
Maybe that’s why her brother-in-law doesn’t want to discuss politics with her?
Somebody will relate this to the male/female distinction, but that wouldn't be fair. There are plenty of male Karens who won't stop lecturing people about politics.
Yeah, yeah. Fiction.
Shorter writer: I care a lot about something political. A relative acts as if he doesn't, but in the process of not minding my own business, I discovered that he does care - he's just pretending he doesn't around me! Is he a full-on crazy person or just a hypocrite? How do I force him to out himself?
Signed, Gladys Kravitz
[eye roll]
That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.
And this is why there is no chance for moderate political discourse.
This person is well known type, they will button-hole you and talk your earoff about their "politics". 90% of the time, its a dumb libtard who tells you whatever the current partyline is. The best response is to say little except "Yes" or "interesting" or "My, my". Eventually they run out of steam, and leave.
Above all, do not disagree with them. They will get very angry and upset and start to engage even more.
I wonder what her reaction would've been if she'd found "Brad" gave money to cause she didn't like. Probably, break off their friendship. Or call up his employer. She sounds like the type.
If the B in Brad is silent, that means Brad is really a rad...
OMG! I knew that was Brad in a Jan6 video. Nobody believes me.
Great column. First of all, thank you, Heartless Artec. We need more teachers like you, especially in social studies.
1. There is nothing to gain, normally, in talking with True Believer types whether on "your" side or opposed.
2. There is a difference between personal charity/donations and a belief that government should have a role in that same area.
3. I am, apparently, not smart enough to see the logical, rational, themes in party politics. Party platforms seem like disjointed incrementalism, cobbling out political supporters out of various interest groups, with groups that change over time. Which party believes in Federalism now-the party that supports sanctuary cities or the party supporting national abortion laws?
4. I love talking politics but only with those seeking to understand things. Open minded people who struggle as I do understanding the best way forward, aware of all the traps and unintended consequences of actions.
5. This sister-in-law is not someone I would want to know or talk to. And, frankly, she scares me.
6. Politics is ruining family reunions.
Achilles - Since I understand you refuse to read the NYT and other mainstream papers, what is the basis for your statement that they "have not printed more than a few honest words in years and most of those were by mistake." What are your go-to objective sources for finding out what is happening in the world?
Serious questions - Please answer w/o personal attacks.
Talking about politics has become unpleasant because politics has replaced religion at the apex of people's perceptions of the true and the good. There is no way to leave a political conversation with such people without feeling worse than you did at the outset.
I have a few companies I purchase things from I really like who insist on sharing their political views. If I express my feelings that I would rather not know, the assumption gets made I must disagree with them. Often I'm in complete agreement with them, but I don't want to add balancing the company's political views with the quality of their merchandise to my purchasing decisions. Sometimes a company's preaching is so extreme I stop shopping there even if I support their cause. Make a good product or provide a good service at a fair price, and do whatever you want with your profits as long as it's legal.
I don't talk politics because it is generally either going to be a boring conversation with people I already agree with about topics I already know and understand and therefore of little use, or it is just going to be an argument that can get heated or do little to change minds.
Then again, I never give to political organizations because it's just misspent money as far as I'm concerned.
I'll leave the political discussions to bloggers and television, both of which I can attend to on demand. My demand.
"I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation."
I haven't read every word of every comment, so maybe someone has already said it, because it seems so obvious, but that's also why it needs to be said: the aborted unborn are always missing from the conversation.
"The aborted unborn are always missing from the conversation." Always? Maybe in Madison. What I find troubling is that people who believe life begins at conception think that it inextricably follows that abortion should be prohibited from conception, as if there are no other interests involved - such as the mental health of a teenager who is pregnant by rape through no fault of her own.
jim5301 said...
Achilles - Since I understand you refuse to read the NYT and other mainstream papers, what is the basis for your statement that they "have not printed more than a few honest words in years and most of those were by mistake." What are your go-to objective sources for finding out what is happening in the world?
Serious questions - Please answer w/o personal attacks.
They lied about Russian collusion.
They lied about J6 protestors killing Brian Sicknick spreading a blood libel for months.
They lied about Trump raping a woman in a public changing room.
They lied about Kavaunaugh raping women.
They lied about Hunter's laptop being Russian disinformation.
They lied about Joe Biden Raping Tara Read.
They lied about Eric Holder selling guns to Mexican cartels that they used to shoot border agents.
They lied about border agents whipping illegal immigrants with horse reins.
They are still lying about Ukrainian corruption.
They lied about 2020 election fraud.
Just off the top of my head right now.
“I feel an ethical responsibility to represent people who are missing from a conversation, especially if my in-person interlocutor expresses contempt for those people or misstates their reasons for believing what they do.”
This morning I watched Roe vs Wade. The movie on the 1973 ruling. I thought it was well done. It’s from a proLife stance. One phrase that stood out: that she unborn are “the silent minority”.
Well worth watching.
“That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.”
Yes, I too come here (partially) to see what the Trump rightists are thinking, it’s fascinating and horrible simultaneously. I also appreciate Althouse’s take on things when she lets her guard drop a bit. It’s fun to see the reaction from her majority right wing readers when she shares articles from writers who aren’t impressed with everything Trump or Trumpism, or opinions of non rightist writers, or rarely, her opinion. One can almost visualize hackles being raised.
the aborted unborn are always missing from the conversation
Denied a voice, arms... Elective abortion is an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation, not social progress.
“Passion is amoral. You may be passionate about saving baby seals, but I’m just as passionate about clubbing them.” -- Johnny Gutts
Inga can almost visualize hackles being raised. Inga and Howard are walking hackles.
Say what you will about Trump, the D Party is 90% frauds, freaks, fruits, and feebs, and Trump never would have had a chance if that wasn't true.
My mother worked for the IRS from about 1970 to 1990, and at some point (maybe the mid-70s) she came across the tax return of a neighbor, the father of one of my friends. The father was a jerk, and I realized eventually that my friend was too. But I digress.
My mother insisted on telling us, around the dinner table, how much money the jerk had made. (More than I ever made, but he was a rambling wreck from Georgia Tech and I was only ever a humanities prof and librarian-archivist.)
Anyway, it pissed me off, bigtime, that my mother violated her position and access out of petty spite. (She was as much a conservative at the time as the jerk was, so it wasn't political with her.)
Yes, I too come here (partially) to see what the Trump rightists are thinking,
Too bad you can't understand it. You might investigate what is happening in Sri Lanka or the Netherlands with farmers who are devastated by green delusions.
But you won't.
One can almost visualize hackles being raised.
Yeah. Our hackles get so raised we resort to calling our hostess vile, sexist names.
Oh. Wait.
Sometimes I indulge myself in pointing out to young people that when I was their age, bringing up the topics of sex, politics, or religion was considered utterly boorish. They seem shocked that we found plenty of other interesting things to discuss.
"Yeah. Our hackles get so raised we resort to calling our hostess vile, sexist names."
Who would do a thing like that…?
As people used to say, "Still waters run deep." I don't know if that's literally true about rivers, but anybody who loves to talk about anything ought to expect by now that not everybody wants to engage with them.
>>That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.
Is there any way you could proclaim more clearly that you're a major league asshole and nobody here should pay you the least bit of attention or bother to respond to any of your posts, even when you're apparently not being a major league asshole? And stupidly living in a bubble without realizing it to boot?
--gpm
The best response is to say little except "Yes" or "interesting" or "My, my". Eventually they run out of steam, and leave.
Total agreement. This was great advice my Dad gave me: "Sometimes people just have to talk. Just stand there, occasionally say something non-committal, and eventually they run out of steam." It works really well.
I would steer well clear of the letter writer in this case. What a nosy harpy.
“Who would do a thing like that…?”
It’s actually funny how readers here believe Drago’s(Rupar wanna-be)many accusations that he vomits at every single liberal commenter here. They don’t seem to care that he smooshes comments together from other commenters and assigns them to every liberal who comments here. I’ve never called Althouse a vile sexist name. On the other hand, I’ve been called every vile sexist name under the sun here.
Sometimes I indulge myself in pointing out to young people that when I was their age, bringing up sex, politics, or religion in conversation was considered utterly boorish. They seem shocked that we found plenty of other interesting things to discuss, since increasingly it seems no one wants to talk about anything else.
That's why I come here to glean information about deplorables so when I'm having political conversations with my friends who generally agree with me I can tell them what the animals in the zoo are doing.
This-- am in some way mocking myself, here, and not Howard-- is why I read at the New York Times, the Guardian (and, until my free days run out, WaPo) etc: I want to know "what the animals in the zoo are doing". There is a real sense in which I admire Althouse's ethical imperative, certainly.
Which generation does one belong to when one immediately recognises the name Gladys Kravitz? And not from re-runs. I have never bothered to sort out all the Generation A B and C business.
The letter writer sounds like a family member of mine. Trust me, she won’t be able to keep her knowledge to herself. She’ll bring it up at some point with the BIL. She can’t help herself.
How about those Yankees?
Perhaps the beginning of political wisdom is learning that people on your own side can irritate you as much as people on the other side.
Post a Comment