askchapo

Well I said "very likely," the truth is probably closer to "I'm autistic and sometimes start a mini infodump on a friend who isn't interested, but also sometimes I have a genuine thing to share that gets boy-who-cried-wolfed into being ignored." If we're already in conversation in person or over a call, we can usually talk about deeper subjects, although usually the men don't participate as much in a deep convo. I don't know how much of that is unique to my age group, but it lines up with OP's observations.

Funny enough one of my close friends, same age group, tells me he almost never talks about politics with another circle of friends of his, but one time got into a huge struggle session because one of them very dumbly kept defending the idea that it was cool and good that people could buy up and own lakes, while everyone else rejected the idea because it just seemed incongruent with their values, without much theoretical basis. And it makes sense that something like that happens, right? Private property is a downright intuitive ideological principle, but also has all sorts of points of contradiction with other values people have, even when people don't go and read up on the enclosure of the commons, primitive accumulation, etc they understand that it's not natural for a single person to be able to claim a whole lake. But because no one had the language or a system to talk about this problem, they just went in circles. Would this discussion have happened in a gen X group of dumb guys? I think it easily could have, but something about the fact that no one involved had a real dog in the race ideologically, they were just saying "no it doesn't work that way" or "yeah but if you think about it should work that way," is new.