Can political conversations ever be productive?

[Ghostpanther]

Not really. There are two type of discussions which are close cousins to each other. And they both are subjects our WoW guild does not allow to be debated in guild chat. Politics and religion. Such discussions can only be successful if both sides respect each other and want to have a civil discussion with open minds. You rarely find that in forums or chat channels.

[Malkiah]

I would say if someone doesn't see their political positions as JUST political positions, but instead sees them as part of an Arc of History, that they are advancing the whole of humanity, then it will be difficult.

At that point it becomes more akin to a theological debate between two theologians from two different religions.

in general i'd agree with you, but the issue comes down to the fact that reality can be observed and results can be measured.
by every metric that you can name excepting a general philosophy of "fuck you, i got mine" the 'conservative' political ideology is a failed one in both economic and social terms.

[Blobfish]

Yes & No

With an Honest politician I would say conversations could be 30-50% productive.

But as the ABC Four Corners program revealed this week.
Chinese Billionaires are influencing Australian Political priorities with handfuls of $$$

So the influence of $$$ is more important than just a talk

[Zoranon]

it's basically like this:
in the US especially (and other countries as well but i can only speak from experience with US politics) you have two ways of addressing the organization and government of human society.
the false dichotomy presented by many people is that these are two equally valid ways of doing it that are just squabbling over tactics.
the reality is that it breaks down more like this:
one side is saying "hey since we're bothering to have a civilization maybe we should give everyone access to health care. what's the best way to go about achieving that?"
and in response the other side is saying "lynch all the niggers! praise jesus!" and shooting their guns in the air.

this is fundamentally what the political spectrum is all about - on the one hand you have people at least ostensibly trying to figure out how to organize human civilization in a way that more or less benefits the most amount of people possible, and on the other hand you have people trying to codify "i get to ejaculate on your face" as a system of government.

as for the question in the OP:
i'd say it depends on your definition of "productive"
if you mean "changing the minds of someone who is wrong in their view of the world" then no, because political and religious belief are usually pretty immune to logic.
but, i've found political debate to be extremely productive in terms of making me evaluate and scrutinize my own opinions and really peg down exactly how to express those ideas in a coherent way, which has on occasion made me modify or alter my thinking about something once i had to get it out of my own head.

There used to be a time you could talk politics on this forum, but too many people like this one then came along...

- - - Updated - - -

You know, before the alt right and right wing populists infested the western democracies, there actually was a peaceful and intelligent way of communication, even between political enemies.

Since right wing populism came along, it is not about politics anymore. It is about racism, xenophobia and hatred against those who think different. Populism and its apologists infact poisoned the political discourse at a large degree, also they replaced objective discussions by insults and denounciations. They damage democracy beyond believe.

Social media accelerated that. By locking people into their filter bubbles without the need to face critical points of view, as social media only serves what you want to read.

Add to that permanent ongoing disinformation and propaganda, and you get the toxic kind of politics the populists abuse for their sake.

If further proof was needed...

And on a more personal note, I have sadly noticed that as I get older, I am getting less tolerant of the other "side" and every-time I hear their arguments, they only reinforce my own position.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

I don't know if its possible. Seems like every conversation ends up with one side calling the other side 'stupid' or some other name.

I propose that one side is correct, and one side is wrong. The side and topic may switch, but by understanding that one side is correct and one side is wrong, there's no way to end such a flux except for the dumb side to admit it was wrong and switch to the correct side.

The dumb can actually win by not doing that, so they don't do it. They're not dumb.

[Deleted]

Online no because the average maturity level online is 14

[Deleted]

I don't know if its possible. Seems like every conversation ends up with one side calling the other side 'stupid' or some other name.

They can, as long as you're having a conversation with an open-minded person and not a wall of bricks.

[baskev]

I don't know if its possible. Seems like every conversation ends up with one side calling the other side 'stupid' or some other name.

They used to be...They where about facts. And they where discussions that respected each others opinions about the facts and they/we worked to come to a common ground.

These day's its a pissing contest. And you are either pro or anti something... So yeah impossible.

Also making discussion worse is trolls and strawman. You can have a nice discussion about something and then a 3th party comes in and takes things out of proportion and adds extra things.

For example i recently was talking about Chelsea manning. ( if she was a hero or villain. i think she is both). A 3th guy comes in and talks about her being a transgender and about the info she leaked....witch was not the discussion. It was if it was right to leak or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Online no because the average maturity level online is 14

Lies.......14 is WAAAYYYY to old. more like a 8 year old with a temper tantrum.