I was thinking about why it is so difficult to have conversations about politics with other people, and it seems like there's a couple out of possibly hundreds or infinite reasons why it may be difficult. People, for one, often hold different concepts of ideas based on what they have heard from the sources they follow. A person's entire concept of reality may be different from person to person, so when someone talks about the same concept they may actually be talking about two separate things. Secondly, there is simply not enough time or patience between either party to go in depth about why they hold the beliefs that they do. Most people, strangely enough don't even seem interested in having the conversation, because the conversation is uncomfortable and can possibly put you at odds with another political person.

It is strange though, that people take their political points of view so personally. I've noticed a pattern with people, that they tend to see concepts or things as though they were the things themselves. A person may follow a political cause, or religion, or listen to certain music, or value a certain sports team even, and what happens is that thing starts to become a part of themselves. What is an enigma to me is why people conflate themselves with things which are not themselves, and no one can have an honest and objective discussion about any subject. Perhaps the lack of ability to have an objective subject lies in what I described before, which is that it is not possible to be objective because everyone's perspective on the world is subjective. Even if everyone's views were subjective, that does not explain why people get angry when presented with another person's beliefs.

It is baffling to me, and frustrating, that this is the case. People are so territorial and defensive about what they believe, that a lot of times certain views are even taboo to talk about. One such idea would be revolutionary leftism. Perhaps it's not a good idea to bring up to the average person that you would like the worker to be paid the value of their labor, and the surplus labor value to go back to the worker instead of the CEO and shareholder. End this endless cycle of wage slavery and capitalist growth, create a symbiotic economy. Even that is more of an explanation than most people are willing to listen to.

Perhaps it's easy to over complicate things. Everyone wants their point of view to be the dominant world view, or they want people who they admire to be in charge if they are not confident in themselves. A person could either want to be a leader or a follower of some sort, whether they lead themselves or others. In a world where essentially everyone wants what they personally see as the best system, it can be easy to see how others would get very easily frustrated when someone espouses views that contradict their own. Perhaps someone who sees the system of capitalism that we live in right now as a beneficial system for all except the people who they suppose are just lazy (even given minimum wage not being a living wage and college debt bring crippling for a lot of people), would see a leftist view as intruding on people's ability to profit off their fellow wo/m/an.

Perhaps what is really going on when different political views clash, is an innate sense of competition between human beings. Or, alternatively, perhaps it's a mechanism that was developed by human beings so that group mentality is more likely to prevail. Human beings evolved as a tribal species, after all. Perhaps it was beneficial to human beings for each other to agree on things rather than disagree, and what this frustration with other people's beliefs is (as opposed to having the ability to have a detached, logical conversation with one another) is actually an inborn defense mechanism against having tribe destroying disagreements with one another.

However, if this is really the case then on a large scale, it could never work. It seems that human beings should have staid in small tribes. It would seem that this ubiquitous tribalism is also the result of wars fought with other tribes. People in their own tribe are trying to defend their beliefs just as they would defend that of their tribe, and perhaps evolutionarily the tribe was the catalyst of this conflation of personal beliefs and the tribal instinct to protect ones beliefs because a common belief is what holds a tribe together. Human beings were probably never meant to live in a society like the ones that we've constructed, every societal construct is an experiment and perhaps politics itself conflicts with the nature of the human being itself.

Human beings have been tossed into this world, filled with tribe dividing politics, and they have been separated from their small tribe of a couple dozen people tens of thousands of years ago, and the only reason that these politics exist is because human beings now live in communities of not dozens, but millions. In this cluster fuck of a society, how could political conversations ever be comfortable and productive across civilization?

Stop posting.