• @credo
    link
    English
    -3
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Okay. If you don’t think polarization leads to tribalism and is a first step to civil war, then perhaps you should pick up a history book or two.

    Edit: You’re even showing it your response. Us v. “them”.

    • @asdfasdfasdf
      link
      English
      11 month ago

      Not sure why you’re getting downvoted for a pretty solid, common sense take. You’re 100% right.

    • Veraxus
      link
      English
      01 month ago

      “Let them murder, torture, and torment you and your loved ones just a little bit. Stop being so uppity about this. Both sides! Both sides!” - You

      • @credo
        link
        English
        01 month ago

        Yup you got me. That’s my quote.

        • Veraxus
          link
          English
          11 month ago

          It sure is.

          • @credo
            link
            English
            01 month ago

            Your sarcastic response is reductive and dismissive of a serious issue. Political polarization isn’t about excusing harmful behaviors; it’s about recognizing that extreme divisions are tearing society apart. Simply mocking the idea of understanding the widening chasm between “both sides” ignores the reality that effective solutions come from constructive dialogue, not from deepening the divide.

            Political issues are complex and often involve legitimate concerns from multiple perspectives. In s normally functioning society, there aren’t two sides; free thought leads to a continuum of beliefs. Dismissing these concerns with sarcasm doesn’t help. Instead, it perpetuates the very polarization you’re deriding. Real progress comes from engaging with these issues thoughtfully, not from trivializing them with inflammatory rhetoric.

            If you genuinely cared about reducing harm and making society better, you would consider how your words either contribute to the problem or help solve it. If you can’t contribute constructively, perhaps consider that you don’t need to contribute at all?

            • Veraxus
              link
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              “Meet in the middle” says the unjust man.

              You take a step forward, he takes a step back.

              “Meet me in the middle” says the unjust man.


              We do not negotiate with the unjust man. We do not take steps in his direction. Our refusal to surrender to his demands is not a cause of “polarization”.

              Do not shift the blame on those who will not step toward the unjust man. If you are so blind to what is going on and who is at fault, that is your failing. Yours, and yours alone. Not others.

              Rhetoric like yours is nothing more than shameless victim blaming. It makes you the unjust man.

              • @credo
                link
                English
                01 month ago

                Spoken like a Russian agent or a petulant child. I can’t tell which, but I don’t actually care. Sewing discontent, pointing to yourself as a victim. You might as well be sitting there with your arms crossed and your tongue out.

                Now I see why my original response riled you up so much- you took it personally. You are the problem.

                • Veraxus
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Giving up on any pretense of rationality, I see. “No, you” stops being effective about the time a person hits puberty… but this is about what I expect from someone casually spewing fascism-enabling “enlightened centrist” rhetoric.

                  You do you, but don’t act surprised or high-and-mighty when you get called out. Grow up, do better, or get used to it. Your call.