What's the etiquette when debating politics with friends' parents?

[George_Bonanza]

I just had dinner with my roommate's dad, and while he is a pleasant guy, I was diametrically opposed to his politics (e.g. he felt that most Muslims were closet terrorist sympathizers until proven otherwise, and that Obama was not only primarily buoyed by misplaced White guilt but also would stack his cabinet with Wright-like figures). We had a friendly and calm debate that would've probably gone further if the band in the restaurant didn't start playing so loudly. I was just wondering, what's the etiquette in this situation? I want to show a backbone, but I also don't want to disrespect the guy who's paying for our dinner. In cases like this, should I just "let him win"? In life, you have to pick your fights, and in situations like these, I don't think there's much to gain by trying to defeat your opponent.

[lligrd]

1. Interesting, A Similar Thread Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5304189&mesg_id=5304189

By the way, I think you handled it just right.

[selador]

2. i find your language interesting

i don't enter a discussion to win. i enter to discuss. if you can't enter a discussion with the understanding that you might be wrong, then you are not open to new ideas.

i am not trying to sound snippy, i just think that as soon as people ENTER an argument with the belief that they are right, and the other person is wrong - they have already LOST the argument, because if it's about "winning", it's not discourse. it's just gamesmanship.

i have changed my mind on issues and i enter ANY discussion with the understanding that i might be wrong.

i used to be totally pro gun control - experience and discussion with pro gun rights people changed my mind.

i used to be anti-choice. discussion with pro-choice people changed my mind

etc.

[noamnety]

17. I think when talking with bigots

there's a pretty clear right and wrong position.

[selador]

25. not necessarily so

because if you define people who disagree with you as bigots it becomes tautological

for example...

i am now pro-choice. i used to be anti-choice. in the former case i was not misogynistic, anti-woman, or a bigot.

but if you dismissed me as such, there would be no room to convince me that pro-choice was the better policy decision. fwiw, my anti-choice position had ZERO to do with religion. it simply had to do with the fact that i thought the "right" of the fetus to survive OUTWEIGHED the desire of the woman to terminate it. now, i feel the opposite. based on rational argument and discussion.

similarly, i could argue that anybody who is against gun rights is a "bigot" but then i am not open to their claims. i changed my mind and became pro-gun rights because of discussion of constitutional law (from the legal angle) and other issues from the policy angle.

i am against race based preferences. many here would think that makes me a "bigot" and thus there is no room for discussion with them.

fwiw, i am totally for gay marriage. i know LOTS of people who aren't, and none of them are bigots.

i am very pro-homeschooling. i could argue that anybody who is against homeschooling is bigoted.

same problem.

it is a (imo) very poor and sophomoric decision to decide that those who disagree with you on policy have the evil intent e.g. bigotry.

[noamnety]

26. In this case, yes, it is so. End of Story.

"he felt that most Muslims were closet terrorist sympathizers"

That's not a conversation I'd enter into with the idea that maybe they're right and I should keep an open mind. I'm sorry to hear you would.

The best way to change another person's mind, that's a tactic we could debate, but whether or not I'm open to accepting someone else's bigotry as my own, no, not a chance. :)

[krkaufman]

3. One option would be to respectfully request that the subject not be discussed

... let him know that your opinions differ greatly, but that you'd rather not discuss or argue the point(s) during a social evening. And feel free to offer him a raincheck to discuss the matter at a more convenient place and time.... say, on the gun range... at high noon.

You shouldn't be held hostage out of gratitude for a dinner.

[Thickasabrick]

21. That's what I do - otherwise I end up being blamed for ruining the

"gathering". :shrug:

[Demeter]

4. Stick to the Weather and Everybody's Health

Good advice in George Bernard Shaw's time, and still good today. (My Fair Lady, or Pygmalion)

Honestly! Religion, politics and money are the three No-Noes of polite conversation! Surely I'm not that much of an old fogey....

[MADem]

5. How 'bout them RED SOX!!!! Done any fishing lately? Watch any HBO movies lately?

Politics and religion are THIRD RAILS amongst those who are not like-minded or very open to discussion.

I'd change the subject....gee, too nice a night to talk 'politics...!' Did you see the Celtics game? Have you gotten in any skiing this season--wow, lotta snowfall this year, eh? Boy, that band is awfully loud!! Gosh, this is a swell Merlot!

ANYTHING other than politics or religion--just not worth the hassle when you aren't going to change a mind.

[Wetzelbill]

6. talk about it politely but get off it asap!

Just not worth the hassle. I nearly had to punch out a few people we started getting into it a little too much. Some shit can get a little too serious a little too fast, depending on how far out they are. Even email stuff should be ignored. Like I've had some ruckus email battles that hurt friendships. Now I basically avoid that stuff. I be respectful, but as soon as I can I go another route. Now if the people involved have minor disagreements that's one thing, but I'm talking about being diametrically opposed like you said. Best to get out of it when the positions are that far off.

[Norrin Radd]

7. Hrmmm...I would've said,

"Well, I disagree and have reasons why that I'll gladly defend some other time when I'm not eating food that you are paying for -- politics spoils dinner." (Disarm with a tone of levity, while maintaining your standing). His sort don't respect a coward and it's apparent that you are well aware of that.

If you get roped into hanging out with him again, suggest that the three of you can have that friendly debate (as I suspect he'll invariably bring it up) over miniature golf or something (associating differences of opinion with bonding over a fun, inconsequentially competitive time might keep egos from being bruised and hackles being raised, and you can maintain your self respect).

[Drifter]

8. Don't

Cheers
Drifter

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. Seconded - "DON'T"

.
.
.

There are many other topics that can be explored to maintain conversation.

Politics at this time is not a good one.

[Echo In Light]

9. I'm conversationally suicidal, and will usually speak my mind irrespective of how...

It will register with others ... in most instances anyway. Their reaction is their problem, not mine. Besides, people are too afraid of espousing their views - a central aspect of our failed democracy.

That residual don't discuss religion or politics publicly nonsense only benefits those who want to manipulate the current ideal without having to defend their favored "traditions." It's a way of preserving authoritarian uniformity/conformity, while simultaneously limiting dissent, and preventing crucial seeds from being planted.

A humorous aside to this, neither my wife nor I have any interest in sports whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Yet, most people will automatically assume that, as "typical Americans," everyone is just apeshit over sports! and will invariably want to discuss the finer points of the latest "big game." When this happens, my wife and I enjoy killing the conversation by simply stating our views on it. There's been times that I swear an audible thud was heard as the shoe gazing began... :rofl:

[klyon]

10. to say nothing if you value the friendship

no holds barred if like hard feelings and high blood pressure

[Echo In Light]

12. Such situations don't necessarily have to mean "hard feelings"

Depends on how much, or little, one is willing to suffer a fool, as the saying goes. I have the same group of friends since the mid 1980s, and usually won't go out of my way to strike up an acquaintance with someone I know, or can tell, is ideologically at the opposite end of the spectrum. Chances are that no matter how you care to frame it, it's going to end up being an exercise in endurance and futility - resulting in "hard feelings and high blood pressure" - and not a meaningful relationship. It's not my place to strategize my relations with others i.e. attempting to "convert" them, change their mind, etc. Perhaps too much of this boils down to one's threshold for biting their lip and keeping quiet, versus speaking one's mind freely.

[salin]

11. years ago I found a strategy that sometimes works

with folks with different views, who are not Rushian fire breathers.

Find an issue/problem around which both of you agree is an issue (jobs going overseas and the shift of "new jobs" created primarily being limited wage service sector jobs, for example) and first focus on the common ground of common concern. Then one can usually talk about different approaches to dealing with the problems (policy) while agreeing at the "washington types" who tend not address the problem (again commonality). Often this allows the policies to be considered with calm critique of the problems of the potential solutions - without the gut reactions. After a common ground discussion both of a problem of joint concern and of policies - then one can start get into where candidates stand - and generally the knee jerk stuff doesn't get raised, because the tone of the discussion doesn't allow it (that is the other person now goes on the same kind of cautious discussion per not ending the conversation instead of that onus falling on you.)

I have done this with a family member for several years - and he is starting to come around - because he is listening to the LACK of sane policies (that we have been discussing for quite some time) from the GOP candidates. Over time it has defused the polarizing knee jerk GOP propoganda - and he sort of doesn't really hear it or take it seriously - but does now listen to what the GOP candidates (for different offices) are saying about what they would do in office. And when folks really start hearing/considering this - often they become less bound to the contemporary GOP as it really is devoid common sense policies that would address the concerns of most citizens.

[frogcycle]

13. hmmm

There are those of us who faced similar dilemmas 3-4 decades ago w/respect to race.

I generally made it clear that I was diametrically opposed to their position, but that we should agree to disagree and talk about something else.

I always felt that silence was tacit assent, but that wading in to a fight was not necessarily going to be productive.

[SharonAnn]

19. Yes, I thinkgiving in means assent and they get to dominate. Finding a way to

respectfully disagree, and let the others know that you do, indicates that you're not ceding the ground.

I really think it's dangerous to let some things go unchallenged. The dominators then define the acceptable "status quo" and all others are excluded.

[Hobarticus]

14. When discussing politics lately, I just smile and say

"It isn't about being a Democrat or a Republican and having your party in charge, anymore....it's about competence. We can do better than this."

Pretty much stops the argument cold.

[Bandit]

16. Change the subject to religion

:silly: Politics and Religion are not subjects for polite conversation..

[mdmc]

18. I generally take the side of the neo-con

eventually they will say something that would embarrass a sane, thoughtful individual. Once they have jumped the shark, lay down your hand and explain (in my case) why socialism is the wave of the future and that social darwinism is a hateful, failed doctrine.

I remember once on The Colbert Report when some fundie admitted that he would rather have all his loved ones die in a terrorist attack then have the attack thwarted by a gay US intelligence officer.

Once the fundies jump the shark, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

[ThomWV]

20. Tell him to go fuck himself and his idiotic ideas, get up, pay for your own meal, and leave

Why would you care about etiquette when you're talking to a baboon?

[LWolf]

22. I'm thinking this:

1. The old standby: politics and religion are off the topic list for polite conversation. That means you courteously overlook someone's discourteous violation of this rule.

2. If you don't like # 1, then remain general, calm, matter-of-fact, and do just as you did. It's not about who "wins," it's about allowing all voices and povs to be heard in a non-confrontational manner.

Personally, I would have debunked his muslim terrorist anti-america fears, and countered with real, substantive reasons why Obama isn't a good candidate for president.

[wuushew]

23. Start cooking a big portion of crow for after the November election

There are two possible outcomes

(A) His groundless bigotry of Obama will be factually and easily disproved.

(B) McCain's insane warmongering causes the price of gas to exceed $5 a gallon. Since this guy doesn't sound like a Prius owner, tactfully remind how things came to pass.

[NashVegas]

24. Depends on Who's Paying

No matter what, any disagreement should be kept respectful. But whomever is picking up the check is allowed to gloat, just the tiniest bit, while whomever is receiving gets to show what a good sport they are and graciously enjoy the free meal from the sucker.

It sounds like you did just fine - and thumbs up for even caring about etiquette.