Why I don't discuss politics with friends

Social Norms Around “Who Did You Vote For?”

• Strong split on whether this question is acceptable.
• Some treat it as rude and a violation of ballot secrecy; people volunteer views but dislike being asked directly.
• Others use it as a fast heuristic to map someone’s politics, or as a safety check (e.g., “did you vote for people who want to deport/kill my friends?”).
• A few lean on the “secret ballot” line to deflect, sometimes explicitly to avoid social fallout.

Tribalism vs “Truth-Seeking”

• Many agree that most people adopt “tribes” rather than independently reasoned views, and that once identity is engaged, conversation shuts down.
• The author’s two‑axis chart (left–right vs groupthink–independent) drew heavy criticism: readers saw it as implying only centrist types are “independent thinkers”, which they viewed as self‑congratulatory and incorrect.
• Several point out that centrism itself is a tribe with its own blind spots and dogmas.

Should You Discuss Politics With Friends?

• One camp: if you can’t, they’re not real friends; deep relationships should tolerate disagreement.
• Opposing camp: stakes and polarization are now so high that politics routinely wrecks relationships; avoidance is self‑protection, not cowardice.
• Some distinguish between friends (where honesty is mandatory) and family/coworkers (where harmony often overrides candor).

Values, Harm, and Cutting People Off

• Large subthread on whether voting for harmful policies (e.g., against abortion, LGBT rights, immigrants) makes someone morally complicit.
• Some say intent matters and many voters prioritize other issues; others argue outcomes are what count, and they won’t remain close to people whose votes endanger them or loved ones.
• Recurrent theme: tolerance stops at open calls for genocide or systemic dehumanization, but where to draw that line is contested.

Two‑Party System, Complicity, and Nuance

• Repeated argument that the US duopoly forces “least‑bad” voting; you can’t infer a full value set from a single vote.
• Counter‑argument: however constrained the choice, voting still signals which harms you’re willing to accept as a trade‑off.
• Disagreement over whether current conditions are “normal politics” or closer to historical slides into fascism, which would change how much compromise is acceptable.

Role of Media, Internet, and Wealth Inequality

• Many blame social media and partisan outlets for turning debate into tribal performance and “points-scoring.”
• Others highlight long‑running economic stress and wealth inequality as underlying drivers of anger and zero‑sum framing.
• Several note that most people’s concrete lives feel calmer than the media narrative, but online discourse is increasingly detached and extreme.

How to Talk (If You Do)

• Suggested tactics: focus on listening; ask questions instead of declaring positions; avoid trying to “win.”
• Some endorse structured approaches (e.g., “street epistemology”) that unpack how someone formed a belief rather than the belief itself.
• Several prefer writing to real‑time argument to reduce interruption and emotional escalation.

Meta‑Critiques of the Essay

• Multiple commenters felt the author underplays values and power, overplays individual epistemic rigor, and displays little awareness of his own tribe (Bay Area/rationalist/Paul Graham orbit).
• Others thought the piece accurately described how quickly discussions become loyalty tests, and used it as language for their own choice to disengage from most political talk.