You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
people are probably amenable if you use the right approach
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
You seem to think the world run on responsibilities. How many people you see in your life take responsibilities for everything they do and say? And I am not saying responsibilities do not matter, but you can’t just interpret what I said based on your imaginary value system. I never said people aren’t responsible for their ideas and what they support. It just doesn’t matter in this conversation. You want it to matter? Then who are you to say “they are responsible”? Who are you to judge the consequences of policies? Who are you to call what exactly does a person believe in simply based on his party affiliation?
But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy?
Well you missed the part of talking to your neighbor first. How he act alone doesn’t really matter that much. To understand what he believes in you gotta talk to him. Does he hate gays? Or does he just believe in small government and love guns?
If he hate gays, and you tell him you are homosexual, would he start throwing dog shit in your yard, or would he have a painful conversation with you? That’s the important part. You didn’t really get what I am trying to say.
I said we keep the conversation going, I never said treat everyone like your BFF. You talk, you don’t judge before you talk. You don’t brand a Republican as a Nazi before you talk to him.
“Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests.
I am honestly not sure what are we arguing about. If you are fine with talking to your neighbor in a frank manner, what do you disagree with me on? Like, how do you know Bill is going to argue that way? How about he tells you “yeh I don’t really like that shit either but I don’t like how the liberals are doing things yada yada”? Wouldn’t you think if you talk long enough the latter response is more likely and probably a more interesting discussion to have?
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.
deleted by creator
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
You seem to think the world run on responsibilities. How many people you see in your life take responsibilities for everything they do and say? And I am not saying responsibilities do not matter, but you can’t just interpret what I said based on your imaginary value system. I never said people aren’t responsible for their ideas and what they support. It just doesn’t matter in this conversation. You want it to matter? Then who are you to say “they are responsible”? Who are you to judge the consequences of policies? Who are you to call what exactly does a person believe in simply based on his party affiliation?
Well you missed the part of talking to your neighbor first. How he act alone doesn’t really matter that much. To understand what he believes in you gotta talk to him. Does he hate gays? Or does he just believe in small government and love guns?
If he hate gays, and you tell him you are homosexual, would he start throwing dog shit in your yard, or would he have a painful conversation with you? That’s the important part. You didn’t really get what I am trying to say.
I said we keep the conversation going, I never said treat everyone like your BFF. You talk, you don’t judge before you talk. You don’t brand a Republican as a Nazi before you talk to him.
I am honestly not sure what are we arguing about. If you are fine with talking to your neighbor in a frank manner, what do you disagree with me on? Like, how do you know Bill is going to argue that way? How about he tells you “yeh I don’t really like that shit either but I don’t like how the liberals are doing things yada yada”? Wouldn’t you think if you talk long enough the latter response is more likely and probably a more interesting discussion to have?