Does it seem less objectionable if you specifically imagine someone transitioning to an arbitrary but interesting and engaging topic?
No, not at all. I wouldn’t at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of “Yeah, the weather’s great outside, but I hear it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.” “Yeah, you know what that’s exactly like? Aumann’s Agreement Theorem”. That’s just absurd. Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
This seems… odd, to me, as an objection. Do you really expect every one of your friends to share every one of your interests, and you to share every one of theirs?
No, I don’t. And if the person I’m talking to doesn’t want to talk about politics, that’s fine. But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of “impolite” topics.
Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn’t been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it’s not based on no evidence—it’s just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced. Or at least it would to me.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic,
I don’t think it does. People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree. Many people are happy to drone on for hours about their political beliefs, which is what makes it impolite. If you can be respectful about politics, I see no reason not to bring it up (if you want to). And if the other person can’t be respectful, then that gives you (in my book, what would be) a significant reason to not pursue a relationship with that person.
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced.
At this point I think it’s a matter of empirical testing—meaning, in this case, observing people, since the question is about what people do in the course of normal conversations.
People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree.
This is a significant part of why I said “most possible conversations”. I would guess that it’s possible to have a political conversation with most people that they’ll enjoy—but reliably doing so takes more information than you’ll generally have about someone you just met or are in the process of meeting.
No, not at all. I wouldn’t at all enjoy a conversation that went along the lines of “Yeah, the weather’s great outside, but I hear it’s supposed to rain tomorrow.” “Yeah, you know what that’s exactly like? Aumann’s Agreement Theorem”. That’s just absurd. Admittedly, that’s a contrived example, but I suspect that any examples that were “completely unrelated” as lukeprog said, would be equally absurd.
No, I don’t. And if the person I’m talking to doesn’t want to talk about politics, that’s fine. But I’m not going to intentionally avoid talking about politics just because they might not want to—that’s leaping to a conclusion based on no evidence. And I mean any topic really, just politics and religion are the two quintessential examples of “impolite” topics.
The problem with that example, as far as I can see, is that the transition is trying to force a level of engagement that hasn’t been established yet, which would fail even if the topic being transitioned to did have some logical connection to the weather. A better example: Transitioning from a funny, engaging story about someone’s cousin’s roommates’ sister’s wedding and the greased pig that got loose at the reception to a similarly engaging point of interest about Aumann’s Agreement Theorem and how it applied to a recent decision to donate to a particular charity.
Given that the topic being considered “impolite” implies that most people won’t like most possible conversations on the topic, no, it’s not based on no evidence—it’s just based on evidence about people-in-general or people-in-a-given-culture rather than a specific person in particular, which is a reasonable starting point in figuring out how to approach them. (Yes, this pattern-matches with the pronouns debate that comes up here from time to time. The significant difference is that female LWers are likely to object to being called by male pronouns, whereas politics-liking conversationalists are unlikely to object to their conversational partners bringing up non-politics topics of conversation. The parallel of having to actually gather information about people to interact optimally with them is accurate, though.)
But if you used the phrase “That’s exactly like”, I think it would sound equally forced. Or at least it would to me.
I don’t think it does. People generally love it if you agree with them—it’s impolite because you don’t always agree. Many people are happy to drone on for hours about their political beliefs, which is what makes it impolite. If you can be respectful about politics, I see no reason not to bring it up (if you want to). And if the other person can’t be respectful, then that gives you (in my book, what would be) a significant reason to not pursue a relationship with that person.
At this point I think it’s a matter of empirical testing—meaning, in this case, observing people, since the question is about what people do in the course of normal conversations.
This is a significant part of why I said “most possible conversations”. I would guess that it’s possible to have a political conversation with most people that they’ll enjoy—but reliably doing so takes more information than you’ll generally have about someone you just met or are in the process of meeting.