Yup.

I do not experience the level of frustration that you describe.
Yes, I know what you mean. Discussions on hot button issues tend to devolve quickly in hopeless conversation dynamics where any hope of mutual respect and interested exchange of ideas is lost.
People with a certain kind of upper class upbringing tend to cut off these kind of sarcastic remarks that they don't agree with in a certain way. Basically what their position seems to be is that the sarcastic speaker is presumptive about the convictions of the other, about belonging to a common group; rather a faux pas. The general response is to ignore what the other says.
It may be that you don't feel that option because of some perceived social imperative that prescribes being unconditionally supportive of others in a socially recognised 'friendly' setting. Probably you expect the other to follow the same rule. But sometimes people don't.
You can give people the cold shoulder if they deserve it.

The price you pay with this behaviour is that the speaker will feel a lack of bonding, won't feel you're one of the guys/gals.

Try thinking of yourself as a secret agent, cunningly gathering intelligence on the other side.

It helps if you hum the James Bond or Mission Impossible music under your breath.

I don't think the frustration comes from the implicit belief per-se. I went to an evensong the other day, and there was a bunch of implicit consent stuff about Jesus I didn't agree with and I was perfectly happy to hear it.

I think the frustration comes from disagreeing with someone you have respect for, or knowing that someone you respect doesn't encompass the complexity of your world view in their conversation.

I don't know what to do about it. It frustrates me too.
(Although - with my best friends, it doesn't frustrate me. It's just the people at the periphery of friendship that I desire respect from. I guess my frustration may come from the fact that they've made an axiomatic statement in such a way that I can't disagree with it. And I want to disagree with it so they think I'm clever or something.)

I think the frustration comes from disagreeing with someone you have respect for, or knowing that someone you respect doesn't encompass the complexity of your world view in their conversation.

I think it goes a little further than that. Usually I half agree with the person or group I'm talking to, but I know that another person or group wouldn't. Those people, however, are never in the same room at the same time. I feel my loyalties are divided, like this part of me hates that other part of me.

Nope. Statements don't make me see red. If I get annoyed by something, I either ignore it entirely or walk away from it so I can consider why I reacted so strongly.

One thing I never ever do is to try to defend someone else's position. That's their job, and the best I'd be able to provide is an approximation of what I think they think, which is entirely useless. As they say in prison: don't do anyone else's time.

I don't think it's un-called for to call someone out about such implicit assumptions. A good (atheist) friend of mine recently had to call out a co-worker for saying "I've never met a smart atheist." I often call people out for stuff like, "Oh, I don't mind gay people, as long as they don't flaunt their homosexuality. You know what I mean?" It doesn't have to be an argument. You can simply say, "I don't share your viewpoint, and I feel uncomfortable when you express it in a way that seems so absolute."

Someone reminded me recently that when a person holds a Position on Issue A, it does not mean they hold a reciprocal Position on Issue B. I DO make that assumption a lot, and I probably make people uncomfortable sometimes. I hope that they'll continue to remind me that not everyone is as brilliant and logical as I am :)

I wish I didn't have to play the proxy for the other person who isn't there however. Because of the ratio of people I'm around and the amount of time I spend with them, it's usually been left-wing people who have been making me cringe. I just wish I could put them in group therapy with the other people I know and make them all see that the other people have well reasoned, informed views too. Because I have BOTH of them INSIDE ME. Therefore, when I'm alone, I tear myself apart.

Good statement, eamon.
Don't try to defend other people's positions because you may not know them as well as you think, or you might just suck at it.
Also, some things are not worth the bother of correcting.
i've had it out with all kinds of people on all kinds of issues in various ways, and i'd have to really care or be truly bored to bother anymore.
Defend how you feel if you know how you feel and you care about what these people think.
Don't try "educating" people unless someone cares or you know what you're talking about.

Wait, if you DO agree with their viewpoints, then I don't really see what the problem is. Like eamondaly says: don't do anyone else's time.

Look at this another way: I'm sure your "left-wing friends" also hang out with people who are more "right-wing", just like you do. That's why, when they're among like-minded individuals, they vent a little, and perhaps over-state their case. They use a common language, and use hyperbole in a situation where they think they won't be mis-interpreted. It's not your job to stand up for other people's opinion.

I feel as though the people I relate to couldn't relate to eachother.

This may be giving you some unnecessary pain. I, too, move in several different worlds and know different kinds of people. However, different norms prevail not only in different groups, but when the group makeup changes. For instance, a conversation that I have within my family, using family shorthand and shared assumptions, changes in character quite a bit when people have joined us for dinner. Or when we all go to a potluck (better analogy) We are more inclusive, we are more careful not to use shorthand or to raise points of view which may offend. We are more understanding that we are only one among many families. but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the communications we use to bond our group together when we are back alone as a family again.

I think of the way the discourse on MetaFilter has changed as a result of people speaking up about offense. There has been a recognition that it's not as closed a community as was formerly thought; that people were indeed at a potluck, not at family dinner.

The abilities of people to navigate both familiar and less familiar groups is a good thing, in my mind. It helps us create close bonds with others to emphasize commonalities with one another - in work situations, in religious situations, in club/hobby situations, among friends, within families. Identifying with one another, building a shared knowledge and shared assumptions to work from, really saves a lot of time in communication and strengthens feelings of cooperation, caring, and loyaly. The security built within those groups may, in fact, make it even more possible for an individual to venture away from that group to explore other groups, recognizing that different culture prevails within those other groups.

But don't sell people short. I've spent a lot of my life worrying about the ways one group might condemn the other. It's usually needless. My racist grandparents handled our racially mixed group of friends perfectly well. My born-again Christian cousins and my liberal freethinking parents and friends happily share a beach house every year. My avid Republican boss and I have amiable talks about politics all the time. What he says at his monthly GOP meetings has nothing to do with me; I take it that he is establishing group bonds and advancing causes he cares about, as I am in my different groups. I only have to take care of me, and I like treating everyone as seriously and as civilly as I possibly can. Living in a small town has taught me that people will get along more often than you think they will.

Anyway, it's not your problem to fix relationships among separate groups. People can take care of themselves and their worldviews - you take care of yours. Your membership in varied groups is, in itself, probably the strongest statement of values you'll ever need to make. Your only problem is to understand the purpose and value of your own membership in each group.

The problem with that is that other people's positions are also partly my positions, because I actually agree with them to a certain extent. But now wholly my positions. At any rate, the point of my post was rather about the feeling of being torn asunder by the irreconcilability of the different worlds I traverse in the course of a day. I can't stress enough that in the hypothetical situations above, I have feelings for both sides of any given issue. The painful part is that I feel like the other people I'm talking to can't feel a human connection to the other side because they are comfortable in their own echo chambers.

P.S.: I think the only problem arises when I don't agree with what people are saying and they assume I do; then I feel it's (usually) morally incumbent upon me to speak up. Other than that, though, I own the views I own, enjoy commonality with others where it exists, and let go of disagreements between them and a third party. Those aren't mine to own.

Great post, Miko. Again, you've said what I tried to say, except more gracefully.

Does anybody else experience this?

I feel like this sometimes, yeah. I don't often spend time in largish cohesive groups, actually, so it doesn't come up too much (I prefer to spend time with two or three people at a go usually, things like family gatherings or mefi meetups being the happy exceptions), but I do sometimes end up shooting the shit with a group of folks who all (presumably) agree strongly about some contendable topic or another, and it frustrates me when that leads to blanket (and in my mind stupid and/or lazy) statements about a position or a group of people.

I've taken to politely, and maybe a bit quizzically, calling out statements as not really being balanced or fair-minded. Pointing out gently that many folks disagree with this or that but do so in good faith, that the position or the belief or whatever has its own merits even if I can understand where they're coming from.

Mostly it's discussion of religion or of politics, and I see it from both sides: both people I agree with (politically liberal, atheistic) and folks I don't (conservative, outspoken religious). I don't know which bothers me more—having to temper the lazy rhetoric of people I'm ideologically aligned with ("enough with the 'Bushitler' crap already") or people who don't seem to be considering the possibility that I'd object to their assumed beliefs ("Actually, I don't believe in God", "No, I don't agree that same sex marriage is foolishness").

I'm probably more comfortable calling out someone who I essentially agree with, but I also find it generally a less successful enterprise. And in either case, it's a weird and often frustrating experience.

The painful part is that I feel like the other people I'm talking to can't feel a human connection to the other side because they are comfortable in their own echo chambers.

So you have a lot of compassion and are able to see multiple perspectives. It's a real strength. You're right; not everybody has that ability - at least not as much as you do. But it can be learned, to some extent. See this as a gift you have, and use any opportunities you have to model multiple perspectives or respect for other views.

Not everything is about sides, one or the other, black and white. Most reasonable people who have considered things have reasons for being wherever they are on the continuum.

Most reasonable people who have considered things have reasons for being wherever they are on the continuum.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm on several different, and frequently contradictory places on that continuum simultaneously.

...whoever walks a furlong without sympathy walks to his own funeral drest in his shroud,
And I or you pocketless of a dime may purchase the pick of the earth,
And to glance with an eye or show a bean in its pod confounds the learning of all times,
And there is no trade or employment but the young man following it may become a hero,
And there is no object so soft but it makes a hub for the wheel'd universe,
And I say to any man or woman, Let your soul stand cool and composed before a million universes.

...Why should I wish to see God better than this day?
I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four, and each moment then,
In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass,
I find letters from God dropt in the street, and every one is sign'd by God's name,
And I leave them where they are, for I know that wheresoe'er I go,
Others will punctually come for ever and ever.

...Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I spend a lot of time in relatively homogeneous worlds

This kind of dovetails nicely with a thought that occured to me when I was reading pinky's thread about 'goals in life.'

I'm a little older than pinky and life has more or less taught me that lesson communicated in the old cliche 'If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.' So, a long time ago, I abandonded the idea of plans and goals in favor of just getting by. And this has freed me up in incredible ways. People devoted to a goal, especially in NYC-the original city on the make-tend to have this weird tunnel vision, so much so that they're not actually living in NYC, since all they're doing is spending time with other people just like themselves, which defeats the purpose of urban living, at least to me. Without the pressure of a 'goal,' I can relax and look around and hear the stories of all the people I run into, which is way more fulfilling, to me at least.

Is it possible you're reading sarcasm, or at least assumptions about shared opinions, into things a bit more heavily than they're intended? For my own part, though I've been trying to tone down the sarcasm online in general (I find it tends to lead to more hurt than connection), I know that when I tend to make absolute, sarcastic, or jokey statements it's not necessarily because I expect the entire audience to agree with me, but because it's simply what I believe and I feel like I need to say it at that time.

And I think you're right that sarcasm can sometimes muddy things, in all sorts of ways, but I think here, at least (I obviously can't speak about your other groups), a lot of what's said is an expression of personal identity rather than an expression of group identity. And I think we've got some very opinionated people here with great persuasive writing skills, so things may come across as a little op-ed-y sometimes with too many "we believe"s and "you should"s, but I don't really feel like there's a policy statement running this place.

Other, maybe, than "Be nice." Which means, I think, that when things get really contentious, a lot of people back off rather than pursuing; I think we're pretty quick to agree to disagree here, because the human relationship bonds seem (to me at least) a stronger component of the site than any sort of intellectual pursuit or "being right." So to me it feels less like a monolithic group-think and more like "Large areas about which we're all kind of agreeing not to push too far." (Which I like, by the way. I think learning when to stop arguing for the sake of the relationship is a good skill to have.)

Which I'm sure leave some things unexamined that maybe should be examined, and as Miko pointed out, sometimes those things do bubble up. And I think the underlying idea even with those things is "We want everyone to be comfortable." So sometimes that means a site-wide change of dominant behavior so it's more inclusive; sometimes that means an individual choice not to bicker or argue past what might be appropriate, as Miko says, at a potluck dinner. And I think that creates less "echo chamber" and more "safe space" in which people feel comfortable talking about their ideas and feelings, because there's a general sense that they're not going to be torn apart or forced immediately into a heavily defensive position, unless they put themselves there.

Or, shorter version: I don't assume assent. I do assume good will.

Yeah, wow. Does Bush suck or what? Yup.

Hmmmm. Nope, that didn't annoy me.

;-)

well, well put, occhiblu.

So to me it feels less like a monolithic group-think and more like "Large areas about which we're all kind of agreeing not to push too far." (Which I like, by the way. I think learning when to stop arguing for the sake of the relationship is a good skill to have.

Quoted for brilliance! This is a spot-on, you-nailed-it observation that I will remember whenever I see someone lobbing the accusation 'you people all think alike/this is a big circle jerk/you're preaching to the choir/' Think alike? No one but me knows what I think; only what I'm willing to share. Partly as a result of hanging in online spaces and partly as a result of maturing, I've been learning over the years to "stop arguing" in order to preserve relationships. Silence doesn't always, or even most of the time, mean assent. It just means silence. Sometimes, even when you know you are so so so so so right, it pays just to let something ride.

Again, I think it's part of that life job of learning where you end and others begin, and taking responsibility for yourself first and foremost.

"Silence doesn't always, or even most of the time, mean assent. " I'm not sure my online silence means anything one way or another but I do know that IRL my silence often conveys not assent or acquiescence but more of a "wow that comment is offensive to me".

I am not sure why that is but friends tell me it is very obvious when they look at me.

It's also sometimes possible to do something akin to "calling out" without being confrontational. "True, but my own experiences have been different."

A couple of years ago I overheard an interesting exchange at a restaurant. It was a group of apparently educated, young-to-middle-aged northern Californians. As so often happens in that demographic, the conversation started to veer in a predictable "Bush sucks" direction. One of the people there quietly and politely said "Actually, I voted for him, and I'm reasonably content with American foreign policy." The guy wasn't making a big deal of it; there was no challenge or animosity in his tone, but it he made it clear that the presumptive consensus didn't exist. There was a very brief moment as the conversation recalibrated, then picked up again on a slightly different topic. It was gracefully done.