Making Sense of Politics 101

[Kksd74628]

So many people are caught up in arguing over situations when almost everything happens in the domain of identity and how you see the world. For example it really doesn't matter what trump does, liberals wouldn't like it and what some women's right activist does wouldn't change a true conservative's head. Basically that reveals that surface level politics is not useful, because people won't want to change identity over one conversation. It's like car and human arguing if diesel or water is better. Human dislikes diesel for the toxicity and needs water, but car dislikes water for rusting and needs diesel to run.

Basically the question "what is the biggest danger for the society?" gives instantly away someone's position, because that guides the conversation automatically towards identity. Liberal would say instantly something about equality and conservative something about stability. It is extremely important to ask right type of questions to get where you want. From one angle maybe you want to have casual night and keep it light; then you should stay as far away from any identity based conversations or if you decide then just comment on a human level.

So if you're confused about politics then you're thinking it as fragmented mini debates, but in reality 99% most common debates happen under identity battle. And what's even funnier about all of this is that game by definition can only work when both play by the same rules and the same game, but different identities play different game. Some strategist businessmen see world through leaders and they completely can't fathom someone wanting stuff to become more equal. In different lens liberal sees world through individuals and can't fathom why some people just steal all money.

Also here's another trap inside how politics is argued nowadays - only way someone accepts other's point is if they argue it well, but that acceptance of mini battle happens at the cost of inner coherency. Proper mind is organized and doesn't disagree with itself, but people who aren't connected to their core could be driven out of their core identity little by little without them seeing what is happening. It all is manipulation we start to see and it all is fake. People should become more conscious of what politics is actually arguing for and forget those superficial battles.

TLDR

Politics happen more in structural level than people realize and that makes it seem more complicated when in reality it is simpler.

[BlueOak]

On 10/01/2026 at 9:04 PM, Kksd74628 said:

So many people are caught up in arguing over situations when almost everything happens in the domain of identity and how you see the world.

Everything relies on how you perceive the world. There is no other method of forming a framework within which to act, other than your senses and pattern recognition.  Meditation, dreamwork, your inner voice, and accessing the subconscious or greater mind can assist. Trouble is with most of that, its usually a metaphor that most people take literally or never fully understand, but then the journey there is usually the point.

You are correct that someone's identity shapes their responses. If you remove the identity, life is simple (and quite beautiful) but its also a catalyst for being at the mercy of everyone else actively engaging in life.

Edited 14 hours ago by BlueOak

[Kksd74628]

@BlueOak

I wasn't speaking spiritually there at all. The insight here is that understanding to politics comes through understanding the shared identities that guide people to have some opinion about something. Without that we'll come to wrong conclusions or no conclusions at all why some people vote against us or disagree with our takes. People only react to that part of the message that aligns or doesn't with their identity and that acts as the driver for responding. And then when people don't understand that the disagreement comes from deeper level that the mini debate they won't realize they can't change other's opinion on the matter.

[BlueOak]

2 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@BlueOak

I wasn't speaking spiritually there at all. The insight here is that understanding to politics comes through understanding the shared identities that guide people to have some opinion about something. Without that we'll come to wrong conclusions or no conclusions at all why some people vote against us or disagree with our takes. People only react to that part of the message that aligns or doesn't with their identity and that acts as the driver for responding. And then when people don't understand that the disagreement comes from deeper level that the mini debate they won't realize they can't change other's opinion on the matter.

I agree but the problem with that is, you'll still only have your own perception of what their identity means to them, even if they tell you it in their own words, then there is still a disconnect through interpretation.

The only real approach is to see how the two identities relate to each other. That's the only thing you'll have first hand understanding of.

[Kksd74628]

@BlueOak

I am not totally sure if were speaking about same stuff or not. I was trying to explain the structure of politics. You're speaking of something else, something more spiritual. Basically simply to get someone's worldview you'd need to know know what they are trying to protect and fight against in overall level. That helps enormously in seeing why they position themselves in specific way in mini debates (that in a nutshell are content within structure). Basically I am speaking of understanding structural positions.

I'll show in action what I mean:

A: Leftist always protects some form of equality and fairness.

B: Rightist always protects traditions and wealth

C: Spiritual person always tries to protect consciousness

and so forth

So when I speak about how I won some cooking match A will always speak about how sad it is that others food wasn't equally appreciated and B will cry about me breaking traditions and not making the food correctly and C will laugh of me winning by making unconscious food. 

The insight is that my story of winning cooking match is irrelevant, because people will just keep speaking from their identity's perspective.

PS. this topic is also extremely helpful for people who are confused by how people respond to them.

Edited 13 hours ago by Kksd74628
Added "()"

[BlueOak]

6 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@BlueOak

I am not totally sure if were speaking about same stuff or not. I was trying to explain the structure of politics. You're speaking of something else, something more spiritual. Basically simply to get someone's worldview you'd need to know know what they are trying to protect and fight against in overall level. That helps enormously in seeing why they position themselves in specific way in mini debates that in a nutshell are content within structure. Basically I am speaking of understanding structural positions.

I'll show in action what I mean:

A: Leftist always protects some form of equality and fairness.

B: Rightist always protects traditions and wealth

C: Spiritual person always tries to protect consciousness

and so forth

So when I speak about how I won some cooking match A will always speak about how sad it is that others food wasn't equally appreciated and B will cry about me breaking traditions and not making the food correctly and C will laugh of me winning by making unconscious food. 

The insight is that my story of winning cooking match is irrelevant, because people will just keep speaking from their identity's perspective.

PS. this topic is also extremely helpful for people who are confused by how people respond to them.

Although it is a more helpful focus, I am showing you the meta level of the problem.

When you say A B C to me here I then interpret that to mean something.
You then interpret that to mean something else.

We then still have a disconnect.

If you instead look at how A, B or C relate to each other, although we might interpret it differently, you'll be able to more directly achieve an outcome or understand what happens when someone is responding to you more directly.

Especially as I, for example, have what you might consider left/right and spiritual tendencies. (Left Right is such a flawed axis when looked at in a global context that its often as confusing as it is helpful).

Edited 13 hours ago by BlueOak

[Kksd74628]

@BlueOak

I know what you mean it's the classic dilemma of do we both see the green the same way or just call 2 different visuals the same name. That has nothing to do with what I am speaking of tho. You should go to some spiritual thread as this is in politics section and I am trying to discuss something else.

[BlueOak]

13 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@BlueOak

I know what you mean it's the classic dilemma of do we both see the green the same way or just call 2 different visuals the same name. That has nothing to do with what I am speaking of tho. You should go to some spiritual thread as this is in politics section and I am trying to discuss something else.

I disagree entirely that perspective arguments are not relevant to the central point, but I respect your request.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Indeed, there is nothing really logical about politics and you are right, it's all just about differences in upbringing, life experiences and ones hardware. That's why all this shit is ultimately a laughing stock; fundamentally all politics are just about differences between people and people will always view things differently and that's not because of logic. So who's to say that you are right about your views, more right than others?

Edited 5 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Kksd74628]

@NewKidOnTheBlock

Okay now we're getting somewhere 👍👍.

What I wrote isn't supposed to demotivate anybody, but actually to offer a solution for discussions. Sometimes we think someone can't be spoken with, because nothing we say goes through, but that is because we are applying force in wrongly.

First principle: Argumentation only works when there's shared ground

Here's the biggest fail people make when they interact with someone whose identity is far different from theirs. They are trying to logically work with some matter, but it isn't possible before you've agreed about something. If you are influential you could try to set some shared truth about how society is like, but most of the times you can't go there directly so you need to do something even more foundational; agree on what is. This is important, because when you agree about what is you can start to agree on how society is like and only after that you can go to what should be.

For someone who's not nuanced what is and how society is like sound the same, but they're just connected not same thing.

This is only example

1. What is = Someone who commits crime goes to prison

2. How society is like = Society keeps people safe

3. What should be = Society should be safer

Basically we have to understand that any conversation MUST go in that direction or it doesn't work. If someone disagrees with the facts of reality then you can't even agree on how society is like. And logically if someone disagrees on how society is like then any conversation about what should be doesn't work.

And only after all those 3 steps we get to the actual politics

4. Politics/what we should do = How to make society practically safer by laws and regulations

Funny thing is that there's huge path with someone to get from 1 to 4 and people tend to skip whole shit and just go argue about what government should do and this is laughably naive.

Conclusion:

People should have conversations properly and not jump to identity against identity that is stalemate position. As I stated above

On 10.1.2026 at 11:04 PM, Kksd74628 said:

people won't want to change identity over one conversation

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Kksd74628
Added couple boldinds and changed one sentence