[zero-sharp]

>To prioritize one's impulse to need to have a political conversation is impolite because it risks the group as well as potentially infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over.

How does this transfer to any other situation involving group communication? Do the people on this board have a right not to see emotional conversations? Not rocking the boat has a place in professional settings, but I don't think people have a right, in general, to not see emotion.

I agree that, to a certain extent, it can be socially unpleasant. But saying it's a right is too much.

[mrangle]

This is in regard to widely and long time held social rules ingrained in the spoken and unspoken system of in-person manners / etiquette in the West. It has nothing to do with online forum communication: nor is that latter format some kind of proof for the former.

If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish, be anyone's guest. Just don't complain when you don't get your expected result. As that's how etiquette works. Its enforced through social punishment, and often without saying a word.

There are good reasons for most basic rules of etiquette, especially in public conversation. Protecting those reasons is a strong incentive to enforce the etiquette.

You're over-simplifying what I said when you state that people don't have a right not to see emotion. This is specifically in regard to politics, and the greater consequences of spontaneous political conversations including but also beyond being uncomfortable. What I was implying is that said emotion, in regard to politics, too often frequently leads to group tumult. Which is one aspect of why the etiquette exists.

I'm sure you can find people who will go out of there way to argue with you. But to expect random common people in their few precious leisure hours to not avoid you is asking too much, should your preferred topic of conversation be politics.

[zero-sharp]

I already feel like I'm walking on eggshells just trying to respond to this/you.

I was trying to clarify the scope of your comment "infringes on the right of others to not be regularly subject to spontaneous (or not) conversations that people frequently get emotional over."

I've been living in the United States for over 20 years and I genuinely have never experienced/felt such a strong standard for public conversation, even amongst groups of people from different generations. It doesn't represent my experience at all. In fact, there are cultural memes involving older generations who absolutely do not follow this standard. It really paints the group that you're describing as extremely fragile, and I think that's also an implication of the article.

"If you think that you have a right to behave how you wish" No, I don't think I said that, actually.

[mrangle]

My prior response to you was completely neutral and meant to be helpful.

Given that, I feel like you complaining that it made you feel as if you are "walking on eggshells" is meant to be manipulative toward getting me to concede your desires for the culture.

Good luck with that, anywhere. Believe what I say or not, I couldn't care less care how you feel in regard to my good faith sincerity. For Pete's sake. This is a stranger on the internet. I'm not your mother.

You're more than welcome to ignore what I say. I am not invested in you believing me, and this is not whatsoever a debate. I'm informing you of the reality on the ground as I know it to be. You seem to think that you are debating with the culture through me, somehow. My word.

As for the rest: I wrote a long response and then deleted it because of how crazy your response is on multiple assertions. From the reversal of your prior core complaint (to what, try to marginalize the common etiquette by now saying that you never come across it when it was the subject of your prior complaint?), to the hostile label, to the supposed and pointless correction of my phrasing that requires ignoring that it was in the context of your initial complaint. You are being argumentative just to be so, predicated on a false premise to boot. Your post isn't worth responding to more specifically. It's not hard at all to see why you might have some cultural trouble. Though, given what I now see, perhaps it isn't cultural trouble exactly. Perhaps it has more to due with your specific personality. As I have known many more perfectly polite and conversationally skilled foreigners than not.

If this quality of response is typical of your conversational skill, and refraining from it is "walking on eggshells", then I'd suggest you get used to that in order to get by.

Or maybe taking a communication class would help. A lot of people have stumbling blocks of various types, and not only with the specific issue under discussion. Even those who were born here. Conversation is an artform.

[zero-sharp]

I think this response is disproportionate. I mean, it really validates my previous comment about feeling like I'm walking on eggshells.

Good luck with the rest of your polite and skilled conversations where you accuse other people of being manipulative and crazy.