While I've used that conflict avoidance approach there are two sides of the issue you reference. On one side you have the people with the least experience and shortest perspective convinced that they know best while on the other hand are the people with the longest experience but most set in their ways are also convinced they're right.

In my experience both tend to be wrong more often than not. Neither wants to listen to the other for the reasons above and then fail to benefit from the others experience.

I live in a country where older people highly estimates dictatorship, so I have a hard time to understand how could I get any benefit from it.

Yup, just slowly let them get to the inevitable conclusion that they are wrong and give them a rope to get out from being wrong while keeping face.

I find it extremely necessary to disuss stuff. Both, in my family and with coworkers. That's where I feel it is needed most. To get along even in case of disagreement is like the most important thing to me, and feels like a duty. Basically, keeping people talking to each other is what prevents wars, right? Left, Right, Middle? Conservative? Democrat? Anti-Capitalism? Pro-Free-Markets? I really stopped caring. I am only kinda concerned about people that are unable to disagree.

I really enjoy talking about politics. I noticed, that I often can find common ground with almost everybody. I got used to be forced to search for common ground to have any conversation at all. This is because I disagree with most people I talk to on even the most basic stuff. It started when I was about age 17 or so. Mainly because I started reading stuff and thinking about it myself. Prior to this I had no opinion at all.

Also having changed my own opinion on major things helps me a lot. I haven't changed my principles by the way. I just noticed I was wrong about some "hot topics". So that actually helped me a lot to understand I might be wrong, and I think people feel this when I talk. I still have strong opinions. I simply understand I might be wrong and express this. And always try to understand better. Basicall, I feel like I know nothing, but then I notice I often understand more than a lot of people. Which I think is something quite easy to achieve by simply don't caring much about who is right or wrong and talking to everybody. Just assuming all people involved in conflicts are human and trying to understand even 'the bad actors' whoever I believe them to be.

Another funny thing is I often get along better with people from the opposite political spectrum. Because then it's clear we deeply disagree. So there is no point in trying to convincing each other. This makes talking about hot stuff a lot easier. People from the same political spectrum often care to much about small differences to have a meaningfull discussion.

Also through talking to family and friends I notice how much in general personality is mixed with political opinion. I think I can draw the lines because I see the paths they take in their live and the mistakes they repeat over and over again over time periods of many years. I don't think this is obvious enough to see with strangers. At least I wouldn't have without the close relationship. That also makes me humble. Sometimes I notice how my political opinions reflect my own personality, but I think this is hard to do on my own. That's another reason to talk to family and friends about politics.

I feel if one manages to destroy relations then one is doing something wrong. On the other hand, I also noticed some people are kinda sensitive and take things personally. Especially, when talking about some hot topics like ongoing hot or cold wars or alledged or real occupations. So I try to be carefull. Mainly by immediately feeling for boundaries. How far can I go? I mean it is quite easy to say "Ok, maybe I don't know/understad enough. What do you say to this?" Mostly, I am genuinly curious. Sometimes I just feel the duty to offer an honest conversation.

I like your point of view and I'm sure we would be friends in RL because I'm usually around of people with strong opinions (even if I don't agree or even like it). I like to understand the thinking process of people around me - family and friends. The thing is I just don't have the energy to engage in disagreements for too long and I tend to avoid conflicts in general (maybe my personality is the biggest problem here?). I always feel that my energy was totally drained after super engaged discussions.

Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others?

I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.

Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices in an argument is obviously abusive. We ban such accounts and I've banned these.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well, then that's a totally different aspect of it. You're speaking about politics as a weapon or a way of surviving under extremely difficult circumstances, which neither of us here, reading and posting on HN, are suffering. What I'm talking about is politics as a smalltalk subject, in a family/friendly environment.

I think you're talking about "discussing politics to shoot the shit" but I think it's really important you realize that you and I do that because we're lucky, and "eschewing discussion of political topics" is only something you get the privilege to do when you're not getting targeted.

Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices in an argument is obviously abusive. We ban such accounts and I've banned these.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What, is the dude above using multiple accounts to make his/her point?

Weird, that seems backwards to me.

The actually-oppressed stay in hiding. Whether they're gay in 1945 or Russian dissidents today, or political dissidents in today's western overculture, "eschewing discussion of political topics" is a mandatory survival strategy. I can relate because I am in this position - having to pretend I'm something I'm not on a daily basis in almost all contexts.

Someone who feels they can afford to speak politically on things others won't like must be in a pretty powerful position.

What do you think that person looks like to someone who knows they have to keep their mouth shut to not have their life ruined?

Having the right to even talk about your issues is an important and oft-overlooked privilege.

> The actually-oppressed stay in hiding.

I hope you realize the comment you just wrote suggests that the oppressed should stay in hiding...

Huh? How? That’s not how I read it.

By suggesting that anyone speaking up/out isn't "truly" oppressed, because they have the privilege to speak out.

Yes, I'm totally aware of that.

Then is it really a "totally different aspect"? You can't know the motivations behind why politics comes up in a conversation, and it's perfectly reasonable for someone who isn't the target of oppression to feel empathy for and advocate on behalf of the oppressed.

Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of multiple voices in an argument is obviously abusive. We ban such accounts and I've banned these.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm also totally aware of that.

Again, I'm speaking about people (family/friends) that I know their background and I know that it is a huge waste of time trying to argue against their biased POV of "good old days of dictatorship". I'm talking about people that don't care about the oppressed.

And I'm talking about the fact that those are the very people with whom you should be discussing these things the most, no?

It’s not worth trying to convince such people, the chance of success is very low and such discussions tend to get very uncomfortable very fast. Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.

But if you don’t already know the person’s views, it seems unwise to assume that “old person = supports the old regime,” since this will result in you missing opportunities to connect with potential allies.

> Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.

Even as they metaphorically step on the throats of the people you care about?