165
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
165 points (73.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26734 readers
1465 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that they fall in a false dilemma.
Evaluating the world and the people around you with labels so generic as "left wing" or "right wing" is not useful at all. Another problem is being too politicized, as I think it can damage your relationships with others.
The real issue is an inability to agree to disagree. I talk politics with my friends across all political spectrums. Some like a good debate, and others just get pissy when they can't magically change my mind on a topic. It's not about winning; it's about reaching an understanding, and people have forgotten that.
That's not a fair representation of the people you are talking about. We can agree to disagree about a lot of things. But not about the humanity, dignity, and freedom of people.
We will never agree to disagree about other people's humanity. Being willing to do so would make us monsters.
Are you referring to the recognition of the problems involving those concepts or the solutions proposed to fix them?
We can have different approaches and views about a variety of problems, but the concepts would be the same.
It doesn't mean we should always make an agreement about how to solve them, but the idea of treating others who don't think like me as "monsters" just because they are different is populist and dishonest.
Hating ideas is not the same as hating people.
My entire life, for pretty much every progressive issue, has been filled with people saying "We agree with your cause but not the way you are going about it." literally no matter what "going about it" looks like.
Every effective proposition is shot down. There is no "solution" that is ever acceptable. Because changing the status quo is always interpreted as too radical.
So... I'm not keen on playing these kinds of stupid games?
What’s one example? Maybe we can analyze what went wrong.
Police violence, particularly against people of colour. Protests? Too disruptive! Literally just kneeling? Too disrespectful!
Even MLK Jr. mentioned this in his letter from a Birmingham jail:
Show me a person who hates the idea of homosexuality that doesn't also use it as an excuse to treat homosexual people as less than human.
raises hand
I had a couple gay classmates in college. Was I taken aback when I saw them making out? Yeah. Did I drive to Taco Bell to jump start their Prius when its battery died? Yes. Was I mean to them? Absolutely not. We worked on projects together and were super friendly. It's entirely possible to be a decent human being to someone whose lifestyle is generally contrary to your beliefs.
Do I know a few gay people who are absolute toxic shit bags? Also yes, but even my lefty friends despise them.
It's interesting that people don't believe you can be this way. Many democrats dislike religion yet don't treat most religious people badly; there's no fundamental difference between that and any other trait or belief that would prevent someone from ignoring it while interacting with someone who has it.
Because many of us understand that there isn't a meaningful difference between personal interaction and political action.
The above person treats the gay people he meets with civility when he interacts with them personally. He also votes for political movements who want to dissolve their marriage and want to treat being gay as something to be hidden from public view.
That is not respecting gay people. That is not treating them as equals. It does not matter how nice and polite you are to someone's face if you vote against them being able to live fulfilling lives.
Of course
And that's precisely the attitude that prevents people from having a civil debate. By manipulating definitions and using them to represent your opponent as an inhuman villain (or, in your own words, monsters), you're the one trying to remove someone's humanity.
Ironic. By representing a differing view as "manipulating definitions" like this, you pretend I'm engaging in the conversation maliciously, and completely ignore what I'm saying. You aren't going to get closer to understanding other people unless you engage in good faith.
In the eyes of progressives, conservative politicians undermine the dignity of minorities. You might not agree with that, you might not care about that, you might simply value other things more.
And cut the hyperbole. I haven't tried to remove your humanity. Do you really not know what that is like?
Calling someone a monster definitely dehumanizes them. Calling someone a monster for impersonal reasons simply because of their membership in a particular group, even moreso.
Given your tone, it's hard to imagine otherwise.
Correct. My priorities are:
Accumulate enough wealth to retire comfortably at a reasonable age
Remain happy, healthy, safe, and free wherever I live
Maintain good relationships with the people I care about
If a policy helps that cause, I'm in favor of it. If it doesn't, I'm probably opposed to it.
So you value you personal wealth ad comfort more than the ability of minorities to live their lives free of discrimination.
I don't get why you get so insulted when people point this out?
He said he wants to accumulate wealth for retirement.
Somehow you heard "and fuck the minorities, too" despite not having said that or even remotely implied that. If he's insulted, it's because you're putting words in their mouth.
He said that he values those more than dignity of minorities. Like, not implied it, directly said it.
So no. I'm not putting a single word in his mouth.
This is what you said. In the eyes of progressives, that is how they see conservatives. In no way, shape, or form does his response to that statement have anything to do with the minoroties, but in the agreement that progressives see conservatives that way.
No. Read again. He quoted me saying "you might simply value other things more", and responded with "Correct. My priorities are: 1, 2, 3. If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it."
He values his personal wealth and comfort over the struggles of minorities. At best, he does not care about the plight of minoritised people. If a politician or policy offers him a benefit, but will increase the suffering of people who are not in his in-group, he still supports that policy. If a policy or politician focuses on alleviating suffering, but may come at some perceived expense to him, he opposes it.
He's been quite clear about it.
Well that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.
Literally how?
You enumerated your priorities, and to quote you: "If a policy helps that cause, I’m in favor of it. If it doesn’t, I’m probably opposed to it."
Eliminating discrimination is not among the priorities you listed.
Actually, good point. Fuck em, I guess
shrug
I mean, that would be being honest about it.
I've read all your replies and you conviniently dodged two people making comments regarding homosexuality. Which only made me more curious:
What's your opinion on gay people and gay marriage?
P.S. I never downvote people. Though I'm guessing by your reticence you may get downvoted for replying to me. I urge you to reply though because I'm curious and ask in good faith.
Darn, I actually just responded to a comment about gay people a few minutes ago.
Long story short: not a fan of the concept, but I'm entirely friendly to them as long as they're not horrible people. That said, I don't knowingly interact with gay people often, not because I avoid them, but because I'm probably not paying attention to their sexuality.
I guess my general line of thinking is that, if I can figure out a person's religion or sexuality within seconds of meeting them, there's usually something obnoxious about them to begin with.
You said you were straight right winger right at the start of your comment.
So you fall into your own obnoxious category.
Profound. I wonder if anyone here has the slightest notion of what you mean
So to clarify, you don't support policies that help other people achieve those goals for themselves (assuming they're neutral for you)?
And who wins if we agree to disagree? Is it perhaps you?
Both sides should feel like they got something positive out of a proper debate, but if you're dead set on winning, you can feel free to claim victory if it makes you feel better.
It's not about "winning" a debate. Like ??? We don't conceptualise "debate" that way.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
Have you? It has absolutely nothing to do with "winning" anything.
Precisely. Maybe we're in violent agreement, because the point I'm trying to make is that debates shouldn't have winners and losers.