Wait a minute, your advice on morals & manners regarding political discussions is to avoid them always? C'mon, there's got to be a way we can talk to each other about government. It is, after all, "by for and of the people". Civic society relies on neighbors, friends, strangers on the commuter rails, etc. being able to state an opinion and then hear someone else's opinion. Even if >gasp!< they disagree! What kind of democracy can we boast of if we're afraid to engage even our friends on this topic-- even when they're plain wrong and not just "respectfully disagreeing". There's a time and a place for fact-checking too, and speaking up in defense of someone or something that's being unjustly smeared. Yeah, it takes courage. Yeah, people don't like being corrected. But if we can't talk to each other, then what good is it to have a democracy?

Your advice on morals & manners would be better applied to pointing out situations when these discussions are less appropriate, such as in the workplace or in a quiet library, instead of simply dismissing them as never a good idea.

Would you have said the same thing had these been religious e-mail (or anti-religious e-mails)? Or dirty jokes, or invitations to become an Amway, Avon, Tupperware, or whatever salesperson? Some people send e-mails knowing they are unwanted. There are three ways to handle them:

1) Reply and ask they not send you similar e-mails in the future. Some will remove you from the list; others will do like this person's acquaintances and see it as an excuse to ramp it up a notch.

2) Reply with reason, especially if it's an urban legend. Again, some will appreciate the candor and informations; others will ramp it up another notch.

3) Hit the delete key. They'll never know if you received it, read it, or what. If they have a "delivery receipt" and a "read receipt" on, they'll eventually figure out you are getting them but not reading them. But they won't care, because it's easier to leave you on their broadcast list than to remove you from it.

I guess there's one more:

4) Change your e-mail and don't give them the new one. Eventually their e-mails will bounce, which they may notice. Or not. But why should you be the one put out?

Clem:

Your advice on morals & manners would be better applied to pointing out situations when these discussions are less appropriate, such as in the workplace or in a quiet library, instead of simply dismissing them as never a good idea.

There hasn't been a polite discourse on politics since 1991. I would try to blame a person or party but I think everyone fell into the trap, so I avoid political discussions as much as possible.

I think tonto-goldberg hit the nail on the head. However, if the LW really is as good-natured as they claim, wouldn't they see some humor in these whacko emails or suspect her friends are just being funny/pushing buttons? My guess is they aren't nearly as laid back as they claim and every second comment out of their mouth is the latest quote from Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman, followed by their personal opinions on abortion and the war, with a bit of illegal immigration and public health care thrown in on the side. And their response to anyone with different opinions always starts with "I can't believe you said that."

Ther's a reason they say you don't talk about religion or politics in polite company. No matter how enlightened we think we are, those subjects bring out the crazy in lots of well-meaning people.

When I get an easily refutable urban legend or down-right lie, I send back a link to either Snopes.com or a news site. I've even sent out a disclaimer along the lines of: "if you want to forward on "incredible" stories you receive on e-mail, can at least take the effort to verify them first, and think before you mass e-mail."

Sure I come off as a school marm, tsk-tsk'ing the unruly children, but it's saved me lots of in-box clutter.

it just isn't possible

The more collegial United States Senate has relatively polite discussions on political topics all the time, and private individuals used to do that before various professional campaign staff began exploiting peoples' greatest psychological fears for votes. I envy their ability to do it but I hate the results it has brought us.

tonto_goldberg:

There hasn't been a polite discourse on politics since 1991.

Okay, I give. What happened in 1991?

So then why are you on slate :-P

I am only in it for the personal abuse.

Bill Clinton became the front runner in the Democrat Party.

A few days ago, some idiot that I e-mailed for work sent out the latest ZOMG POLITICAL SCANDAL meme. Looks like she sent it to absolutely everyone in her address book. Since she's a moron, she cc'd everyone instead of bcc'ing. When I got her first e-mail, I deleted it without even looking at it. Of course, since half the people she sent her e-mail to wrote back to argue with her, and THEY don't know proper e-mail etiquette, they just hit "Reply To All." And now I get about three dozen e-mails a day about how Obama is the devil.

Did I mention that I'm a DOD contractor? No one is safe from ignorant e-mailers. Moral of the story...if you're going to send political/religious/whatever e-mails, use BCC NOT CC!!!

The key to having a political conversation, especially with friends, is respect. If you can't respect the fact that they are an intelligent person even though they have a different viewpoint than you then why are you friends? Even if they aren't intelligent you are friends with them for a reason. Does that trump an assinine political stance?

Rainbirds:

Of course, since half the people she sent her e-mail to wrote back to argue with her, and THEY don't know proper e-mail etiquette, they just hit "Reply To All." And now I get about three dozen e-mails a day about how Obama is the devil.

LOL. You know this won't stop right? Some of those people will add you to their distribution list and will start sending you similar e-mails. A similar situation happened to me a couple of years ago and I tried to be nice by privately replying to each person to remove me from their list... but this went on for months. If I were you I'd send an e-mail now... telling them to stop replying to all. :)

I hate that. People should NEVER use someone's work e-mail for spam. People have (rarely) gotten fired for receiving stuff they didn't want in the first place.

That's why I have an e-mail for family, one for work, one for each of several other activities (including Slate), and one for casual acquaintances and for businesses when I am compelled to give an e-mail, such as when registering software. If someone on my "casual" site becomes close and shows a history of never sending junk mail, I will sometimes promote them to "family" e-mail, which I always read first. Some of the others may not get read but every 2-3 weeks.

I e-mailed a company once to complain about something. About 3 months later, they send a response to the 550 or so people who also had complained. The company "cc'd" instead of "bcc'd". Several of the recipients hit "reply all" a number of times. That's when I finally turned on my junkmail filter.