<<The focus on whether a political “side” aligns with individualism or collectivism overshadows anything regarding socioeconomic systems. Instead of addressing policies and their impacts, the debate gets mired in generalized assertions about individual rights or collective welfare, which may not accurately represent the mechanical realities of the moving, connected world.>>
This reminds me of 99% of conversations with anybody who votes for the uniparty. The conversations are so draining because the uniparty voter is trained to speak in short, repetitive phrases that are either obviously false or misrepresenting an argument. So I usually feel forced to correct the other person's shitty definitions for 2/3 of the time. That leaves 1/3 of the time to discuss the ACTUAL issue that got me engaged in the first place.
It's hella exhausting and I think it's intentional. Of course not on the part of Joe Shmoe Convo Partner or Random Virtuous Liberal, but from the deep state narrative managers.
Let's say I want to convince Joe Schmoe that gardening relieves stress.
Me: <<Gardening relieves stress, and there's so many pathways to this relief! You've got the inhalation of soil microbes, sun on the skin, time away from an artificial environment,...>>
Joe Schmoe: <<Virtual gardening kills people. And I don't kill people. I also do not like people who talk about killing people.>>
Yes it is. It's good that you note that it's not the individual person's fault, too. It's indeed very maddening but the fact that you're willing to spend two-thirds of the time trying puts you a step ahead a lot of people in political spaces. Keep the empathy. I don't consider empathy to be politics (sadly many do) but it's so important internationally.
<<The focus on whether a political “side” aligns with individualism or collectivism overshadows anything regarding socioeconomic systems. Instead of addressing policies and their impacts, the debate gets mired in generalized assertions about individual rights or collective welfare, which may not accurately represent the mechanical realities of the moving, connected world.>>
This reminds me of 99% of conversations with anybody who votes for the uniparty. The conversations are so draining because the uniparty voter is trained to speak in short, repetitive phrases that are either obviously false or misrepresenting an argument. So I usually feel forced to correct the other person's shitty definitions for 2/3 of the time. That leaves 1/3 of the time to discuss the ACTUAL issue that got me engaged in the first place.
It's hella exhausting and I think it's intentional. Of course not on the part of Joe Shmoe Convo Partner or Random Virtuous Liberal, but from the deep state narrative managers.
Let's say I want to convince Joe Schmoe that gardening relieves stress.
Me: <<Gardening relieves stress, and there's so many pathways to this relief! You've got the inhalation of soil microbes, sun on the skin, time away from an artificial environment,...>>
Joe Schmoe: <<Virtual gardening kills people. And I don't kill people. I also do not like people who talk about killing people.>>
It's maddening.
Yes it is. It's good that you note that it's not the individual person's fault, too. It's indeed very maddening but the fact that you're willing to spend two-thirds of the time trying puts you a step ahead a lot of people in political spaces. Keep the empathy. I don't consider empathy to be politics (sadly many do) but it's so important internationally.
I needed this comment right now. I missed it before but just found it now and I needed it. So thank you. ❤️