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 literally says “we can’t be friends” in the original post. Someone in the comments might have said cut off people from society, but I didn’t see it.
What I’m saying is I think the implication of the OP and the larger related sentiment is a society where social relationships are along party lines, and crossing those lines de-facto means being cut off from society. It doesn’t need to be made explicit for that to be the consequence.
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.
The probblem being that your wife and friends insist in ONE TRUE GOD and that only they can speak for “him” and that anyone who believes differently, as well as black and brown human beings, as well as disabled human beings, trans and gay human beings; human beings from beyond their empire’s imposed borders, and so so many other human beings are all called “a crime against humanity” by yr wife, friends and you. Enjoy your bubble, the rest of us want nothing to do with you fascist wierdos and all your rightwing authoritarian violence.
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?
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.
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 literally says “we can’t be friends” in the original post. Someone in the comments might have said cut off people from society, but I didn’t see it.
What I’m saying is I think the implication of the OP and the larger related sentiment is a society where social relationships are along party lines, and crossing those lines de-facto means being cut off from society. It doesn’t need to be made explicit for that to be the consequence.
I think the intent of your point is fine. I just think you’re arguing against something that wasn’t brought up in the original post.
Begone troll
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.
That is reasonable, but I think the OP post can easily be interpreted much more broadly than that.
The probblem being that your wife and friends insist in ONE TRUE GOD and that only they can speak for “him” and that anyone who believes differently, as well as black and brown human beings, as well as disabled human beings, trans and gay human beings; human beings from beyond their empire’s imposed borders, and so so many other human beings are all called “a crime against humanity” by yr wife, friends and you. Enjoy your bubble, the rest of us want nothing to do with you fascist wierdos and all your rightwing authoritarian violence.
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?