100% People who think that disagreements about other people’s right to exist are just matters of taste reveal how deeply hateful they are. This is not a matter for compromise.
They’d probably go something like, “but I don’t have a problem with you existing (if you happen to be in their “in” group), it’s just others who aren’t you I don’t want to exist, why do you have a problem with that??”
Same type of person who thinks they can completely fuck over one person without affecting their relationships with mutual friends, like everything is a set of one on one relationships that can’t overlap.
“And I have a problem with republicans existing. Not you. But every other Republican should die”.
I guess they wouldn’t see it in the same light as their own shit.
What mainstream ideology says a certain demographic of people shouldn’t exist?
The word I used with someone is coherence. It all has to match up, inside and out. Being ND helps, voice timbre reveals a lot.
I am so sick of this kind of thinking. I am not strongly affiliated with wither party and I can not stand to be told that I stand for X if I don’t support Y. I do not have faith that the democrats will fight for the things they say that they will. In particular Adam Shiff and Gavin Newsom are deep into the pockets of the interests funding their campaigns. I can dislike Trump and I can dislike Schiff.
I do not owe loyalty to candidates selected by business and party elites. I understand that project 2025 is a threat to democracy but I do not understand how the democratic party decided to put Adam Schiff on the fucking ballot if the fight is so important. If the threat is severe can you all please choose candidates that don’t make my skin crawl?
I research every issue on my ballot a few weeks before the election. I choose the candidates based on their merits, their platform, and their fitness for the position. Frankly my vote for my school district supervisors matters a whole lot more and the party affiliation of the candidate should have no bearing. Their personal opinions and beliefs do matter a whole lot.
The tenor of their politics matters a lot to me. For example Katie Porter is among the best of us, kind, accurate, hard working, and well informed. Katie Porter would have my vote but I cannot bring myself to vote for Schiff. Not voting for Schiff does not make me a Nazi who hates my trans friends, it is because I honestly believe the way he conducts politics does more harm to my trans friends. Not all democratic candidates are good, some may even do more harm to the party than republicans they oppose.
you know you can think all of those things and still disagree politically on the how right?
How children shouldn’t be fed
How the poor shouldn’t be housed
How the sick shouldn’t be cared for
How women shouldn’t control their bodies
How Americans can’t marry who they love
How certain people shouldn’t exist
Yeah, you’re not making the point you think you are…
youre proving my point by phrasing things that way. lets go with healthcare as thats an easy example. it’s obviously not how the sick shouldn’t be cared for as you stated, but how should they be cared for?
Maybe you think we should abolish the entire health insurance industry and have a single payer system.
Maybe you think we should require everyone buy health insurance and fine them if you don’t.
I’d prefer the former but if you oppose the latter people assume you think sick people shouldn’t be cared for.
That’s not actually how it is, though. Easy example is abortion.
I take it you are unaware of American politics.
I wish. instead I get to be annoyed by people who think that if you don’t perfectly align with the talking points they listen to you must be the enemy
Well the “talking points” greatly affect people’s lives and rights. So, yeah. For example, if you disagree that LGBTQ people should have the same rights as everyone else then you are in fact the enemy.
Of course you can have differing opinions and be friends. There are obviously scales of importance.
If you believe black people should be slaves, we don’t be friends.
If you believe Trans rights shouldn’t exist, we won’t be friends.
If you believe climate change is a world ending catastrophe and all cars should be baned we may be able to be friends because I disagree on the baning of cars.
If you think gun reform is required we will probably be friends but we will probably have different ideas of how to go about it.
that sounds good on paper but it would only work between people that don’t vote and never voiced who they would vote.
I would while heartedly disagree. Especially with the American system. With the 2 party system we have to pick the person that most aligns with our ideals. I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
I have friends that voted for Biden because he has better policies for the lower/middle classes.
I have friends that voted for Biden because they just hated Trump that much.
I have friends that voted 3rd party because ef it “my vote doesn’t matter”.
Doesn’t mean I can’t be friends with them. Everyone has reasons for voting the way they do.
My issue with your statement is “never voiced who they would vote for”. In my opinion it is the lack of ability to reasonably talk about why you are voting one way or another is a big issue with what is going on in the American political system.
I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
Sounds like some people I wouldn’t be friends with
That’s fine, not everyone needs to be friends with everyone. I kind of like them though
If you want to like people that vote against everyone’s interests, electing a wannabe dictator because it puts money in their own pocket, have at it man.
I kind of like them though
And that’s all that matters to you, the impact their (and your) choices have on the rest of society aren’t a factor to you, and it shows. You ignoring their vote for trump because you “kind of like them” is just as bad and selfish as them voting for him because they own a small business.
Which is exactly why I wouldn’t be friends not only with someone I don’t agree with politically, but also anyone who pretends like political leanings don’t matter - because you’re an enabler and actively complicit in making bigots feel safe and comfortable.
And that is perfectly fine. We are allowed to choose our friends and how we find them. If you want to live in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you that’s fine. That’s just not for me. I’m friends with many people from all walks of life. From business owners to a someone that is surfing other people’s couches and sometimes not so lucky.
Depending on where they are at in life they change what is “important” to them. The stay at home mom isn’t against helping the homeless but it isn’t the top of her list of priorities. She cares more about the reproductive rights and Medicare.
She voted for Trump the first time and biden the second. Does that make her a terrible person I shouldn’t be friends with? I don’t think so
Yeah, if you voted for trump a 2nd time that’s a no go for me. If you voted for him once I’ll need an explanation and how you have changed.
I have friends that voted for Trump because the were business owners and he had better policies for them but they hated other things he stood for.
Spoken like a true businessperson
Same. If you’re willing to sell out minority groups for tax breaks, you don’t deserve the protections of society.
I dunno, I’ve thought about this and genuinely think it doesn’t matter what your view on specific topics are. You could be the nicest person that only agrees with a few items on the Republican platform, but at the end of the day you support and empower them. Anyone deciding to vote Republican is essentially signing off on the entire platform. They can say they only want gun rights, but their vote still helps blocks medical access for women.
I live in a heavy Mormon area and think the same about them. I know many very nice Mormons who are ok with LGBT folks, but they still pay their tithe to the church and that money is used to fight against care for them. At the end of the day they are knowingly contributing to a system that hurts people, that’s the line for me.
Thanks for your thought out and well formed opinion. I can see where you are coming from and it makes sense.
What if that Mormon person thought that the church was overall good, disagrees with some things they are doing and are in the faith to try to change it from the inside via voicing their opinions, talking with leadership, etc?
That’s a great question. So if you look at all the good the church does and say “I like the idea of this” and but your pro LGBT so you don’t like that aspect of the church.
I think that’s a personal choice at that point. You have to weigh the good vs the bad. For me it’s a clear choice. Mormons mostly only help other Mormons and you lose that help if you stop paying your tithing. So to me it seems like a membership you pay to be part of a community that can help you. But that same community hurts people. So with the idea that it’s a paid club that helps each other, it doesn’t justify the harm it does. Especially when that harm is done by forcing their views on others.
As for changing it from the inside, I don’t see a lot of room for that. They have a living prophet selected by God. What they say goes, and the church is very big on rules. Historically the best way to force change for them has been external, social driven pressure around things like black priests and such.
Very, VERY much depends on HOW we disagree politically.
The typical issue with people making these statements is that they tend to wildly exaggerate and straw man the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
Who out there is actually saying “children shouldn’t be fed”, for example? Fucking nobody, lol.
It’s rarely said in that exact manner because it sounds bad, but the policies they support amount to it.
“I know what they really mean!”
Perfect example of what I’m talking about, lol. Lazy ideologue tactics 101.
If you don’t realise how supporting a politician who defunds school lunches is an active statement that childen shouldn’t be fed, then your cause-and-effect detector is broken.
I’m not falling for that, I know the games legislators play with bundling shit into a bill so that anyone who votes for/against it based on one part is now declared as being firmly for/against everything in it, because ‘they voted for/against it’.
And what you’re saying here takes it a step further than that, by taking it beyond a bill to “supporting a politician”. So let’s say a politician makes it so that hospitals have to be more transparent about itemizing things on their bills. Okay, I support that, and say so. But now people like you come along and say that I’m “supporting a politician who” and then name all sorts of shit I said nothing about supporting.
No.
You’re getting blasted in this thread, but I wanted to thank you for bringing some nuance to this ridiculously partisan and strawman-y conversation.
I like your take, and your nuanced approach. People seem to be under the impression that their rage matters more than actually thinking about what caused it, and how best to address that.
If I were Republican, or voted Republican, and this shit happened, I’d be pissed. But more to the point, I’d find ways of fighting it, to whatever degree I can.
It is simply an unfortunate artifact of our system (of many systems) that there’s a lot of potential to lie. Changes in our system that mitigate that, and that fundamentally allow for more parties to participate in the process, are where we really need to head, long-term.
And in the short term, fuck that policy.
- Vote for a politician who defunds school lunch programmes
- Children go hungry
- ???
- I did not vote for children to go hungry, Bill Riders said I’m not responsible
Yeah, your cause-and-effect detector is busted as fuck. Sorry little buddy, good luck fixing it.
I’m not falling for that
Of course not, you’ve already fallen for something much worse.
Reminds me of people who say Americans can’t be Nazis because America isn’t 1940’s Germany. lmao
Reminds me more of when I got called a Nazi on Reddit for nothing more than stating the fact that one of the main reasons long term capital gains tax is lower than income tax is because it incentivizes investment, lol.
Unfortunately I can’t remember why on the other side, but I’ll never forget the most notable thing about that day–that was the day I got called a Nazi and a Commie on two different subreddits on the same day, lol.
Don’t even try to pretend that this isn’t a very common move, especially online.
Well sure, of course people can be stupid as fuck. I think my comment pointed that out very clearly.
It’s a catch all for a perceived “bad guy”.
That’s just the kind of thing a Communist Nazi would say!
This isn’t what people saying x can’t be nazis, because it isn’t the 1930s-40s, are saying this too. They are saying this when people are pointing out people who are nationalists, and support ethno-states, and the like, as nazis. In the situation you are talking about they just say that everyone is a nazi online or these days. That specific statement though, it comes from particular people, for particular reasons.
Who out there is actually saying “children shouldn’t be fed”, for example? Fucking nobody, lol.
I’m not even American and I know that plenty of people are saying this 🙄
Congress ended the free-lunch-for-all program in June
The Republican Study Committee (of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members) on Wednesday released its desired 2024 budget, in which the party boldly declares its priority to eliminate the Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP, from the School Lunch Program. Why? Because “CEP allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”
Children who had access to food now don’t have the same access, thus “children shouldn’t be fed”.
Fucking nobody, lol.
You’re fucking callous.
Wait, in your quote - their reasoning for blocking CEP is just “we think parents should be paying for their own kids’ lunches, unless they’re eligible for support (poor)”?
That’s not really saying “children should starve”.
“There are plenty of people saying this”
shows no one saying this, and does the exact kind of extrapolation and exaggeration I talked about
Thanks for making my point for me.
Your argument is basically “yes, everything they do is racist, but they didn’t publicly say the N-word, so they can’t be racist.”
If every action a politican takes makes it so kids can’t eat, they don’t want kids to eat.
Whether they say “I don’t want kids to eat” doesn’t matter at all. The fact that you have to hear the literal evil being spoken aloud to acknowledge it is “you” problem.
But, if the quote about CEP is correct, the Republicans aren’t against feeding children at all. They are against providing free meals for people who can afford meals, and still providing free meals for eligible (poor) kids.
Providing free meals to every child is drastically more cost efficient per meal than attaching means testing, accounting, tracking and enforcement. It also prevents ignorant, overwhelmed or stubborn parents from feeding kids that should qualify but whose parents won’t enroll them. That last number accounts for nearly 20% of eligible kids in Minnesota alone:
While nearly 275,000 kids get free or reduced-price meals in Minnesota schools, at least 18 percent of students in grades K through 12 who could qualify for those benefits aren’t getting them because their families haven’t submitted the necessary paperwork to make them eligible.
It also helps kids who may be able to afford a meal, but whose circumstances prevented them from getting a meal that day. It also helps the local economy.
No, the primary issue the GOP has expressed about feeding children is that “its welfare” and "there is no one hungry in our state." That is the main, stated issue with feeding any kid, that people will appreciate the program and vote for more like it.
The states that declined to participate in the program cited reasons such as problems with aging state computer systems, philosophical opposition to welfare programs, and a belief that existing free meal programs are sufficient. All 13 are led by Republican governors
Its not fiscal responsibility, its vindictive, partisan attack on children because the thing that demonstrably helps them and society at large undermines their party platform.
I’m not arguing that the Republican’s stance has technical merit. I’m arguing against the idea that Republicans are just evil.
They do however, believe in power and personal responsibility. But let’s just say for a moment that their leadership, and some percentage of their public body is evil.
What then? Do you think that hate and shame are the solutions? Do you look at the democratic party and think “aha! Here we have a morally upright group of people, who are capable of winning hearts and minds!”. Do you truly not see your own hate?
…because I look at the democratic party and see a bunch of people freaking out because they have a lot of power and don’t know what to do with it - and they keep fucking it up and losing to the most basic of opponents, or chooses poor candidates when good ones are available.
I see a party that, when it wins, on some level thinks of all of the hate they’ve spewed, and think “I did a good job fighting the good fight.” I see a party that is a large majority, and justifies abuses of some minorities as valid, and others as invalid. I see a party that claims it seeks equality, but does so only for it’s particular brand of equality. We are all equal, you just have to be a Democrat, think like a Democrat, virtue signal line a Democrat, and hate what a Democrat hates. And a lot are totally unapologetic, unironically just thinking that they are genuine providers of justice, while the system they created backs atrocity.
Democrats can win. I believe they can, and that they will, particularly this round. I like Kamala, with reservations. I doubt, however, that the democrats will, overall, succeed in creating any kind of true equality, because they are so fond of forcing their opinions on others, and so certain in their rightness, but so lacking in insight. To me, Democrats are just another Christianity, but with different demons.
This here is why no one wants to be your friend.
Actions > words.
Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.
When people pass laws saying kids don’t get lunch at school, that trans people can’t legally change their gender, that being homeless is a crime, and that women can’t have abortions, they are saying all those things.
And when people tell you who they are, believe them.
Yeah, they’re referring to the old idiom ‘actions speak louder than words’.
What actions? This is done most commonly toward strangers they don’t know at all.
If someone were to say, for example, “I’m okay with the government picking up the slack to keep a kid from starving, but it shouldn’t be treated like a solution. Instead, it should be seen as a temporary necessary measure while resources are put into solving the real problem, by preventing children from being in a position where their own parents aren’t capable of feeding them to begin with, since they’re the ones who should be doing it”, the people I’m talking about would happily contort it into “they want kids to starve”, because that requires no thought/effort, and you get to look morally superior to boot, since now that guy’s just evil, because what a horrible thing it is to want children to starve!
Fact is, almost nobody is willing to even take the majority of people at their word, much less actually steelman an argument, which is how you really end up with rock solid positions and arguments, instead of having to rely on stupid rhetorical and semantic maneuvers.
Oh for… that’s not the law they passed. The law they passed banned school lunches, and they did nothing to address child hunger to make up for it. I would say they most certainly want kids to starve.
And if your take overall is ‘that person’s actions/beliefs are fine as long as they only impact people they don’t know’ that’s… not great. To quote Calvin & Hobbes, ‘we’re all ‘someone else’ to someone else’.
Reminds me of a line from the Simpsons, when Nelson, the school bully, refers to “a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.”
they
The OP is talking about maintaining friendships with individual people. When was the last time you actually picked an individual person’s brain about where they stand on something, instead of just putting people in whatever stereotype bucket confirms your biases the best?
if your take overall is ‘that person’s actions/beliefs are fine as long as they only impact people they don’t know’
I have to say, in a comment chain about people uncharitably extrapolating and twisting viewpoints, this is very fitting, lol. What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation.
I’ve picked at coworkers brains on this frequently. They hedge, avoid, and misdirect about what they believe, or try to change the subject to something banal so as to avoid discussing their actual values.
In my experience, what Republican voters care about is personal wealth. The ones who will commit to values anyway. They feel like voting Republican makes more money for themselves and they don’t care about literally anything else. The ones who hedge and act like that’s what they care about usually give me the impression that they’re bigots of some kind and know better than to speak their bigoted views outside of people they already know to agree with them.
While annoying, its always interesting watching Republicans run these logical theoretical loops to explain how ACTUALLY they dont WANT children to starve, they should just be allowed to (or the same for whichever issue) while arguing thats not a thing republicans do and its actually our fault for just never actually talking to one for more than two minutes.
My Dad wants to kill protestors. My high school best friend thinks healthcare should be a premium commodity. I could go on, but these aren’t obscure abstractions I’m extrapolating, they’re sentences these people have said out loud to me (or in text.)
If you tell me poor children shouldn’t be provided lunch, I’m going to think you’re an asshole because you just told me you dont think poor children should be provided lunch. Jerk off about the free market and all these high concept solutions (that any other time most people would LOUDLY bemoan because it would require way more organized action than providing school lunch) all you want, children are still starving because you won’t just let us feed them.
“We should cut funding lunch programs for public schools”
There’s a real man under the cover of a strawman. I mean, not a “real man”. Real men care for the wellbeing of children.
But, their argument and reality of what they are trying to implement isn’t “kids can’t eat”, it’s “only the poor kids get free food, and others have to pay”.
Have you heard them say “friends” even in our tribal political society?
I see it more as:
“We disagree politically, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be friendly!”
Or:
“We disagree politically, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be civil!”
Everyone has strong emotions about certain topics, but that does not mean people can’t talk it out over time to try and change their initial opinions on topics, especially family members or neighbors.
I get reminded of this:
How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes [Dwane Brown | August 20, 2017]
jasonroygaston 2d
I’m so tired of being told, “We disagree politically, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be friends!” Dude, if your political opinion is that children shouldn’t be fed, that the poor shouldn’t be housed, that the sick shouldn’t be cared for, that women shouldn’t control their bodies, that Americans can’t marry who they love, or that certain people shouldn’t exist… Yes, that most definitely means that we can’t be friends.
Counterpoint: the number of black people who the KKK murdered.
That man took his life in his hands talking to them. There is no doubt that he was brave, and made a difference, but there is also no doubt that in doing so he put himself in mortal danger.
So 1. no-one should be obligated to do something risky like that, especially a member of the group that is most at risk, and 2. it is perfectly valid to judge and, shall we say, dislike, someone who approves of an even acts on abhorrent beliefs.
There are lines.
Edit:2 words, flow
Well, I think that can apply as a general rule: don’t engage with people that show lethal or physical hostility to you in conversations.
group that is most at risk
This could apply to everyone, depending on location and nationality, but I understand.
acts of abhorrent beliefs
This could mean anything outside of our self-built echo chambers, but I do agree to be more cautious around those that show physical or hostile language towards you or others.
These all go back to if they could escalate to:
A criminal threat occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else. In some states, this crime might be referred to as terroristic threats, threats of violence, malicious harassment, menacing, or another term.[1]
Who is actually saying this tho?
I believe the rationale is that if you vote for a candidate who says they’re going to reduce civil rights for people, then you also believe that those people should have their rights reduced. So I think they mean “by voting for the Civil Rights Reduction Party, you’re effectively saying you want these people’s rights to be reduced, whether or not you intend to.”
But that’s just my interpretation, I could be wrong.
If you vote for these people it means you support them
I think that about sums it up, no?
You see similar things often with “conservative” losers who decry that women don’t want to date them. So, they lie about their political ideas on dating sites etc and call themselves “moderate” or “independent” and then get upset when they reveal they “like Trump” or some idiocy like that and their dates are turned off.
No one is, unless they are truly mad. These statements are often based on other commentary, pigeonholing individuals into specific categories, like only having two viewpoints, Blue or Red. But life isn’t so black and white. We all desire the same things like peace, security, economic stability, fairness, etc. Each side believes they have the solution, but in reality, neither does. The media manipulates the people into fighting with one other. Stop being sheep and fighting over scraps.
Stop with your enlightened centrist bullshit. This isn’t a solution to “peace”, “security”, “economic stability” nor “fairness”.
We are in agreement. I said neither side has the answers. The global elite will not allow the true solution to any of those things. They only want to retain power and occupy the world.
The problem is that one of the sides is the one that doesn’t want those things. And are you talking about the bourgeoisie when you say the global elite?
No, it’s not one side wants evil and one side wants good, that’s sheep think and exactly what the global elite want. The global elite do not show their face and they control the narrative. They have all their subordinates do all the dirty work so they don’t have to take the heat. The bourgeoisie aren’t the ‘The social class between the lower and upper classes’, they are the 1% of the 1% that control the world. Wake up.
“Global elite” is a frequent code word used by anti-Semites, and it means ‘Jews’. As this is the 4th time you’ve used that phrase in this group, where it had never been used before, I’m asking: What exactly are you talking about when you say ‘global elite’?
Global, meaning the people in control who live throughout the entire globe. Nothing to do with race or nationality. Simply the ones in power who don’t reveal themselves and have others carry out their plan.
Yeah it’s like when Republicans say “Democrats want to kill babies”. You’re misinterpreting your political opponent in the least charitable way possible. I’m not a conservative at all, but when dealing with people who are different than you, you need to assume good faith. There is a core of conservative Trump supporters who really are just selfish assholes, but most people-yes, including people whos political views you find immoral and repugnant-are fundamentally good.
That doesn’t mean they’re right! But I don’t see why I can’t be friends with somebody who has looked at very complex moral issues like abortion, religion, and equality and come to different conclusions than me.
This is drivel. I don’t have to pretend that someone who is actively working to oppress others is “fundamentally good”.
You can be friends with people who have harmful views all you want. But you’re complicit.
Hmmmmm.
Do you support abortion? Do you think that Nazis should have some restrictions on their free speech? Do you oppose prayer being led by teachers in public schools? Do you support gun control?
If yes to any of the above, a political opponent could easily say that you in fact are actively working to oppress others and that your views are harmful. To which Im sure you would reply that no, those stances are about protecting and empowering people, but thats really a matter of perspective and conservatives would say the same thing about their principles. I’m sorry that this makes me sound like a smug enlightened centrist, cause I’m not remotely a centrist, but I think it’s narrow-minded to believe that only people with your worldview are fundamentally good.
I’ve always been against restricting the speech of nazis because if you don’t let them voice their stupid opinions, how do you know who deserves to get repeatedly punched in the face until they can no longer speak?
My dude, one of the candidates is a proven rapist. Are you going to try and tell me that “rape is bad” is “just a matter of perspective”?
To be quite frank, some perspectives are simply bad and/or evil and don’t merit respect or consideration. If that alienates shitty and evil people, then good.
Do I believe rape is bad? Of course, and I believe the accusations and therefore I believe Trump is a bad person. But the vast majority of his supporters don’t believe the accusations, so it’s not fair to accuse them of knowingly supporting a rapist. Honest question, do you really believe 40% of the US population is shitty and evil?
I believe anyone that supports Trump at this point, with the amount of information we possess regarding his various crimes and veritable dump truck of unethical and immoral behaviour to be either an idiot or a terrible person, yes.
People that want him in office for tax breaks or other economical advantages, civil rights and the greater economy as a whole be damned, can at least be reasoned with. Their motivations are selfish and terrible, but there is room for negotiation there, however unsavoury it may seem.
The terminally stupid or the plainly evil bigots on the other hand have no value and I see no reason to grant them any consideration.
Exactly! But what worries me is that I am beginning to see a lack of this exact understanding more and more. On both sides equally lately too.
I have been labeled a trump supporter for not agreeing with a specific thing. I have been labeled a “kamala communist” all that stuff, for the same in the reverse. I have been banned for hate speech for saying “Yeah this is my field of study, we dont actually do this - it would be dangerous - that is just something you hear politically active” - literally in an “Give me an alternate opinion” subreddit.
It’s just like that little short film “Kill All Others” - I am being mistaken for being in the opposite side when really I have not picked a side. This ostracization is becoming more common. Hyperpoliticalization.
Couldn’t agree more. I have been called everything from a leftist shill to an NPC to a bootlicker, depending on whether I am trying to engage with someone to the left or right of me. It’s a little frustrating… I wouldn’t even say that I haven’t picked a side- I absolutely do have political stances, and I’m pretty far left overall, but that doesn’t stop people farther left than me of accusing me of being in bed with the fascists/“part of the problem”
Politics are people’s ethics and morality applied.
It is perfectly valid to judge people over them, and to shame people because of them. Just like you’d shame someone for littering.
Or even more aptly: just like you’d shame someone for using the N word. It is perfectly legal; it is NOT acceptable.
The problem with a two party system is that it polarizes the grey areas where a lot of people don’t have friendship or family ending feelings. When people subscribe whole heartedly to party mindsets they gain friends in that group but wall themselves off from others.
When people subscribe whole heartedly to party mindsets they gain friends in that group but wall themselves off from others.
This is when people make their political views part of their identity. If the party does something that you don’t agree with you are faced with two choices (sub-consciously); either you change your views to match the party, or you invalidate part of your identity. Depending on how big a part of your identity you have subsumed to the party; the harder it is to break that part of your identity.
It is always a worrying sign when someone says “I am a <insert political party here>”; rather than saying “I support <insert political party here>”. Support can easily be modified and revoked, your identity is not so easy to change.
Solid.
Sad to see that basic human rights are party mindsets still.
Disingenuous. You want to talk human rights? How about Democratic support for Israel?
But I would only bring that into conversation when someone’s being disingenuous, because… Oh, yes. It’s disingenuous.
The worst part is, the Republican party is having a massive leadership crisis, and rather than dating things like “your leaders are fucking you over”, dems seem to think it’s a great idea to “shame” the Republicans - i.e., insult them for their identity - and alienaten them.
I am really starting to feel that Democrats don’t care how anyone votes, as long as they can get their moral superiority rocks off without having to actually dip their toes into nuanced (and actually moral) reasoning. Like, there’s so much fear, that you can’t help but create the situations you fear worst.
Yea I speak out against the leadership supporting Israel, what’s your point. I see tons of Republicans supporting the genocide wholeheartedly and loving how much their leadership spews hate toward me and my people and my friends for just existing.
It isn’t a leadership crisis, they know exactly who they have and WANT exactly who they have. I don’t know how else I can try and help them understand in good faith when they constantly spit at us. Look at project 2025 as the most recent example, they deserve to be shamed if they still call themselves what they do after seeing that. There’s only so much I can do and so much I can take from them. I’m probably gonna trigger you for saying this but we didn’t talk Hitler down in good faith. We didn’t break slavery with talks and communication, we didn’t bring the lgbt community that I belong to into the mainstream and out of the closet by asking nicely and convincing people with words alone. Ghandi didn’t liberate India because of his nonviolence, it was thanks to like minded but violent groups showing force that ghandis message was listened too. The black panthers had to go out and show force for mlks talks to matter.
The ‘fear’ I have isn’t self created, it’s one I’ve experienced for just existing from very specific people who support a very specific ideology.
Yeah… It really doesn’t matter where it came from. The fear and the hate get in the way, and cause recursion.
That’s not to say violence isn’t necessary sometimes. It is. But there mentality with which you approach it has massive effect.
That’s why Europe is better
Europe has it’s own problems. Anti-muslim bigotry is rampant in many countries, as is anti-immigrant and refuge sentiment.
And England has made itself the home of transphobia thanks to a certain misogynistic, racist, and homophobic/transphobic children’s author who everyone there seems to take seriously.
America has own problems too. And some countries can destabilize because of immigrants. Poland for example
That is true. But I think in today’s political climate, it is fair to conflate people’s political affiliation with the extremes of the party. Like “fiscally responsible republicans”, you can’t run away from the other bigoted policies of republicans. Same with democrats and things like immigration and supplying arms to Israel.
It’s a hard landscape to navigate, now probably more than ever.
True, but that goes both ways, what with the casual support of genocide.
If anything, people should be looking at their parties, and either vacating or getting involved to make change, depending on how salvageable they think it is.
We could, but I don’t want to.
A-fucking-men
Fucking misogynist pig.
My brother didn’t believe there were homeless children and didn’t want universal healthcare because it would support fat people.
How do I just carry on as if that isn’t simultaneously hilariously stupid and depressingly evil?
People who say things like “you shouldn’t select your friends over politics” obviously have a basic misunderstanding. I don’t really want friends who are immoral, ignorant and can’t tell fact from fiction.
This reminds me of the, “We can negotiate and find a middle ground” argument. No we fucking can’t. Your opening position is so extreme that there is no possible way that we can find a middle ground because even the middle ground would be too extreme for me to accept.
Exactly… if person A wants to kill 1 million people and person B wants NO people killed Should they compromise on only killing half a million?
Exactly.
“This person refuses to negotiate in good faith!”
Compromise is bad, conversation is good though
Fascists and other haters should not be invited to tea and crumpets and an open, honest exchange of ideas.
You sound like a hater of fascists
I am, very much.
ok no tea for you then
Can I have a crumpet?
This wasn’t always the stance for the right wingers, therefore it did used to be entirely possible to disagree politically and still be friends. But the new right is openly hostile to everything and everyone, so I agree. If you support that shit then we are not friends. As a matter of fact, if you are an enemy of democracy, you are my enemy.
What? This has always been their plans, they just used to be more subtle about it. This is the same group that started the drug crisis so they could continue arresting black people and hippies with impunity, who let Vietnam go on way longer so a Republican could be involved in peace, who used said drug money to fund terrorist cells when the middle east had a little too much freedom and elected leaders for them.
They’ve been comically evil for longer than most people in the world have been alive, now they just have a criminally insane figurehead spouting all that shit publicly
This has been the plan of the religious right in particular. Reagan let them take over the republican party and that’s why they’ve become such radicals lately. They’re being run by the Christian Taliban now. This wasn’t always their plan, but it is now.
I’m not talking about the evil orchestrating bastards at the top. I’m talking about the average person that you and I would talk to. Since the bastards were a lot more subtle like you said, there were a lot of average people who just wanted lower taxes and more fiscal responsibility, and didn’t know anything about all of the other stuff you said. Hell, some of that stuff wasn’t public knowledge until much later.
You just called them openly hostile, and then openly called them your enemy. If you hate someone because they hate, I don’t see how that makes you any different.
Paradox of tolerance
Not a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract, and one that the MAGA crowd is blatantly breaking. If you aren’t tolerant to others, no one owes you tolerance.
This thread is a hilarious compilation of leftists going mask off, only to show no teeth
“I was only trying to shoot you, and you PUNCH ME?! So MuCh FoR tOlErAnCe!”
Shut the whole fuck up you dumb piece of shit.
“I’m tolerant as fuck you dumb fucking cunt. I believe in peace. So kill yourself and your whole family. Why is there so much political division you piece of shit!?”
What are you talking about, nobody said that?? And if someone willingly chooses to be intolerant to a minority, actively tries to get rid of their rights or prevent them from getting equal rights, absolutely no one owes this person tolerance. That is obvious, a society cannot be tolerant of intolerance
Yes, you can. In fact, you should. When you let klan members march you gain something important. You get them out in the open and see their true colors. And if you’re a Daryl Davis type, you can change minds and make the world better. By cutting off people you disagree with, you cut off communication. And those people go underground, and get worse. If someone is saying something that is bad how do you expect that to change without discourse? The left used to be able to steelman the rights positions, and walk them to back to a more reasonable position. Now it seems mostly what I see is the left saying, “I’m right, and you need to be cast out of society.” I’m aware there are truly bad actors (Milo Yiannopoulos types) that are just grifters and don’t deserve the conversation. But do you really think that half of America is just grifting? For society to get better, you have to love your enemies too. And the only way to fight bad ideas, is with better ones.
