You're not wrong, but I've had to force myself out of this kind of negative thinking and instead try to approach someone like that from a place of genuine compassion and honesty.

I've been called a "dumbass liberal", "commie", "socialist" and other names at work because the majority of the employees are die-hard Trump fans and/or religious fundamentalists and I made the mistake of expressing compassion for the immigrants in cages when it was big in the news. I've found that explaining my point of view, that as one who follows the teachings of Christ (I'm not overly religious but it's a discipline of love towards all other people and I'm down with that, plus it keeps my religious family happy), I can't in good conscience find pleasure in the suffering of others, seemed to make some of them stop and think about their own prejudices and biases.

I doubt I've actually won anyone over (I tend to just keep my mouth shut about current events these days), but I've definitely seen an improvement in how I'm treated since then. Hopefully expressing positive feelings instead of reacting to negativity with more negativity will continue to improve my relationships with coworkers.

On either side of the spectrum, many people associate with a particular brand of politics as part of their identity. Political strategists are smart, and quite literally divvy up these groups and build a coalition in a process called “tent building”.

Now, I’ve met and talked with plenty of folk who confuse their identity with their political party. Definitely happens on both sides - as I saw growing up in Oklahoma, and now see in the Bay Area.

The point is, people feel (not wrongfully) uncomfortable when their identity is “threatened” by people who represent themselves with a brand of politics that is oppositional to the one that markets to them.

Now I’ve found that when you share your beliefs, and they aren’t founded on identity politics, then it can ease up the feelings of threat and opposition you’re sure to face.

Alternatively, don’t talk about politics - the simpler method. Having always been a bit of a political outsider, I learned early on that proselytizing others is both counterproductive and alienating.

> I’ve met and talked with plenty of folk who confuse their identity with their political party.

What do you mean by "confuse"? What if their political party/orientation is an important part of their identity?

It can be, but it kind of should be the other way around. Your identity and your values should inform what political party you should belong to. Your political party shouldn't inform your identity.

There should be things you disagree with your party about.

I mean, being a proud Democrat or Republican doesn't mean you agree with your party in 100% of issues.

It very much can be, you're right, but I think grandparent is taking it for granted (and I agree that it should be) that this is a smallish, petty identity, unworthy of containing a human soul.

That seems awfully judgy. If you think a political party is unworthy of contributing to one's identity, I shudder to think what you'd say about me identifying as a Starcraft player.

I'm a Starcraft player too. But I am not just a Starcraft player, and neither are you.

Then they should rethink their priorities. Ideals are far more important than party affiliation.

Ideas are cheap. Execution is hard. It's as true in politics as it is in startups.

Parties aren't the only way to contribute to 'execution', of course, but they're one of the most obvious.

> The point is, people feel (not wrongfully) uncomfortable when their identity is “threatened” by people who represent themselves with a brand of politics that is oppositional to the one that markets to them.

Do you have specific examples?

Sure. Go to a Ducks Unlimited banquet and tell folks you’re a Democrat and they may contextualize gun control as your agenda. Tell your Bay Area colleagues you’re a Republican and you’ll be contextualized as close minded.

Tell people you’re unaffiliated and they’ll often see you as an antagonist to their pet causes. Don’t tell people anything, and they usually won’t put up a guard.

> Sure. Go to a Ducks Unlimited banquet and tell folks you’re a Democrat and they may contextualize gun control as your agenda. Tell your Bay Area colleagues you’re a Republican and you’ll be contextualized as close minded.

That's just... assuming you more-or-less support the planks/stances/actions of party you've just told them you consider yourself affiliated with. Where's the identity part come in?

Many people don't support 100% of their party's policies - they just agree with them on the 2 or 3 things that are really important to them. This is a normal state of affairs in a two-party system.

For example, maybe I really like my party's stance on abortion and energy policy; I'm indifferent to their stances on farm subsidies, gun control, and immigration; and I feel their stances on trans rights and corruption could be improved a fair bit.

That would mean, when I meet someone from a different party, we could actually agree on a great many issues.

No no, those are hypothetical. What's happened to you?

You don’t get to arbitrate what has and has not happened to me. What sort of oddball remark was this?

Funny story about that banquet though. A guy at my table paid a few hundred dollars in a silent auction thinking that he was bidding on a gun. He was actually bidding on a lottery ticket for a gun. His wife was unhappy with his mistake. He did win a duck call alongside the lottery ticket IIRC. This was in NW Arkansas and was a part of a crawfish boil. Definitely not the Bay Area.

You're right. I apologize.

An auction for a lottery ticket to win a gun. Are you sure there wasn't a raffle involved somewhere? :^)

A raffle for a rifle?

Better keep the riffraff out.

I'm fascinated how people don't seem to be receptive to your promotion of positivity (by how you've been downvoted)

IMO, your outlook is exactly what we need more of in the world.

In a related vein to you I don't get any satisfaction out of hating others. Especially knowing how easy it is for the human psyche to latch onto those behaviors (othering, outgroup, tribalism, etc.)

> I'm fascinated how people don't seem to be receptive to your promotion of positivity (by how you've been downvoted)

I think some of it is down to how as a species we are tribal by nature, and we have to work hard to get past that and start seeing one another as companions by default, rather than adversaries. There's a time and place for healthy competition and sportsmanship, but issues like politics, religion, and race should not be competitive at all (edit to say I get that politics is a competition/popularity contest, rather I mean that one should be able to support an ideal or a specific candidate without being seen as "the enemy").

A nice ritual (at least pre-covid) for the times and places for healthy competition and sportsmanship is to shake hands before and after, to put parentheses around that competition.

> I've found that explaining my point of view, that as one who follows the teachings of Christ (I'm not overly religious but it's a discipline of love towards all other people and I'm down with that, plus it keeps my religious family happy), I can't in good conscience find pleasure in the suffering of others, seemed to make some of them stop and think about their own prejudices and biases.

How do you think this would have gone if you hadn't claimed a religious exception? So rather if you simply said that you couldn't find pleasure in the suffering of others, but with no references to Christ?

I don't see it as a religious exception, rather the opposite: Because of my existing convictions, I find Christ's teachings about loving one another and helping others to be compatible with my views.

I get what you mean though, and I wonder too if it would have made any difference good or bad. I think with some folks, maybe it would.