One increasingly common phrase today is “I’m just not a political person.” In many ways, it reflects the same cultural instinct behind the popular mantra of “protecting my peace”—a desire to avoid situations that feel too confrontational, uncomfortable, or draining. Of course, setting healthy boundaries is important. No one should feel obligated to be consumed by the 24-hour news cycle or engage in every single political conversation they encounter. However, political participation is a core aspect of a healthy democracy, which often means stepping into uncomfortable situations.
The idea of “protecting our peace” has become deeply ingrained in online culture. We are encouraged to distance ourselves from negativity and anything that does not “serve us.” In many contexts, this advice is healthy. For example, this advice is often given to people in toxic relationships where it is usually wiser to “protect your peace” than get caught up in a harmful cycle again. However, this highly individualistic mindset of self-preservation poses its own problems. If people are so unwilling to do things that don’t “fill their cup,” or in other words, make them feel good and comfortable, we risk letting uncomfortable, but important, issues fester.
This kind of thinking can create a toxic cycle of its own where people repeatedly refuse to engage with ideas that make them uncomfortable and, as a result, become progressively more avoidant and detached from civic participation. If people only want to engage with things that affirm them, this presents another dangerous possibility. They get stuck in echo chambers— environments where one’s beliefs are constantly reinforced by people and information that confirm those beliefs, while different views are filtered out. In echo chambers, limited exposure to contradictory information means that people are not regularly prompted to re-evaluate their beliefs.
Furthermore, when people are continually surrounded by others who reinforce their existing views, they can gradually move toward more extreme positions. This pattern is known as “group polarization,” or the tendency of people discussing an issue within a like-minded group to adopt more extreme positions than they initially held. As group members reinforce one another’s views and are mostly exposed to supporting arguments, the group’s average opinion shifts further in the same direction. For example, a group of people who are mildly in favor of a policy may become strongly in favor of it after discussing it together. Social media algorithms amplify this problem by tailoring content to users’ existing preferences, making it easier for echo chambers to form and persist. And in a world where a growing share of people get their news from social media, it’s not surprising that political polarization has become so severe.
Additionally, the idea of “cutting off” people who have opposing political beliefs has become increasingly prevalent on both sides. As a result, people are often hesitant to even discuss politics at all, fearing that they might be speaking to someone who disagrees with them. This habit has made genuine understanding grow increasingly rare. Rather than speaking with those who hold different views, many people rely on social media clips, partisan headlines, or viral posts—often in an echo chamber—to understand “the other side.” The product is often outrage without understanding. It becomes easier to assume the worst about people we rarely engage with directly, making compromise seem impossible before the conversation has even begun.
If nobody can accept the discomfort that comes with respectfully engaging with “the other side,” we begin to see people with different beliefs from us as the enemy. For this reason, we have to be careful with the phrase “the other side.” It can be divisive and perpetuate the narrative that our two major political parties are supposed to be enemies. Yes, we should call out harmful rhetoric and corrupt politicians; that’s part of the democratic process too. But, it is destructive and counterintuitive to assume that everyone aligned with the political party you disagree with is the “enemy.”
Ultimately, avoiding political conversations does not bring about meaningful change or improve our political climate—and it does not actually “protect our peace.” In fact, it can deepen division and contribute to greater political polarization. Our culture often promotes the idea that people who disagree with us are “negative” and therefore don’t belong in our lives. In reality, democracy is built on the idea of institutionalized disagreement. Different perspectives expose weaknesses in our own reasoning, force us to defend our beliefs, and often lead to stronger solutions than we would reach on our own. Engaging with opposing viewpoints also requires intellectual humility, or the willingness to admit that our own views may be incomplete or occasionally wrong. Democracy depends not only on defending our beliefs, but on remaining open to their refinement. Until we embrace this necessity, we will keep seeing the division and polarization that we do today.