If you like Chocolate ice cream and I argue strawberry is better you won’t tend to get very angry because at the end of the day you can have chocolate and I can have strawberry and we’re both happy.
Politics is different. An political argument is extremely real and very visceral. It’s a zero-sum game at its core.
Suppose person A begins to the make the argument that sugar should be banned because it’s bad for your health. Person B likes sugar so they realise that the inevitable consequence of person A’s argument is that they will have legal threats made against them if they try to do what they enjoy (eating sugar). So if we take out all the bullshit person A isn’t just “debating” with person B they are saying “If I could get enough people to agree with me, I’d be in favour of using our collective strength to violently force you to stop eating sugar. I’d even be willing to jail you if you kept insisting on going with your preferences.”
This is true of pretty much *ANY* political argument so WHENEVER there is diagreement it will be HIGHLY CHARGED AND EMOTIONAL because person A isn’t saying “This is my opinion you’re welcome to yours” they are saying “Here’s what I think people should do to YOU violently if only I could get my way.”
Domingo, Junho 10, 2012
state politics is divisive
Want to know why you shouldn’t discuss politics at the dinner table?: