I don't care how "nice" someone is, I'm Trans and if someone disagrees with my basic rights then they can piss off.
Generally speaking, I've found people who issue incredibly hot takes on trans rights when its just an abstract issue come around when they actually start meeting and getting to know trans people.
My wife's uncle took a near-180 position on trans rights after his now-son transitioned. He'd gone on these little grumpy talk-radio fueled rants ten years ago. Now - if he still feels that way - he mostly just keeps that shit to himself. Occasionally he says something genuinely supportive or at least passively benign, to the effect of "I don't see why its such a big deal, people need to just let each other live their lives peacefully."
I also gotta say, these ideas don't crop up ex nihilo. When someone disagrees with basic human rights, its often an idea that was planted by some kind of right-wing propaganda channel. Sports Radio is a constant vector for the worst possible opinions from the sleaziest imaginable people. The AM Talk shit that gets blared across every major city is pure brain-cancer. And YouTube's algorithms are filled to burst with the smarmiest bigots on the internet, getting front-paged thanks to thick walleted bigots with an ideological incentive to propagate this crap. If this wasn't constantly in the air, attitudes towards trans people would immediately improve.
Some folks are legit blackpilled on trans rights. But when its immediate friends and family, I've found they're a lot more flexible and tolerant towards people they know than some vague fuzzy abstracted-away trans person. Once they realize what they're listening to and turn that shit off, their positions improve dramatically.
Yeah idk. I cut off my parents because they continued to support trump and refused to use my preferred name after I came out to them. They gave me some bullshit about how "respect goes both ways" and that I have to "honor" them by allowing them to use my original name, but obviously that doesn't fly when 1) the name they gave me is exclusively masculine and 2) the name is literally the religion they follow which I hate. All while telling me they want me to go back to church / seek god as if that will somehow help with my gender dysphoria, despite knowing the truth that all they'll try to do is convert me back to being cis. I was hoping they'd come around, but I'm also not at all surprised they didn't because they've been stuck in their stupid backwards thinking for so long.
As usual, they only care when it affects them.
Also, though, this is one of the reasons that Republicans are against college. Because college is often the first time people are exposed to people from other walks of life, and that exposure is the most effective way to make them realize that people are just people.
However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to stop concealed carrying around Republicans and cutting them out of my life if they express even an ambivalent attitude about the issue, because I don't trust anyone who can still support that political party and they need to realize that their actions have consequences. Make bigots ashamed again.
I can’t be friends with someone who votes against my ability to access my medication, and my rights to access healthcare and employment without discrimination. If you are voting for people who think of people like me as subhuman, then you don’t respect me enough to be my friend.
Seriously. Republicans wholly believe I should die because they have to spend 2 cents a year each on medication that keeps people like me alive. Probably less.
The entitlement of the average right winger really is something to behold.
I don't highly enforce my pronouns. Not because it doesn't effect me but because being labeled a troublemaker who is hard to get along with is a career limiting move... And some interactions are so limited that it's not worth creating social awkwardness to self advocate. Days where this happens a lot make me depressed, grumpy and eats into the energy I have reserved to enjoy my leisure time.
Which is why it is so frustrating that some people demand that calling me by my dead name or refer openly to my sex using pronouns I hate is completely consequenceless that even when I tell them the only reprocussion to them is that I will not like being around very much them they get angry. Like I am cheating them of being owed that I automatically enjoy their company.
They are so bloody sensitive that the consequence of me thinking they are kind of shit to be around is somehow a tyranny. I just wanna yell at them like dude.. You keep bringing attention to the physical body that represents my least favorite aspects of existing by mentioning directly in conversation because that's what words like "she", "her", "girl" and "woman" mean to you. You might as well be openly talking about my fucking genetalia because that is your only qualifier for using those words. You are reflecting the things I didn't like about about the experience of myself back at me. If I openly referenced your least favorite physical trait every time casually in conversation how much would you enjoy being around me?
They are egoists who deal only in proclamation of truth.
You stating that it's even possible for you to not enjoy their company under certain conditions is offensive to their narcissistic ideals that they should be loved unconditionally by all without earning it.
You embracing an identity that falls outside their homogenous narrow-minded gender binary is offensive to their narcissistic ideals that the world should cater to them and only them.
They are people who failed to shed their ego as they emerged into adulthood and now it controls them, and they have decided to pin the blame for all of their problems on people like you. You're better off not interacting with narcissists at all. They're walking fountains of delusion and you can never say anything that will make them see you as a human being and a peer of equal value.
Gods I would love to not interact with these narcissists... But I also would like to eat and sleep under a roof and I kind of need to pay the bills so unfortunately dealing with them is the everyday cost of doing business. Is it fair that I labor beneath additional burdens at my work because of dumb political nonsense mischaracterizing everything about people like me and people feel justified in making my life more difficult ? No. But it's a union gig that pays $15 dollars more than other jobs requiring related skills so I sell my mental health peicemeal so I have a shot at affording to keep my family secure.
I really wouldn't care if they were random people booing me on the street because then I could just avoid them but the thing is my not putting up with these people holds tangible losses and narcissists are very good at getting themselves into positions where they are the ones who sign the cheques.
That is actually a really good explanation for that whole scenario
I used to be like that with sexual harassment at work. Then I just got fucking sick of it and started reporting it. It feels scary at first, then really good. Highly recommend it if you feel comfortable
It's not a regular situation for me. My individual jobs are 8 months-ish long and rehiring is a very nepotistic thing as people choose their favorite people. I could absolutely win a case to be treated better... But the chances are high I would be burning bridges when the next gig comes. I value my reputation in the industry at large.
If I were at a static job it would be worth it but here they don't have to fire me, they just don't have to hire me again.
Jeeesus, this makes me want to take a crowbar to these people.
Most people in normal conversation when they misgender, it has nothing to do with genitalia and everything to do with they perceive you on the surface tbh. I've been misgendered as a sex I don't identify as and don't have the genitals of.
You are interpreting my words too narrowly. I am intimatly aware how people read and assume gender... But my point is it is rude as fuck when done deliberately based on sex.
When transphobes misgender so deliberately and refuse to change their behaviour due to their adherence to "the facts" in direct opposition to my personal comfort it is very much in reference to my physical body and prescribing gender as something locked to sex, physical and immutable. If not the secondary sex characteristics then the genitals or the chromasomes or the shape or the skull and hands ... the goal posts move to their tastes if they really want to go for broke.
Besides, not all of us pass as our gender. Non binary identities are almost never assumed and conservative people have meltdowns when asked to use they/them pronouns.
You are also seem to be coming at this from the cis experience where your original sex characteristics don't feel like a burden. Being misgendered doesn't do harm to the majority of cis people. Your anecdote isn't exactly up to snuff here.
the entitlement
That's a two-edged sword, there. Perhaps you yourself aren't entitled, but it would be more accurate to say "the entitlement of Republicans and Democrats really is something to behold".
I'm Canadian. It really isn't more accurate to say "Democrats and Republicans" because while people here are very effected by those party policies we do not have a vote. It's like living above a meth lab and hoping your neighbours don't do anything stupid.
I said right wing because it's more universally applicable and transphobia echos across countries. What happens in the UK or US or France or Australian conservative spaces for example tends to empower other conservative and far right narratives elsewhere in a domino effect. If one trans person does something somewhere noisy or some conservative "raises concerns" regarding some weird bullshit in any of those countries there's a chunk of my coworkers who are gunna spend the afternoon having an open discussion about how people like me are a social/logistical/medical/safety problem where I am in earshot.
Fuck the party names. It's all the same.
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.
Voting against school lunches is literally a gop policy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely.
Of course you can have differing opinions and be friends. There are obviously scales of importance.
If you believe people with a different skin color than you should be slaves, we won'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.
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 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.
and if Trump being a FELON And RAPIST isn't enough to get you to overcome the Democrat bias you were raised with.. you are a sad, disgusting person. No, we cannot be friends if you support him. Kamala: I want to support the working class and help people buy homes. Trump: I will immediately punish everyone who has opposed me. The two sides are not the same. Maybe before Trump you could pretend they were. They weren't.. but the GOP kinda pretended they weren't fascist POSs. Project 2025 just fucking comes out and says it. They want to overthrow democracy.
The GOP under Trump is more ethical than it was under Bush. Fewer children killed and PATRIOT Acts signed
They are saying two different things.
But why would you believe Kamala is radically different is beyond me. It's lawful evil vs chaotic evil. Yes, with evil you'd prefer lawful.
All you're saying is your entirely ignorant of the political outcomes of the last century, you aren't smart or enlighten because you think 'both sides'. If Hillary won we wouldn't being dealing with a stuffed supreme court as well many other courts all over the country that have blatantly done all they can to give every action of Republicans the appearance of legality. We wouldn't have lost over 1mil people in a pandemic. We wouldn't be having courts openly consider resetting our entire legal system to the 1770s including full blown racist laws, we wouldn't be fighting for our basic rights. The level to which you're completely wrong is HIGH.
i CaN hAvE A dIfFeReNt oPiNiOn, bRo! Gaawd!
(Fascism is not an opinion. It's a fucking disease.)
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?
"This person refuses to negotiate in good faith!"
Exactly.
Part of the issue is, what we used to think of as "politics", the discourse about what's best for society and what will lead to happy lives for all, is rarely spoken about. What we have now is "RAGE-politics", where people insert completely ridiculous non-sequitur concepts about who's at fault into the minds of malleable victims and have them frame it as an identity.
Insurrection is not a political point of view.
I have friends from all over the spectrum (both kinds). I don't care if they're assholes or arrogant, but I appreciate they're politically motivated and fight for what they believe in.
Being friends with them also helps deradicalize them. If they're a good person, why not be a ground truth to help them see what's going on?
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
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.
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.
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.
If your political opinion includes the phrase " you should die"
It's going to be hard to stay friends
I dont know. I can still be friendly and even be friends with people who support the death penalty even though it sounds completely barbaric to me.
What mainstream unironic political platform would call directly for saying specific people need to die. (Excluding foreign people because it seem everyone involved is happy when its Gaddafi or Saddam
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?
My political opinion is that I'm gonna cut your dog's face off.
So where we getting lunch?
Also, if your political opinion includes you posting bullshit on social media, that means we can’t be friends… I have just taken to muting those that I am family with.
How about a genocide? Can we still be friends if I can overlook a genocide?
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.
We could, but I don't want to.
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".
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.
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.
It is appalling how divisive American politics is.
That's your takeaway? How divisive!
It is... another problem is that it's accepted as politics/difference of opinion instead for what it is.... Maliciousness
Both sides vibes over here. Did you do that on purpose?
Ha... My side is "eat the rich", "down with capitalism", "millionaire tax now*.
So.... What do you think? 🤔
Immediately when you are not a crappy person you get the "Cornet/Horn" section immediately whining saying " blahlahblah your just think your better than us" ect ect.
yes, it is. And they don't even think anything is wrong. I kind of wish they weren't the most powerful country. But then I think of the alternatives and...
Everything Non-European is a nono (except maybe Taiwan, SK or JAP). France and Britain would absolutely get unbearably cocky, germany wouldn't use its powers to better the world and instead insist on dialog, Poland would absolutely bully russia (actually that doesn't sound too bad now (JK please read about the Treaty of versailles if you unironically think this is a good Idea))
Maybe one of the Baltics or the Nordics? Finland sounds responsible.
The nordic countries are reasonable because they are mostly made up of a monoculture. If the had to deal with the rest of the world’s views they would rapidly become as bad as the US.
End of the day, every country exists to protect their own interests first. And we long ago lost the art of diplomacy.
Strong disagree, I want to be friends with people who genuinely care and follow what they believe. That doesn't need mean they need to be right about everything. And people shouldn't be bullied for being wrong(in my, or majority opinion) if its genuine. I prefer someone with totally different beliefs to me who genuinely cares about and follows what they believe in, to someone who just accepts what's popular.
A-fucking-men
Fucking misogynist pig.
Not defending any of your points and I agree with you on all of that is detestable. I might still have a little hope for my fellow Americans in that I would take that -providing it is genuine sentiment - to mean we can still talk about it and see where the common ground is. I don't see this as a 'friend' that we can get to hug or even hangout with, but rather suggest that the lines of communication have not complete been abandoned. Kinda like a MAGA family member, I still love them, but I hope and try to get them to wake up, even if seems impossible.
This is some cult bullshit. Build a narrative that paints large segments of society as irredeemably monstrous, say good followers morally must not engage, except with hostility, that's obligatory. This is a toxic mindset incompatible with a functioning civil society.
My Dad thinks protestors should be shot. That isnt political, its moral, and I am NOT obligated to make room for that energy in my life.
This Insistence that we allow all levels of extremism in our life (always only leveled at the left of course, a Republican would be lauded for exercising their right of association if they, say, deny a job applicant on political grounds) is just another grasp at total control by conservatives who are finding increasingly less room for their bullshit in the real world.
Fuck you, fuck conservatives, I don't owe any of you shit and if you want something from me you should stop being fascist weirdos.
No one is saying kill them, they can't exist, or we can't have a civil discussion about topics. We're saying if you hate people because of who they love, their race, their gender, etc., we're not going to be friends. They can learn to have some compassion and we can revisit.
No one is saying ... we can’t have a civil discussion
Plenty of people are saying that, and it's implied by insisting on ostracization for political opinions. How can you have a civil discussion with people who have a self-reinforcing low bar for cutting people out of their life for disagreements? This is how cults operate; isolate and control people by demanding they only associate with people who agree with the defined dogma.
This isn't to say you can't personally decide you don't want to be friends with someone because they are hateful people. But the OP post seems to be generalizing to all Republicans, and to me where this seems to be going is a society that says, you need to pick a side, and always stay within the confines of that side's accepted views, and only spit on people from the other side, or be outcast yourself.
It's not a high bar to cross my dude. Ain't asking for them to become communist soldiers at my command. I'm simply asking that you don't call my wife and friends existence a crime against humanity and God himself. Thems is fighting words boy.
If you don’t believe genocide is monstrous then we have a big problem.
The views of a good chunk of America today are abhorrent. Don’t tolerate the intolerable.
If both parties are supporting genocide, which they are right now, does that mean cloistering yourself to only interacting with the minority who do not back either? Or is the standard instead some different degree of support for genocide, such as someone who is very vocal about denying the humanity and right to live of a particular group?
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.
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] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm]
It's not black and white like that. There are reasons those things are happening, and it's because of the global elite. Stop trying to fight your neighbor over a manipulated belief system and go after the people making everyone fight one another.
I grew up on a farm. A bunch of goats and sheep. Raised them and loved them. Spent my summer days hanging out with them. Goats are great at playing king of the mountain on big round hay bales.
Then I ate them. Delicious.
So, yeah, I guess you can be friends with those you're fine with oppressing.
I'll just accuse the person of never intending to make friends in the first place and say this instead: No. Go after people who actually act on these things directly instead of coming up with these little bizarre steparound antics ..
..trying to spin things as a '''lost chance at friendmaking''. Or get better at pretending.
And would you consider officers in the military "commoners"? Senior NCOs casually talking about the "woke" and how they should be rounded up? If someone in your life casually said "you know, I'm not a racist, but we need to round up all these X and", is that of any concern to you? Are you putting yourself in the category of "commoner"?
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.
This.
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.
