Ppolitics, sex, religion and money.
These are the four pillars to avoid arguing in public at all costs, according to ancient wisdom. Or, at least, according to the wisdom of one expert from 1998. Chicago Tribune article titled “Some topics to avoid in social conversation.”
The idea was that these potentially controversial topics could make people uncomfortable and therefore it was rude to bring them up. Oh, how times have changed: I've rarely been to a dinner party where at least one of them didn't show up (particularly sex, if it involves wine and women). Now, as the country prepares for the snap general election on July 4 (or Genny Lex, if that's your vibe), there are more reasons than ever for the “P” word to come up. Get ready: politics has officially entered the chat.
But given the often heated nature of political debate, should we deflect it in certain settings, such as the workplace? Or online? With difficult family members? How about first dates?
At work, you are legally allowed to express your political opinions (within reason); Under the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression,” says David Rice, human resources expert at People Management People. “However, this right is also subject to other prescribed laws that restrict certain conduct. In simple terms, you can express your political opinion at work, but there are some circumstances in which you may not be able to do so.”
These circumstances include when abusive language is used and if the discussion is considered “discriminatory.” Additionally, be wary of posting political opinions online that are “inconsistent” with your employer's values. Any of these situations could damage your career or even get you fired, Rice warns: “Ultimately, if you're going to share your political opinions at work, or even online on your personal social media channels, it's a good idea Be aware of the rights your employer has before doing so.”
He adds: “Political opinions can really irritate people, so even if no harm was initially intended, an argument could end up becoming very heated and, in some cases, violent, which is very dangerous territory in the one to enter. like an employer. If you're worried that your views might cause a rift with your colleagues, it's probably best to keep them to yourself.”
It doesn't mean you always have to keep quiet at work, but consider who you're chatting with and why. “I think it's entirely appropriate to avoid discussing politics in certain contexts,” says Robert Talisse, a philosophy professor at Vanderbilt University and co-author of Political argument in a polarized era. “Our lives are structured around the various roles we play. Although citizenship is a full-time job, in some cases, the person who goes to work just wants to be a co-worker.”
He warns against the widespread tendency to treat every interaction as an opportunity to engage in political debate, particularly in the run-up to an election. “When politics is everything we do together as a society, we are very bad at it: we begin to determine all relationships through alliances or enmity,” Talisse argues. “In our role as citizens, it is important to preserve space in our lives to see people at their best, in contexts that are not tied to their politics.”
Bo Seo, two-time world debate champion and author of the book. The art of disagreeing well, agrees that knowing when to hold on and when to shut up is a fundamental skill. “It is a sign of intelligence to be able to overcome the opposition, but a sign of wisdom to know which arguments to use and which to leave aside,” he tells me. Yelling at Brian from accounting in the office kitchen because he disagrees with you on immigration can be one of those moments when it's wise to walk away.
Our motivation for entering into a disagreement is also something we should question. Is it because we want to better understand our colleague and his point of view? Or is it simply to overcome them and “win” the argument? Social media often encourages us to do the latter, producing a “screaming into the void” style of debate that gets us nowhere. While acknowledging that the Internet has great democratic potential, Talisse maintains that “we are not putting ideas into the dialectical space so that others can participate… Much of what is presented as political debate is actually a kind of mugging for an audience. preselected. . I mean, I'm apparently arguing with you, but I'm actually playing with the people who are already on my side.”
If you're worried that your views might cause a rift with your colleagues, it's probably best to keep your views to yourself.
David Rice, People Management
It creates a distortion of political disagreement: a system in which the only goal is to score points, “own” the other side, and curry favor with online viewers, rather than to learn anything. Participating in online political debate as we currently practice it “is almost impossible,” laments Talisse. “I think it should be avoided almost at all costs.”
Elsewhere, we are in danger of this combative approach infiltrating the thorny world of political discussion with loved ones. Generational divides often lead to radically different ideologies among family members: We all have that racist uncle, right? – but they are the people who are hardest to avoid talking to about the big topics.
“I have recently seen how the dynamics of public debate seep into private conversations and invade intimate spaces,” Seo observes. “For example, at a big family dinner, someone pulls out a Twitter line; it's a particular way of interacting, a quick and forceful response.” It's as if you're not just talking to your uncle about his different political views, but you're making him an example to an imaginary crowd. While playing to the gallery may make sense on social media (to get more likes, followers, and engagement), it's a poisonous dynamic to import into the private sphere. “It's nonsense, there's no point in 'cancelling' one's aunt, she'll still be there!” Seo laughs.
Does that mean we should deviate from Sunak and Starmer's assessments of snacks? Not necessarily, but we should be less careless and more purposeful and attentive when talking to those closest to us, and resist the temptation to take things too personally. Seo recommends setting the basic conditions for a good disagreement before getting involved with family and friends. “Start every disagreement with some degree of agreement,” she says, “for example, how we are going to have the conversation: are we going to have the same amount of time to talk or are we going to take turns so we don't have problems.” interrupt each other and know where we are going to disagree.”
Seo emphasizes the need to practice empathy, describing the techniques of the best competitive debaters: Once they have prepared their own arguments, they will put themselves in the shoes of the opposing team, considering what points they would make or how they would choose. holes in the original posture. “That decentering can change things and open a small gap through which empathy could emerge,” Seo says. “Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is very useful.”
Reframe discussions as if you were with someone opinions, not them as a person, is another key step in learning to disagree correctly. “When engaging in political debates with family, friends, and co-workers, remember that it is possible to condemn political ideas without condemning or degrading the person holding them,” Talisse says. “It's easy to lose sight of the fact that people may have wrong and unjustifiable political views, but that doesn't make the person who holds those views deplorable. “Good people can have bad ideas and make mistakes.”
Please note that disagreement is only a possible response if we have different opinions. We could, for example, try to simply listen: “you say your part, I say mine, and we agree to listen but not comment on each other's beliefs,” says Seo. “We're not necessarily trying to change each other's minds, just listening to each other.” He admits that, as an experienced debater, there is a temptation to want to show off and “win.” “But when you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail. “I realized that if I ever wanted to maintain a relationship, I had to recognize when it was time to put those tools aside.”
Speaking of relationships, where does political discourse factor in when it comes to the already complex world of romance? It all depends on what's important to you and what you're looking for, according to Vicki Pavitt, a love, dating and relationship coach. For some people, having different political views “can be a deal-breaker, but for others, diverse points of view can lead to a rich and stimulating conversation. If talking about politics is a big part of who you are, then don't hide it on dates, but also keep in mind that your date may have different views than you.” Learning about someone's politics can give you insight into their values and what's important to them, so it can actually be a great way to discern compatibility, “but approach these conversations carefully and resist the temptation to debate.” “he adds.
When we are used to talking about politics only with people who agree with us, our ideas become sloppy.
Robert Talisse
Pavitt urges curiosity and a desire to understand your potential partner's perspective rather than immediately pointing out all the reasons why they are wrong. “Ask open-ended questions and listen without interrupting,” he advises. “This shows respect and can help you learn more about who they are, what they believe in, and what they value in life. Know when to agree or disagree to prevent things from turning into an argument; It is also okay to move forward with the conversation when it is no longer productive.”
The main conclusion, then, seems to be that talking about politics is acceptable (although not always advisable) in most contexts, but only when done thoughtfully, sensitively and with respect. If approached in the right way, even disagreements can be a hugely positive thing. The process of testing ideas, of seeing how they interact with opposing points of view, has the “really important effect of altering some of our assumptions,” Seo says, theorizing that if we've had a discussion about quality with someone who has a vision different ideological, can be the basis for a reflection that “can really change people's mentality.”
Even if we don't change our mind, we can perfect it; According to Talisse, part of why disagreement is important is because a well-conducted argument helps us better understand our own ideas and political positions. “When we are used to talking about politics only with people who agree with us, our ideas tend to become sloppy, exaggerated and inaccurate. Opposition helps you understand the contents of your own mind.”
“Disagreeing can be the path to a better life,” is how Seo puts it. “It's not going to be simpler or easier, but it will be more complete.” And if that's not a reason to go out and chat about Genny Lex with reckless abandon, I don't know what is.
