Just say No !
https://wqad.com/2019/11/19/wh...tition-in-davenport/

Not unlike political comments in an apolitical thread eh?

There is political diversity in my family so those topics will definitely be off the menu.

It's possible that there is more political division now than in the past, but I'm not so sure. When I was growing up, everyone's mother and grandma used to teach them that you didn't discuss religion or politics in polite company. People had manners and the rule was followed. The Constitution did not apply at Grandma's Thanksgiving table.

^^^^^ I'm assuming that last sentence was meaning that "free speech" was curtailed at the table.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ I'm assuming that last sentence was meaning that "free speech" was curtailed at the table.

flashguy

That's correct, but also beyond the table. Controversy was not allowed at family gatherings.

Even good bartenders don’t alow politics or religion these days.

I've never understood those who think it's bad manners to discuss things that have severe daily consequences in our every day lives.

Seems to be of anything that should be discussed, politics should be at the top of the list seeing it likely has the greatest impact.

The problem with the notion that it’s possible to have “reasoned” discussions about topics like religion or politics is that sooner or later it becomes necessary to challenge and then refute someone else’s beliefs. And because both topics tend to be things that people have a lot of emotional investment in and which can have profound effects on their lives, those challenges usually become viewed as attacks on the individual rather than just the idea.

If someone asks about my religious beliefs, for example, I can start by saying, “I’m not a religious believer.” If the next question is, “How about them Cubs?” then everything will be fine and we can both enjoy the wine.
On the other hand if someone persists and wants to know exactly why I’m not a believer, then I will ultimately have no choice but to justify myself by specific examples. “Why don’t you believe the bible?” must sooner or later result in explanations that the believer won’t like, no matter how low key and courteous the respondent expresses herself. And of course if the nonbeliever’s explanations are challenged in turn as being ignorant or illogical, or the discussion turns to threats of divine retribution (as they usually do), then she will tend to take personal affront as well.

Other topics tend to generate less heated arguments because most are much less important to the individuals concerned. If someone believes that the 9mm cartridge is as good a self-defense round as the 357 SIG, that’s no skin off of my nose. In fact I might take secret satisfaction in such views because the more people who accept them, the more likely it is that I will benefit from them in an attack on my person. If, however, someone wants to prohibit me from carrying a gun chambered for the more powerful cartridge, then it becomes a matter of personal concern—just as it would be if someone votes for an antigun candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I've never understood those who think it's bad manners to discuss things that have severe daily consequences in our every day lives.

Seems to be of anything that should be discussed, politics should be at the top of the list seeing it likely has the greatest impact.

Some people can't handle such topics with civility, so it's best to just ban them from the discussion altogether, unless you wanna see a knife fight.

The two main topics in our family gatherings are religion and politics.

Maybe it's the way some people discuss things.

Die hard supporters of opposing positions can discuss things quite well.

Respectfully, I think this notion of staying off the topics can, yes, provide some measure of peace.

But, people choosing to avoid the subjects often rob themselves of the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to discuss a whole range of interesting topics.

Sometimes proscription is a way to pull up the obnoxious short. But, it's not always necessary with reasonable and tolerant people.

So, I'd say: See who's there and then decide what's situationally appropriate.

An outright ban may not be warranted.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I've never understood those who think it's bad manners to discuss things that have severe daily consequences in our every day lives.

Seems to be of anything that should be discussed, politics should be at the top of the list seeing it likely has the greatest impact.

Exactly, some of the younger adults need a bit of re-education after college.
Refraining from correcting some of these mis-guided youths is not beneficial for society.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The problem with the notion that it’s possible to have “reasoned” discussions about topics like religion or politics is that sooner or later it becomes necessary to challenge and then refute someone else’s beliefs.

That's the point at which one can say: "I see it differently." . . . and leave it at that.

The holidays are coming and threads like this seldom help people about how to say things when in conflict.

Just avoid it, is the simpleton's way, quite often.

Heck, my family made up a ten minute rule that anyone can call to limit political discussions to ten minutes - until later.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If someone asks about my religious beliefs, for example, I can start by saying, “I’m not a religious believer.”

Would you be offended if the next question was: "That's interesting, then do you have spiritual beliefs?"

If so, it doesn't seem too onerous for a person to say, "I don't want to talk about that subject."

Then, perhaps the questioned could lead off on what he or she wanted to talk about - if anything.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
challenges usually become viewed as attacks on the individual rather than just the idea.

So true. Many people do not know the difference. They should.

bendable,

In your original post, the artist submitted a decorated tree containing an image of Donald Trump.

Their rules for festive submissions included restrictions:

"We put out a guideline as to what should be available at Festival, one of those being no politicians," said Kevin Maynard, Executive Director of Quad City Arts . . .."

So, I'm not sure your article was as much about injecting politics as much as it was about following the rules.

Whether those restrictions were illegitimate state action is a more compelling issue - to me.

However, your thread title brings up a recurrent issue through the holidays.

It was at least 50 years ago when I first heard the phrase Don't start none and there won't be none

It's proved to be a universal truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Would you be offended if the next question was: "That's interesting, then do you have spiritual beliefs?"

I would never be offended by the question, and if someone asks what my beliefs, or lack thereof, are, I would usually answer.
I don’t want derail the thread by getting into specifics, though, and that was merely an example of a subject, if discussed in enough depth, that will inevitably require explaining one’s position in ways that many people would interpret as criticisms of their own beliefs. The same is often true of political views.

[generalizing]
Often, the issue is not so much the subject that is brought to the table, so to speak.
Rather, it is the inability of some folks to not keep pushing, when another has answered in a manner to incline those present that that do not which to continue that line of discussion.

The outcome is almost always the person being "cornered" pushing back and then they end up being perceived as the "asshat that ruined everything".
[/generalizing]

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Would you be offended if the next question was: "That's interesting, then do you have spiritual beliefs?"

I would never be offended by the question, and if someone asks what my beliefs, or lack thereof, are, I would usually answer.
I don’t want derail the thread by getting into specifics, though, and that was merely an example of a subject, if discussed in enough depth, that will inevitably require explaining one’s position in ways that many people would interpret as criticisms of their own beliefs. The same is often true of political views.

Thank you for your response.

I, for instance, have read your religious positions over time. We do not agree but I would find a conversation with you to be interesting.

That was one point in asking the question. It was to give an example of how one may approach a person who holds strong opposing views.

I felt confident you would have a positive response to my question, showing that a more open and less pointed question can go a long way.

It doesn't have to end in a desperate show down.

Learn what others have to say is one thought that's different from don't talk at all.

Maybe, just maybe talking can turn into an exchange of ideas with the parties sensitive enough to know when to stop.

I can see when a person seems to wince at a question, subject or attitude. I think others can learn to see that as well. It's so much easier in person - maybe more so with family and friends.