[vinbreau]

I reconnected with an old friend from childhood a few years ago. I knew he was politically opposite from me so I kept politics out of our conversations... do you know how hard that is? It's hard enough that it requires effort, effort that he noted. He accused me of being closed off and never saying what I really wanted to. I made it clear we should not go there.

He told me that several years ago watching the news made him physically ill and his GP told him to avoid news. His health improved. In 2016 he admitted to me he does not watch any news, read any news, but he believes in voting. I asked him how he could vote if he hasn't educated himself on the candidates. How a person like me who thinks you either eat politics or it eats you, sees an uninformed voter, proudly ignorant of the candidates, but voting with his gut, what am I supposed to say? This deeply offended him. He then accused me of living in a bubble despite the fact I read news from all over and he reads none.

I asked him how should educated voters feel about gut-feeling voters with uneducated opinions? I think his response was "Fuck off". We do not talk anymore because any subject he brought up that had any hint of politics to it was an empty conversation. I would bring up things related to the subject and he would default to making jokes. Serious conversation was beyond him.

Tone deaf, dumb, and blind. He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him. Ex-Navy man, ex-Nuclear Engineer, ex-friend.

[massysett]

Perhaps it was true that he was uninformed about the candidates, but that's not a conclusion you can draw solely because he did not consume any news. There are many ways one can become informed about candidates: visit their websites, read Wikipedia articles, see who endorses them, etc.

Some news sources, even "mainstream" ones, are so hopelessly biased that I think they're less informative than consuming candidate propaganda.

[sergeykish]

Such person would say that. Some people believe and response with offence if they can't support their believes, flat earth etc.

[funnybeam]

Of the cuff comment but it occurs to me that they may have been right.

I am pretty well informed politically and follow the news regularly, however, I still vote for the same party I voted for thirty years ago and always have done.

Knowing what is happening in the news has rarely changed my vote - pretty much whatever happens the parties are not going to substantially change relative to each other to the point where you would prefer a different party so following the news or not doesn’t really make a difference.

You may be in a bubble by thinking this is important when it really doesn’t matter as much as your bubble is telling you it does

[sergeykish]

Oh, my conclusion is not about politics

> This deeply offended him. He then accused ...

> I think his response was "Fuck off"

Unfortunately I've seen been in such situations. I've politely asked to act in good faith of each other or close the topic. Some people feel better after arguing, I don't.

[funnybeam]

Fair enough if you don't want to talk about it, but the OP had basically just told the person they were ignorant so probably shouldn't be too surprised at a 'fuck off' response

[sergeykish]

Maybe my experience reflects how I read

> so I kept politics out of our conversations...

I do not watch news for 20 years. I am fine if someone thinks I'm ignorant but ready to discuss that. Some people look brainwashed, aggressive, they don't answer uneasy question, they attack instead. Yes, OP provoked, I do not recommend this way. But response depends on the person and that was my message.

I mean sometimes I argue with friends for fun. And we know how to stop while it is fun. Persuasion is not fun.

[casefields]

Who do you think the get out the vote targets? It's people that barely have an opinion nor care enough to get off their butt and vote.

>Just because one has the right to vote does not mean just any vote is right. Citizens should not vote badly. This duty to avoid voting badly is grounded in a general duty not to engage in collectively harmful activities when the personal cost of restraint is low. Good governance is a public good. Bad governance is a public bad. We should not be contributing to public bads when the benefit to ourselves is low. Many democratic theorists agree that we shouldn’t vote badly, but that’s because they think we should vote well. This demands too much of citizens.

>Most voters have no idea what is going on–they may not even know who their leaders are, and certainly do not know who is the best candidate. Imagine that someone asks you for directions to a local restaurant. If you have no idea where the restaurant is, you should not make it up. You should not tell the person some guess that seems sort of plausible to you. You should tell them you don’t know and let them get directions from someone more knowledgeable.

>Ignorant voting is even worse than ignorant giving of directions, because voting is an exercise of political power (albeit a very small one)–to vote for a policy is not only to make a recommendation, but to request that the policy be imposed on others by force.

[Polluting the Polls: When Citizens Should Not Vote](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0004840080258730...

[Foivos]

> He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him.

Obviously, I am not aware of the full context of the conversation you had or even his tone and this could make a huge difference.

But I have to note that he did not call a whole race "stupid" or "lazy" or anything else objectively racist. He just expressed a sexual preference. What is wrong with that? If your wife was red-haired and he had said that he found red-hair unattractive, would it be offensive?

[arolihas]

It would be very rude to say something like that to your friend. He effectively called a whole race ugly in his eyes. We don’t know the race mentioned but I think you can imagine a context where that would be considered more offensive and sensitive than red hair.

[Foivos]

I agree. It shows at minimum lack of empathy / interpersonal skills and at maximum an attempt to offend him.

It is not racist though.

[arolihas]

Ok so? OP never said his friend was racist. I don’t understand why you feel the need to split hairs on this point.

[pjc50]

> 2016 he admitted to me he does not watch any news, read any news

> He then accused me of living in a bubble

This kind of tu quoque thing happens a lot when people get defensive. Accusing you of the thing they know they're in the wrong over.

[devthrowawy]

Interesting anecdote. Sounds like he didn't want to talk politics but you kept pushing, trying to take some moral high ground. Voting isn't an exam, it's actually pretty simple even for swing voters. Believe it or not, there is no right or wrong answer or else we would not have a vote. You essentially vote on a personal philosophy that is developed over your live, or primarily in your earlier years, and by studying history, consuming art like books, movies and music, and meeting people and discussing these ideas. It's something that happens in the background. Keeping up with what the candidates, parties and news outlets are saying isn't nearly as relevant.