Political statements from distant "Friends"

[jane7166]

One of my FB "friends" - my cousin's college aged daughter - posted something of a very political nature on FB.  It was also very provocative.  I started to answer back from my point of view and then stopped.  I would not have stepped on her feelings, just presented an alternate point of view.  Then I just dropped the whole thing.  She's not a real acquaintance and she's about 35 years younger than I am. 

Is there an etiquette of whom you "take on?"  I don't know if letting her position stand without commenting is condoning or should I just post non-politically, as usual?

[SisJackson]

I don't know if letting her position stand without commenting is condoning or should I just post non-politically, as usual?

If "not commenting" made as much of a statement as commenting then maybe some of my friends would lay off of asking why I go quiet on Facebook sometimes.  In my feed, leaving a status uncommented is more my normal - and I never comment on statuses, links or notes that are political or religious in nature whether I agree with them ore not.  Much of the time I feel like the people who post provocative messages are looking for a fight and I'm not going to indulge them.

[greenleafmountain]

I would say you are free to comment if you would like to have a civil discussion about the issue, but you aren't "condoning" what she said by letting it go without comment.

I would say there are generally two types of political posters on facebook.  The first are people like my friends and I who want to share what we feel are interesting perspectives on issues we care about, and who are interested in hearing what others think on the issue.  Then there are people who are aggressively posting things and aren't interested in conversation at all.  I had one of these types on my friends list, he would post things and when people would make perfectly reasonable comments in response, he would block or unfriend them.  None of us understood it: why post something if you don't want to discuss it?  I eventually unfriended him because of this behavior.

But I guess it all comes down to whether you believe civil conversations about politics, even with people who hold different politics than you, are possible and worth the trouble.  I think they are, and enjoy them.  I know others think it is never appropriate to discuss politics, and I don't start conversations with those people out of respect for their position.

[JoanOfArc]

Not commenting is not condoning the status.  I do not comment on statuses all the time.  However, if you want to have a civil conversation, then you could comment back.  It can lead to an intresting 'chat' or it can be a disaster.  Only you can judge which it will become. 

Joan

[sammycat]

Not commenting is not condoning the status.  I do not comment on statuses all the time.  However, if you want to have a civil conversation, then you could comment back.  It can lead to an intresting 'chat' or it can be a disaster.  Only you can judge which it will become. 

Joan

I agree with Joan. 

Most of the updates in my FB feed are pretty tame, but I do have one friend who is absolutely militant about 2 particular intertwined subjects (not politics or religion).  I never comment on them.  Not because I don't want to get into a debate about it, but simply because I. do. not. care.  I have my views on these subjects, (I'm pretty neutral) but not enough to want to start a FB 'war of words' over it.  This lady is a really nice person, but is rather fixated on these 2 subjects, so every now and then I block her feed to give myself a break from the forcefulness of these subjects.

[Sharnita]

Regardless of familly, best friend or acquaintance I would not "take on" anybody unless they specifically asked what others thought.

[alegria]

I had to block a former friend last year because of his spiteful, hateful, inflammatory comments on religion and politics on not only his wall but on those of his friends.  He used to be quite a reasonable person, but has since joined a very conservative branch of his chosen religion and is all but a conspiracy theorist on the politicians whose views vary even slightly from his radical ones.  I finally sent his wife a message to let her know that I hoped to remain FB friends (and RL friends) with her, but I had to block him for my own sanity.  Her response was essentially "Yeah, I'm getting a lot of that right now..." but I don't know if she's successfully gotten him to realize the results of his actions.

I generally stay out of political flamewars, but I will comment on topics that important to me when they pop up. 

[Shoo]

I tend to not respond to political comments of others unless I agree with them.  However, I also tend to post political comments on my own wall occasionally.  Lately, I've been on a roll.

If someone disagrees with what I've posted, fine by me.  I'm not posting to argue with anybody.  I'm posting my views to let others know what I think, so they'll know me better.  Any post that attempts to belittle my views will be deleted promptly.  Any post that is respectful and thoughtful will stay.  

[Larrabee]

I don't generally respond to political comments.  If someone is posting bad information I will sometimes post a link to somewhere that has the facts straight but I tend to think that's the best I can do.  If these people are shown the truth of an issue and still fee l strongly then I'm not going to change their mind so there's no point getting into public conflict about it.

[Shoo]

I don't generally respond to political comments.  If someone is posting bad information I will sometimes post a link to somewhere that has the facts straight but I tend to think that's the best I can do.  If these people are shown the truth of an issue and still fee l strongly then I'm not going to change their mind so there's no point getting into public conflict about it.

The problem with that is that the other person can post 10 links supporting her original conclusion.  Then you get into a "fact" war.  I'm sure there are people who disagree with my viewpoints, but if someone posted a link directing me to the "facts" I think I would be seriously peeved.

[Amava]

I usually ignore that. Sometimes I click "like" for a statement I agree with.

[Larrabee]

I don't generally respond to political comments.  If someone is posting bad information I will sometimes post a link to somewhere that has the facts straight but I tend to think that's the best I can do.  If these people are shown the truth of an issue and still fee l strongly then I'm not going to change their mind so there's no point getting into public conflict about it.

The problem with that is that the other person can post 10 links supporting her original conclusion.  Then you get into a "fact" war.  I'm sure there are people who disagree with my viewpoints, but if someone posted a link directing me to the "facts" I think I would be seriously peeved.

Oh I don't get into 'who's more right' competitions, I'm talking more in the sort of example where someone is claiming something as objectively false as 'trees can talk' or China doesn't exist' and I only like to officially reputable sites offering data, not opinion.  I don't do it to 'win' I just hate to think that other people seeing it might take them at their word and end up believing the misinformation.

[Shoo]

I don't generally respond to political comments.  If someone is posting bad information I will sometimes post a link to somewhere that has the facts straight but I tend to think that's the best I can do.  If these people are shown the truth of an issue and still fee l strongly then I'm not going to change their mind so there's no point getting into public conflict about it.

The problem with that is that the other person can post 10 links supporting her original conclusion.  Then you get into a "fact" war.  I'm sure there are people who disagree with my viewpoints, but if someone posted a link directing me to the "facts" I think I would be seriously peeved.

Oh I don't get into 'who's more right' competitions, I'm talking more in the sort of example where someone is claiming something as objectively false as 'trees can talk' or China doesn't exist' and I only like to officially reputable sites offering data, not opinion.  I don't do it to 'win' I just hate to think that other people seeing it might take them at their word and end up believing the misinformation.

Yes, I get what you mean now.  Sort of like how someone posted on my wall that there was no national debt until the year 2000.  I had to post a link to set them straight on that.