do the right wing guys think it’s like a draco malfoy thing where they’re a good guy underneath?
like when it’s like a lady and a cop and the lady seems like a normal sorta boring suburban lady
do you know what i mean. this is one of the things where if you try to ask an AI bot it yells at you
The real issue is an inability to agree to disagree. I talk politics with my friends across all political spectrums. Some like a good debate, and others just get pissy when they can’t magically change my mind on a topic. It’s not about winning; it’s about reaching an understanding, and people have forgotten that.
That’s not a fair representation of the people you are talking about. We can agree to disagree about a lot of things. But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.
We will never agree to disagree about other people’s humanity. Being willing to do so would make us monsters.
Are you referring to the recognition of the problems involving those concepts or the solutions proposed to fix them?
We can have different approaches and views about a variety of problems, but the concepts would be the same.
It doesn’t mean we should always make an agreement about how to solve them, but the idea of treating others who don’t think like me as “monsters” just because they are different is populist and dishonest.
Hating ideas is not the same as hating people.
My entire life, for pretty much every progressive issue, has been filled with people saying “We agree with your cause but not the way you are going about it.” literally no matter what “going about it” looks like.
Every effective proposition is shot down. There is no “solution” that is ever acceptable. Because changing the status quo is always interpreted as too radical.
So… I’m not keen on playing these kinds of stupid games?
What’s one example? Maybe we can analyze what went wrong.
Police violence, particularly against people of colour. Protests? Too disruptive! Literally just kneeling? Too disrespectful!
Even MLK Jr. mentioned this in his letter from a Birmingham jail:
Show me a person who hates the idea of homosexuality that doesn’t also use it as an excuse to treat homosexual people as less than human.
raises hand
I had a couple gay classmates in college. Was I taken aback when I saw them making out? Yeah. Did I drive to Taco Bell to jump start their Prius when its battery died? Yes. Was I mean to them? Absolutely not. We worked on projects together and were super friendly. It’s entirely possible to be a decent human being to someone whose lifestyle is generally contrary to your beliefs.
Do I know a few gay people who are absolute toxic shit bags? Also yes, but even my lefty friends despise them.
It’s interesting that people don’t believe you can be this way. Many democrats dislike religion yet don’t treat most religious people badly; there’s no fundamental difference between that and any other trait or belief that would prevent someone from ignoring it while interacting with someone who has it.
Because many of us understand that there isn’t a meaningful difference between personal interaction and political action.
The above person treats the gay people he meets with civility when he interacts with them personally. He also votes for political movements who want to dissolve their marriage and want to treat being gay as something to be hidden from public view.
That is not respecting gay people. That is not treating them as equals. It does not matter how nice and polite you are to someone’s face if you vote against them being able to live fulfilling lives.
And that’s precisely the attitude that prevents people from having a civil debate. By manipulating definitions and using them to represent your opponent as an inhuman villain (or, in your own words, monsters), you’re the one trying to remove someone’s humanity.
Ironic. By representing a differing view as “manipulating definitions” like this, you pretend I’m engaging in the conversation maliciously, and completely ignore what I’m saying. You aren’t going to get closer to understanding other people unless you engage in good faith.
In the eyes of progressives, conservative politicians undermine the dignity of minorities. You might not agree with that, you might not care about that, you might simply value other things more.
And cut the hyperbole. I haven’t tried to remove your humanity. Do you really not know what that is like?
Calling someone a monster definitely dehumanizes them. Calling someone a monster for impersonal reasons simply because of their membership in a particular group, even moreso.
Given your tone, it’s hard to imagine otherwise.
Correct. My priorities are:
Accumulate enough wealth to retire comfortably at a reasonable age
Remain happy, healthy, safe, and free wherever I live
Maintain good relationships with the people I care about
If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it.
So you value you personal wealth ad comfort more than the ability of minorities to live their lives free of discrimination.
I don’t get why you get so insulted when people point this out?
He said he wants to accumulate wealth for retirement.
Somehow you heard “and fuck the minorities, too” despite not having said that or even remotely implied that. If he’s insulted, it’s because you’re putting words in their mouth.
He said that he values those more than dignity of minorities. Like, not implied it, directly said it.
So no. I’m not putting a single word in his mouth.
This is what you said. In the eyes of progressives, that is how they see conservatives. In no way, shape, or form does his response to that statement have anything to do with the minoroties, but in the agreement that progressives see conservatives that way.
Well that’s a strawman if I’ve ever seen one.
Literally how?
You enumerated your priorities, and to quote you: “If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it.”
Eliminating discrimination is not among the priorities you listed.
Actually, good point. Fuck em, I guess
shrug
So to clarify, you don’t support policies that help other people achieve those goals for themselves (assuming they’re neutral for you)?
And who wins if we agree to disagree? Is it perhaps you?
Both sides should feel like they got something positive out of a proper debate, but if you’re dead set on winning, you can feel free to claim victory if it makes you feel better.
It’s not about “winning” a debate. Like ??? We don’t conceptualise “debate” that way.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
Have you? It has absolutely nothing to do with “winning” anything.
Precisely. Maybe we’re in violent agreement, because the point I’m trying to make is that debates shouldn’t have winners and losers.