Yeah, I can’t see cutting out friends, family or celebrities from my life because they have radically different views if we can agree to disagree and not discuss it. I have several in that category. If their political views are representative of how they interact with the world, interact with people, etc. in negative ways then it’s those personal qualities that make me unfriend them.
There's certain topics I feel that way about. Religion, abortion, gun rights, police policies, and of course a lot of minor politics (minimum wage, living wage, social services, privatization of health care etc. etc. etc.). I wouldn't necessarily say not discussing them are the right way to go, more the ability to discuss while being respectful to one another but at one point the debate is exhausted and that's fine.
But how far does that extend? As long as they leave their white robes at home, would you be comfortable being friends with a KKK member and simply agree not to challenge them on their racist views?
"If there's a Nazi at the table 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis." It's a bit of a problematic quote, as you don't want to force that one Nazi to find another table of "actual" Nazis further ingraining him, but there does become a point where we're complacent if we don't challenge their views so as to remain friends.
I have a cousin in Florida who quotes bible verses and twists their meanings so they prophesies the election of Trump and legitimise his actions.
My Uncle (his Dad) was very special to me and in the past, while acknowledging my cousin was a bit 'out there', we had some great times in the past.
But he became so relentless and irrational on Facebook - to the extent my friends were wondering wtf was going on and how was I connected to this guy, I cut him out of my life.
It was not an easy decision and I procrastinated over it for too long, making the mistake of trying to reason with him. A couple of years later, I checked out some of his online activity with the result being that any doubts I did the wrong thing have completely dissipated.
Similar story for me: I have a former business colleague with whom I was reasonably good friends outside of work. He was a super nice guy but a little bit slow and dimwitted; I chalked that up to him growing up in a small and isolated rural community in Northern Alberta and having very little contact with the outside world before he moved to Calgary after high school. Every now and then he'd talk nonsense about chemtrails or the moon landing being faked or 9/11 being an inside job, but I just shrugged it off as him either trolling his coworkers for a reaction or having a few silly beliefs that were ultimately harmless.
I haven't worked with him in over a decade, but we remained friends on Facebook. After Trump's election in 2016, something flipped in his brain causing him to go completely off the rails into right-wing crazytown. He started constantly posting ridiculous rants about George Soros, (((globalists))), QAnon, Pizzagate, and every other ridiculous unsubstantiated conspiracy theory you can think of. At first I tried to reason with him (unsuccessfully -- you can't reason with people that far gone), but I eventually just unfriended him. Life's too short to devote any amount of time to people like that.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I do think progressives and the left writ large have made a mistake by ceding the entirety of religion to the conservatives.
If one side is speaking in theological terms, having the debate on that level has value.
What doesn’t have value:
a) arguing about the existence of God - it’s by definition an unknowable thing. Stop doing it.
B) treating God like a wish-granting genie - even if there is a God, it’s obvious this isn’t it.
C) being disrespectful of those who hold religious convictions - religions are a feature of human experience. There might be a little more to them than “Santa Claus for grown ups”.
D) Ignoring the universal and timeless qualities of religions that allow them to endure across thousands of years and focusing on the dogmatic bureaucracy. That’s not the important aspect of these world views. The craven power games are antithetical to what religions and mythology set out to accomplish.
Take the 10 Commandments for example. If you just did the opposite of all ten, does that sound like a recipe for success?
There’s a lot of utility to be found in religious texts. Of course they’ll be abused by malevolent psychos- it doesn’t mean the good in them stops existing, or should be ignored. Especially on the basis of something as flimsy as the critiques of modern atheism.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
There's certain topics I feel that way about. Religion, abortion, gun rights, police policies, and of course a lot of minor politics (minimum wage, living wage, social services, privatization of health care etc. etc. etc.). I wouldn't necessarily say not discussing them are the right way to go, more the ability to discuss while being respectful to one another but at one point the debate is exhausted and that's fine.
But how far does that extend? As long as they leave their white robes at home, would you be comfortable being friends with a KKK member and simply agree not to challenge them on their racist views?
"If there's a Nazi at the table 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis." It's a bit of a problematic quote, as you don't want to force that one Nazi to find another table of "actual" Nazis further ingraining him, but there does become a point where we're complacent if we don't challenge their views so as to remain friends.
I agree - I separate policy from belief system. If they believe Trump is right to be protectionist, that immigration is a net drain on the economy vs a benefit, even if they believe that marriage is between man and woman based on their faith we can debate and disagree. But if they believe those those things for xenophobic, racist, or homophobic reasons then they’re out. Since there are only 2 real choices in the US and a handful here I don’t assume supporting another party means 100% behind everything the party stands for unless they show me. There are unlikely to be in my close circle though.
But what do you do if they're your brother? Serious question. I have this issue currently.
Sometimes the best thing you can do is to separate that individual from your life for a while. I have a brother that required some soul searching to learn about intellectual boundaries. A separation of about a year was all it took. Sometimes tough love is the best love.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
There's certain topics I feel that way about. Religion, abortion, gun rights, police policies, and of course a lot of minor politics (minimum wage, living wage, social services, privatization of health care etc. etc. etc.). I wouldn't necessarily say not discussing them are the right way to go, more the ability to discuss while being respectful to one another but at one point the debate is exhausted and that's fine.
But how far does that extend? As long as they leave their white robes at home, would you be comfortable being friends with a KKK member and simply agree not to challenge them on their racist views?
"If there's a Nazi at the table 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis." It's a bit of a problematic quote, as you don't want to force that one Nazi to find another table of "actual" Nazis further ingraining him, but there does become a point where we're complacent if we don't challenge their views so as to remain friends.
Black man has convinced over 200 KKK members to give up the club:
While this guy obviously goes to extremes, the point still stands. If everyone chooses to cut anyone out of their life that doesn't closely conform to their same beliefs you end up with a society that is more polarized and dysfunctional.
Last edited by Oil Stain; 11-02-2020 at 02:35 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
Take the 10 Commandments for example. If you just did the opposite of all ten, does that sound like a recipe for success?
...Partially?
Obviously nobody should commit crimes like murder, theft, or perjury which are explicitly forbidden by the 10 Commandments, but those same crimes are forbidden by the laws of every nation on Earth, including those with no cultural link to Moses and the Abrahamic religions. Indeed, those crimes were forbidden in one of the very first formalized set of laws known to historians, the Code of Hammurabi which pre-dates the Book of Exodus by about a thousand years.
Now, let's look at some other specific commandments. Here are the first four:
Quote:
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Every single one of those commandments is in direct violation of the values we hold dear in free and democratic nations. As a citizen, I am free to worship any god(s) I choose or even have no god at all. I have the right to make idols. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, where I could be stoned to death for blasphemy, freedom of speech allows me to take the name of the Lord in vain without punishment from the state. Restrictions that prevented people from working on Sundays so as to keep the Sabbath holy (known as "blue laws") have been struct down by the courts as being a violation of Freedom of Religion. So yes, doing the exact opposite of those commandments is absolutely a recipe for success for a free society.
And then there's this one:
Quote:
You shall not covet.
The entirety of our capitalist economic system would fail completely if people didn't covet.
Last edited by MarchHare; 11-02-2020 at 02:22 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I don't think enough is being made of 3rd party candidates basically being non-existent this time around. 7M votes went to a 3rd party in 2016 and I don't see anywhere near that percentage of the total votes this time around.
The majority of 3rd party voters would choose Biden over Trump IMO
__________________
GFG
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
The entirety of our capitalist economic system would fail completely if people didn't covet.
Sorry, neither here nor there. Carry on.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
What time of day do the first results start rolling in? Will some states announce all the pre-election day ballot results in the morning, if they have already counted them?
What time of day do the first results start rolling in? Will some states announce all the pre-election day ballot results in the morning, if they have already counted them?
Earliest will be Florida around 7MT
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
What time of day do the first results start rolling in? Will some states announce all the pre-election day ballot results in the morning, if they have already counted them?
No, the first ballots will not be announced until after the polls start closing. And exit-polling will be incredibly inaccurate to the point of being useless.
Fivethirtyeight has a great page with how it breaks down state-by-state, in terms of when polls close and how soon to expect results.
Some states will have early votes pre-counted and announce those within an hour of polls closing or less, with election-day results coming in later. Others don't start counting until election day.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
“But they’re family” is never a pass for being a ####ty/incompatible friend. I’ve had to remind certain members of my “family” this very thing.
Uh, sure, but we're talking about cutting people out of your life. I have a very difficult time doing that with my brother who gets into conspiracy theories and is generally a right wing extremist (without the full on racism, so at least there's that).
I have a neighbor who originally is from Texas, and he has gone to painstaking length to discuss politics with his siblings and has even managed to convert their thinking on most issues with gentle conversation and prodding questions, not being confrontational or dismissive of their views. I've tried the same with my brother for years, but it doesn't seem to change him all that much, but there have been glimmers of hope.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's productive to entirely cut people out of our lives. That gets away from having a real conversation and then everyone retreat to their bubble. We have to understand that there are two fact bubbles that inform these distinct views, and we have to work on establishing an agreed upon set of facts so we can discuss things properly again. If conversations continue, we can at least get along without extreme viewpoints. I doubt that I would ever fully convince my brother to see things the way I do, but I do see his position soften when we have a chance to talk it out a little.
The only drawback to doing this? It's ####ing exhausting and takes the patience of a saint. Most people (myself included some of the time) do not have the wherewithal to do this. That's why we're stuck.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
I was just wondering if the RNC reimburses the USA for the use of Air Force One, Two and the helicopters or do the American people foot the bill. I really never thought about it before now and my curiousity is getting the better of me.
The Following User Says Thank You to OldSam For This Useful Post:
Sometimes the best thing you can do is to separate that individual from your life for a while. I have a brother that required some soul searching to learn about intellectual boundaries. A separation of about a year was all it took. Sometimes tough love is the best love.
Uh, sure, but we're talking about cutting people out of your life. I have a very difficult time doing that with my brother who gets into conspiracy theories and is generally a right wing extremist (without the full on racism, so at least there's that).
I have a neighbor who originally is from Texas, and he has gone to painstaking length to discuss politics with his siblings and has even managed to convert their thinking on most issues with gentle conversation and prodding questions, not being confrontational or dismissive of their views. I've tried the same with my brother for years, but it doesn't seem to change him all that much, but there have been glimmers of hope.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's productive to entirely cut people out of our lives. That gets away from having a real conversation and then everyone retreat to their bubble. We have to understand that there are two fact bubbles that inform these distinct views, and we have to work on establishing an agreed upon set of facts so we can discuss things properly again. If conversations continue, we can at least get along without extreme viewpoints. I doubt that I would ever fully convince my brother to see things the way I do, but I do see his position soften when we have a chance to talk it out a little.
The only drawback to doing this? It's ####ing exhausting and takes the patience of a saint. Most people (myself included some of the time) do not have the wherewithal to do this. That's why we're stuck.
Man, if he’s worth it to you then the answer is obvious.
But “cutting people out of your life” isn’t inherently a bad thing. You gotta do what’s best for your own well being, and the well being of those you care about.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
