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]
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.
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]
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]
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes
jasonroygaston 2d
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.
This could apply to everyone, depending on location and nationality, but I understand.
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:
[1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm ↩︎