Keeping It Civil: How To Talk Politics Without Letting Things Turn Ugly

[Dulcinea]

In a deeply divided America, a casual political debate can easily spiral into a shouting match — even if both parties set out to keep things civil. So how can we talk about thorny issues with people who fundamentally disagree with us?

Over the past two months, NPR has been traveling the country for our series Civility Wars to see how Americans are grappling with the idea of civility in polarizing times. During that time, we heard from the new mayor of Charlottesville, Va., on why she's wary of the very idea of civility; we reported on a gathering of political opposites trying to bridge the political divide; and we talked to two Twitter trolls who admit that their online feuds might be friendlier if they could just meet in person. Often, we heard the same thing: Talking across difference is hard.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712277890/keeping-it-civil-how-to-talk-politics-without-letting-things-turn-ugly

[PJMcK]

1. Seems like a firm grasp of the obvious (n/t)

[Moostache]

2. Meaningless pap that amounts to "we must respect equally all views", which is nonsense.

Take climate change...as soon as someone identifies as a "climate skeptic" (ie. - DENIER), they are going to launch into a limited number of thoroughly debunked talking points meant only to "what about 'x'" the issue. This is NOT to met with timidity or understanding, it MUST be challenged and make the purveyor of such nonsense feel as stupid as they sound.

There is no real "debate" to be had here. The weight of the observed and projected evidence suggests not only that the phenomena is REAL; but it also shows that to avoid "panic", the real projections have been underplayed for years - and the reality is closer to "worst case scenario" than "average projections". The acceleration of the impacts - from coral bleaching to amphibian and insect biomass population collapse to sea ice thickness and ocean current and localized weather disruptions and on and on - are universally in the SAME direction = a faster decline into the worst effects than originally stated. Things are not only accelerating that we can see, they are accelerating faster every year. We are over 400 ppm atmospheric CO2...the "danger threshold" of 350 was blown through and we haven't even paused or slowed down a bit, instead we hit the gas and broke the annual emissions record in 2018.

I am supposed to "see their side" of an extinction-level event?
I am supposed to "remain mindful of their feelings" when their actions are akin to serving as a guard at Auschwitz, Dachau or Buchenwald?

They are not honest brokers, they are bad actors selling propaganda and doing it for the basest of reasons - to "own the libs". I'm sorry, but for people so entrenched into nonsensical positions, seeking middle ground is a waste of precious time, period.

[oldlibdem]

3. agree with you 10,000 % Moostache!

If only more people realised this.