One of the more frustrating things about political discussion online is not disagreement itself. Disagreement is healthy. The problem is engaging with people who are deeply tribal, poorly informed about how politics actually functions, yet completely convinced they are politically sophisticated.
A recent exchange I had summed this up perfectly.
The discussion began after I shared comments from Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price about the horrific conditions in some town camps and the death of young Kumanjayi Little Baby. Someone replied:
“Yeah but JP when are you gonna do something tangible… it’s been all talk to date?”
I responded with what I thought was a fairly obvious point:
“What do you expect her to do? She isn’t a government minister and every proposal she tables in parliament is voted down by Labor and the Greens.”
That should not be controversial. Opposition politicians do not govern. They can advocate, pressure, propose policy, campaign, raise awareness and attempt to persuade the public. They cannot implement government policy unless they are in government or have the numbers in parliament.
Instead of engaging with that reality, the reply was essentially: “That’s her job to work out.”
In other words, no actual answer, just vague outrage and demands for “leadership.”
When I pointed out that this was dodging the question, the conversation quickly deteriorated into personal attacks:
“You are being purposely obtuse…”
“You should stop talking rubbish…”
“You are either dumb or disingenuous…”
“A bit inexperienced with politics generally…”
That last line amused me because it reflected a common problem in online political debate: people mistake aggression for knowledge.
Apparently, if you understand the basic distinction between government and opposition, you are “inexperienced.” If you point out parliamentary realities, you are “making excuses.” If you ask someone to explain how an opposition senator is supposed to unilaterally implement policy, you are somehow the unreasonable one.
Eventually the person proposed that Jacinta Price should organise protests and demonstrations in affected towns. Fair enough, at least that was finally a concrete suggestion. I even agreed that bringing people to the camps to see conditions firsthand could be worthwhile. Too many Australians discuss these issues from a distance without understanding the reality on the ground. Direct exposure to conditions in some town camps might force a more honest national conversation.
But large-scale protests in places like Alice Springs are another matter entirely. Given the tensions and volatility that already exist in some areas, there is a real risk that demonstrations could quickly deteriorate into unrest or riots, ultimately making conditions worse rather than better. That would help nobody, least of all the residents already living with these problems every day.
But then the conversation drifted into suggesting she should join One Nation, followed by the predictable attacks on anyone unwilling to support Pauline Hanson.
At that point the discussion stopped being about outcomes and became what these discussions often become: political team sport.
What stood out most was the contradiction running through the entire exchange. On one hand, there was constant criticism that “nothing gets changed.” On the other hand, when I pointed to a real-world example of grassroots pressure helping stop the misinformation/disinformation bill, that too was dismissed.
According to this person, people power apparently does not matter either.
Then came perhaps the strangest part of the exchange. The person insisted the misinformation/disinformation bill had supposedly been “pushed through a week later with revisions” and claimed Pauline Hanson was now campaigning to get rid of it.
But that made no sense because the bill had already been dropped. You cannot campaign to repeal legislation that never passed parliament in the first place. They had clearly confused it with something else entirely.
Yet despite confidently lecturing others about politics and accusing people of “half truths” and “misrepresentation,” they blocked me when corrected.
That, in many ways, captures modern political discourse perfectly.
People increasingly approach politics not as a serious civic responsibility requiring facts, nuance and an understanding of institutions, but as emotional tribal warfare. Many do not actually want discussion. They want affirmation. They want slogans. They want outrage. And if you challenge them on details, they often resort to insults rather than substance.
Politics is complicated. Governments have limits. Oppositions have limits. The Senate has limits. Public pressure matters. Parliamentary numbers matter. None of that disappears because someone is angry online.
What concerns me most is that many of the loudest political voices online often possess only a superficial understanding of how the system works, yet speak with absolute certainty. They confuse cynicism with wisdom and hostility with intelligence.
That is not healthy for political debate, and it certainly does not help solve serious problems.
