Last seen: 1 month ago
This is the most annoying question in my opinion. When different type, different mentality and different social condition people start to talk about politics, this become a dispute. During events it is not preferable to talk about politics because different people around that table have different thoughts and different opinions, maybe political figure preferable for me is not preferable for a person sitting near me. When someone wants to start a talk about politics I prefer to avoid this talk because as experience proved it never ends without squabble. Most people show they want to talk about politics by starting to talk about it - and if they do, I do. I’m always very even keel and respectful, regardless of how anyone else in the given conversation behaves - but I don’t hesitate to express my opinions, either. I try to assess whether they are genuinely interested in pros and cons of the system or particular politicians and then whether they are looking for a fight or not. If they’re interested and not combative, then I’m happy to discuss pros and cons, but that will be the case - both, not just one or the other. If they want a fight or just to argue, I’ll politely and diplomatically decline or slough it off with some passing comment. If you want to have an impact, you should do something. You can volunteer, donate to charity, start a business, or DO any number of things that will actually improve the lives of the people you’re trying to help. To sum up, I think political discussions can become overly sensationalist and divisive, and the significance of the discussions that fire us up so much are actually pretty minimal. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy a good philosophical debate or think there are important problems that need solving, I just think heated political debates are a poor way to achieve anything meaningful.
No records found.