12 ms·

I grew up in Texas but worked in Silicon Valley for a few years. One of the toughest adjustments was going from a small conservative town to a major liberal pop

I grew up in Texas but worked in Silicon Valley for a few years. One of the toughest adjustments was going from a small conservative town to a major liberal populace. It was astonishing the number of people who got angry _at me_ for having a different opinion then they did. At one workplace I saw two coworkers get into a fist fight because the liberal was "offended" that the conservative differed on a viewpoint. Go to Texas and I'm sure you can find the opposite if you are looking for it. It's just a shame that we're letting society create the lens that we want to see, and we push things out that don't fit into our comfy bubble blanket. Edit: To clarify what people got angry at me most: I told them I voted for Bush. It was simply that statement, nothing more.

brookside 9y ago
That anger could be reasonable or not, depending on your opinions.
- subru 9y ago
  No, it's not reasonable. It's a vote, not justification to throw fists or anything in between, even.
  - brookside 9y ago
    Throwing fists is violence, not anger.
    - dwringer 9y ago
      OP edited the original comment to mention an alleged fist fight after getting a slew of responses directed at the "anger" aspect.
  - AndrewDucker 9y ago
    A vote to treat people badly is _absolutely_ a good reason to be angry at someone. If you're voting to take away people's healthcare, or to discriminate against them based on who they love, or their gender, then of course they are angry!
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Still no excuse for physical violence. Votes are how we make decisions in our society. You don't always win. You can argue your position all you want, but you don't get to intimidate others with violence.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - brookside 9y ago
        Am I missing where somebody in this thread was advocating for violence?
      - gizmo 9y ago
        Taking away people's healthcare is violence though.
    - 2017Dude 9y ago
      What if you vote for someone willing to pardon long-overstaying illegal aliens?
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      Nobody can tell you what to feel, and it's unfair to expect you to not feel angry about stuff that is important to you. But it's fair to expect that you won't get into a fistfight with someone just because they make you angry.
      - plandis 9y ago
        That's fair but as we keep seeing from radical Conservatives, you can and possibly will be attacked for holding certain views.
  - anon1385 9y ago
    OP said the fight was about a different viewpoint, not voting for a different party. There's a whole world of viewpoints outside the two dominant political parties in the US.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    "I think your kind is an abomination that should be hearded into camps and slaughtered", is a political opinion that might well lead to a fight or 'anything in between'. It has little to do with a vote. Some 'conservative' people now believe it's ok to voice those opponions at work. We don't know what was said based on the parent, and we don't know how it escalated... so maybe that's it? Some people won't be cowed by a publicly aggressive racist... I'd tell my boss that I'm uncomfortable working with them. I'm not a snowflake, if someone else can't handle my speach and the resulting consequences of their own.
- anbende 9y ago
  Anger at another perspective might be argued to be reasonable. There are some pretty abhorrent perspectives in the world. Getting into a fistfight with someone because they hold a different point of view, no matter how heinous, is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable. The idea that there are points of view (not actions or laws but ideas) that warrant violence is a large and growing problem.
  - classybull 9y ago
    Not to Godwin it or anything, but... Wasn't the passivity and meekness of the opposition the exact reason fascists were able to rise relatively easily in the intrawar period? Personally, I think the concept that there aren't ideas worth throwing a punch over is equally as repugnant as saying you should punch anyone you disagree with.
    - vorotato 9y ago
      The position "Your people shouldn't exist", or "Your people shouldn't be in this country" to be specific. Tolerance to all but the intolerant. This is because if we tolerate the intolerant, they'll just eliminate tolerance, and then nobody will get to express their views.
      - bsenftner 9y ago
        You describe the Paradox of Tolerance: for a tolerant society to exist, it must be intolerant towards intolerance, or the intolerant slowly dominate. This is the paradox enabling many to blindly say Antifa is a racist or fascist organization. No, they are the intolerant side of tolerance laying down the law. Without them, any tolerant society devolves slowly to fascism.
        peoplewindow 9y ago
        It's not a paradox, it's just doublethink. The key is to realise that the "Antifa" agenda has nothing to do with tolerance, regardless of what they claim.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DoctorNick 9y ago
Upon what viewpoint did they differ?
tboyd47 9y ago
There is a reason why voting machines have curtains. If you resent people judging you for how you vote, just don't tell them.
- nwenzel 9y ago
  Don't ask. Don't tell. It wasn't a great policy before. It's not great now. Hiding who you are to avoid ridicule doesn't solve the problem. If the majority opinion is safe to express, but your opinion isn't, then being forced to hide doesn't actually solve the problem. Even if you hide your views, you may get asked why you don't support the majority's viewpoints.
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    I see it less as a "policy" and more of an issue of maturity and professionalism. If you are going to take a controversial stance on something you have to accept that you might not be Mr. Joe Popular after that. This is true at work and in life. So you either let it go or get okay with being "that weirdo." As others have said, it goes both ways: liberal in a red state, conservative in a blue state. At the end of the day, the people you meet at work are not there because they want to be friends. They're there for one reason: to make money. If you respect other people's boundaries then they respect you.
  - namdnay 9y ago
    If sexual orientation were a matter of choice, DADT wouldn't have been as controversial
    - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
      Arguably political orientation is not a choice if your political choices are informed solely by facts. Unless you are arguing that facts can be whatever you want.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Except sometimes it's public information. Brendan Eich was pilloried not for telling people how he voted, but for having made a contribution to an unpopular cause several years past.
stult 9y ago
Having moved from the liberal coasts to Texas, I can tell you that you're right about the opposite experience happening too, and you definitely don't have to go looking for it.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  I was assaulted by a ROTC cadet once, around 2005 or 2006 in a conservative town at a conservative college for saying that the Iraq War was a mistake (in several ways, I'm not sure which one was specifically being discussed that day). I wasn't even speaking to the guy, just discussing news with some friends and he happened to be nearby. I found it amusing that a man who was going to take an oath to defend the Constitution thought it was reasonable to call me un-American and try to beat me into silence. He left when I laughed at him instead of fighting back. I had friends un-friend me on Facebook after my sister married a woman and I posted pictures and congratulations to them. I had colleagues who stopped talking to me after the same. They talk to me now (2 years later), but only professionally, formally. No more informal or loose friendship happening between us apparently. This shit definitely happens on both sides.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Trump uttering "Bush lied, people died" at debate, inside Bush library, to the cheers of the crowd, Republican Conservative crowd. If Trump hadn't done that, I would have gone for eternity judging those people as war mongers no matter the cost. If Trump hadn't said "I want some punishment for the woman" on abortion, I would have gone for eternity judging all anti-choice folks to be for incarceration of women for exercising choice.
api 9y ago
I was going to ask: what happens in small town Texas if you are an atheist, don't support the war, support a woman's right to have an abortion, etc.? It's been my experience that each region has its dominant sociopolitical culture and that there are always people who are unable to see beyond that and who become angry when confronted by anything other.
- classybull 9y ago
  I grew up in small(ish) town Texas with those exact viewpoints. I wouldn't say that my viewpoint was exactly ostracized, but it was definitely "odd" and Other. I never really suffered any physical intimidation for my viewpoints, but that's probably because I'm a giant ogre that people tend not to feel like they can mess with. But I did have my fair share of heated arguments when refusing to pray before a football game or counter-protest the abortion protestors, etc.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
sharemywin 9y ago
Funny, wonder how many moderate liberals would beg to have him back as president now. Myself included.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- malmsteen 9y ago
  r u kidding ? bush was largely more evil than trump. trump is just randomly going from one to another mostly unconsequential decision. bush went to war, purposefully let torture be instigated (while trump say ok for torture motsly to look tough) and promoted hugh oil conglomerates.. he's also the governor who order the most inmates to be sent to death row Learn to see the difference between talk and action.
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    your comparing 8 years to 6 months and legislative agenda that's so right wing they can't even get anything passed by their own party.
    - cr0sh 9y ago
      > so right wing they can't even get anything passed by their own party. I do have to say this part has amused me the most, as a registered independent who leans heavily socially liberal (I'm more conservative when it comes to economic issues - but more in the sense that I want money going to things that advance the species, rather than destroy it). I certainly expected after the last election to see a steamroller of conservative GOP legislation being passed left and right. Instead, we got a bunch of EOs - and a stalled Congress. I was not expecting that. Not that I like it, mind you...
      - notyourday 9y ago
        > Not that I like it, mind you. I think it is great. If we could stick the Senate and the House onto vacation for 364 days a year the country would be able to adjust quite quickly.
Shivetya 9y ago
politics is used to divide people in this country, not bring them together. sadly it won't be fixed until we can find some means to secure a third or fourth party's ability to compete but Congress does its best to prevent any money from entering politics which does not support the norm
- vgh 9y ago
  Neither of the two major presidential candidates last election came anywhere near halfway matching my stances on issues. Yet there was a third party (I guess sort of a fourth) whom I agreed with on quite a few things, as did many others. But those votes got drowned out by the "wasted vote" crowd. I'm curious if any nation has experimented with a hybrid of direct and representative democracies: people choose their stances on actual issues, and the candidate most matching the spirit of society is elected.
  - feedjoelpie 9y ago
    Most democracies don't have winner-take-all systems like ours. I would argue as part of the "wasted vote" crowd that this viewpoint is entirely justified given the mechanics of a U.S. presidential election, and that the best any of us can do is take our idealism to a more local level. Parliamentary systems with proportional representation and "coalition" governments exist throughout the world. The U.S. just isn't one of them and would require a big overhaul of the Constitution in order to change that.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    ... Canada? While there still exists voting along party lines, having more than 2 major parties there tends to be a little more variety in official platforms. Recently, Alberta which is traditionally more conservative voted for a Muslim mayor in Calgary, and the NDP (Canada's socialist democratic party) into provincial office. Even our Green party gained a seat in Victoria/Saanich (British Columbia) last election.
austenallred 9y ago
I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). The leadership at the company was very reasonable, but the politically active folks terrified me, and didn't just think that those that held conservative viewpoints were misguided, but that they were actively evil. There's a big difference. I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. I made the mistake of mentioning that once and somehow that turned me into a pro-Trump spokesperson. I can do that for the sake of a rational conversation, but I somehow ended up being the Trump supporter spokesperson despite the fact that I can't stand the guy. I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.
- plandis 9y ago
  In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own.
  - austenallred 9y ago
    I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a rational person would hold those beliefs?
    - mfringel 9y ago
      Define "rational". If you mean "Can someone justify those beliefs to themselves through a logical chain, while allowing for personal belief systems", then yes, of course, there are plenty of non-evil reasons a rational person could hold those. However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.
moretai 9y ago
It feels like people don't want to hear your thoughts. They want their thoughts to be validated.
djsumdog 9y ago
Back in university, I had a flatmate that was pro-Bush. He wasn't unintelligent. He was getting his masters. He was a good guy and generally progressive in his views. He actually had pretty well laid out arguments as far as what he saw as best for the country and policy with the continuation of the Bush administration over Kerry. Both myself and my other housemates didn't understand it at the time, but I didn't lose respect for him as a person. In the most recent election, I've come to at least understand more of his views. I wish I could talk to him about it, but he passed away a few years ago. I currently hold a controversial opinion myself, that the parties are essentially the same and the elections simply do not matter. I do not think anything would be different under either potential candidate. You can say some of the social issues would be affected (trans people in the military), but if you focus on those, you view the current government as just stupid. But they're not. They knew banning trans people would cause outrage. You add a stupid reason, and you need to realize they knew that was an intentionally stupid reason, and people focus their hate. It is literally the 2 minute hate from Orwell's 1984, except it's been around for over a decade and it's now the 24/7 hate from all the news networks. http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-anger/ http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-a... In big tech areas, I cannot get over the number of people who would say, "No there is a difference [between the parties]!" whenever I expressed this view. Over 60 million people voted for Trump. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are uneducated or stupid or racist. Over 60 million people voted for Clinton. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are compromising or ignorant. Over 40% of those eligible chose not to vote. They all get clumped together, even though their reasons are greatly varied. And keep in mind, there is a 2014 Princeton Study that shows the the opinions of the average voter in America have a statically insignificant, near zero, effect on all policy decisions (unless you're part of the top 10% of income earners): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... America, and even many European nations, are becoming increasingly polarized. But human beings don't fit into two categories. There is no real left or right. Someone might be supportive of gay rights, be for gun control and yet still think trans people suffer from mental illness. Another might be against gun control and affirmative action, and have other libertarian-ish beliefs, yet believe strongly in public transportation and universal health care. We do not fit into the nice cylinders of political categories, and we certainly don't fit into the false dichotomy of the left/right. But we're taught that's where the line is, that we have to take sides, and keep fighting each other instead of the real players, the _eminence grise_ of Exxon, BP, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Boeing and all the other players who really control what's going on and who are systematically implementing policy that increases tension, increases conflict and escalates war throughout the would.
Shish2k 9y ago
> Go to Texas and I'm sure you can find the opposite if you are looking for it I went to Texas and wasn't looking for it - but the first bar I walked into had photos of Obama and Hillary duct taped to the urinal for people to aim at :P
- chrisabrams 9y ago
  Was this in Dallas? If so I know which bar you speak of..
- humanrebar 9y ago
  They'll also do that kind of thing with Texas A&M logos, so don't read too much into it.
  - justforFranz 9y ago
    It's 'cause Texans are classy.
Eric_WVGG 9y ago
As a theoretical coworker of yours, my reaction would depend a lot on which vote you were talking about. In 00 I thought Bush voters were just sort of clods, hopelessly partisans with a poor understanding of the dangers of nepotism and monarchy. (I thought the same about Clinton voters in 08 and much of 16, to be fair) In 04, Bush voters were supporting a guy who responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading _the wrong country_ (secular Hussein working with bin Ladin? honestly), and okaying the torture of human beings for information. You can’t chalk this up to “some people like chocolate, others vanilla,” Abu Ghraib doesn’t fit under a comfy blanket. If you had admitted voting for his re-election to me at lunch I would have gotten up and left the table without saying a word. ((Not that it matters, but I grew up in Montana, I understand conservatives and conservativism))
- nkurz 9y ago
  If you had admitted voting for his re-election to me at lunch I would have gotten up and left the table without saying a word. I can understand feeling this way, but do you see this as a response that improves the situation? Is your impulse to silent action just that it's easier than engaging, or is there a positive outcome of silently leaving that would not be also achieved by explaining your reasons for leaving? Engaging in a discussion of why you feel the way you do seems like it might have the best chance of a possible outcome. If their response is that are in favor of our behavior at Abu Graib that you despise, then I can understand giving up and leaving. (Ironically, this responseless post was voted below zero when I found it, and dead from user flagging when I tried to reply, which I think is equivalent to the "silently leaving" approach espoused by the author. I'd be interested to hear from those who flagged it why they did so.)
  - Eric_WVGG 9y ago
    Thank you for responding. No. I don't think "just leaving" would have improved the situation. A screaming match and fists wouldn't have improved the situation either. American culture has found itself in this weird space where arguments that were supposedly settled in the last century are apparently still up for debate. In the case of torture, there are two questions at hand: One, does it work, and two, if it works, is its use defensible. Believing the first is ignorant; believing the second is inhumane. I don't see any sort of constructive middle ground or even argument to be had over such a basic conversation of good vs. evil. Since I spent most of 2004-2008 in a state of rage over the presence and defense of actual evil in a country and society that I love, I would not have had the self-control necessary to engage in a dialogue. So I would have left. (The down-voting was weird but predictable.)
threatofrain 9y ago
What does conservative mean? Some people say that conservatism includes things like gun rights, support for anti-immigration and lower taxes. As well as Christian values, which for a decade or two, has meant something around abortion, homosexuals, and recently transgenders. What are these viewpoints that are claimed to be conservative in nature? I have read the Texas GOP platform. Is that representative of conservatism? https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLATFORM.pdf https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLA...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- seba_dos1 9y ago
  This. When I read stuff like "his conservative support for free speech" the only thing that comes to my mind is excusing hate speech by appealing to freedom of expression, and generally the "tolerating the intolerance" issue. I'm from Europe though, so maybe my point of view on what "conservative" and "liberal" means differs from American one, so an explanation would sure be handy.
- tristor 9y ago
  > What does conservative mean? This is a fair question at this point. I would posit answering this and also answering "What does liberal mean?" would be great things to address in high school political science classrooms, however it doesn't seem to be in the curriculum. We've had the better part of 30 years where media pundits have been doing their best to conflate these terms with concepts which are tangential at best or completely unrelated at worst. First, I think it's important to understand that concepts like "conservative" and "liberal" refer to overarching political philosophies, and the actual ideology a person holds that describes themselves as such is probably a subset. Since we're focused on conservatism, I'll provide examples from there. So, in this case there may be broad differences in beliefs about particular political issues between an evangelical conservative Republican and a Libertarian, however both are conservatives. This type of difference arises with the concept of liberalism as well. Fundamentally, the liberal/conservative distinction is a line, and therefore each person falls at some point on that line within a broad spectrum. Second, let's address the most simplistic explanation of the overarching philosophy, and then we'll get into some specifics of how this might manifest when applied to an individual. Conservatism is effectively a combination of three ideas: 1. Individuals know best about their own situations and working together can improve things better than a central authority (i.e. "government sucks at doing things" 2. Broad social and political change should be infrequent and considered fully, and therefore an adhesion to our founding charter (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) is critical to correct governance (i.e. "we've done it this way and it's worked out so far, why change?") 3. In order to ensure that both of the above are true it's essential to have a small central government which is only empowered and funded minimally at the bare necessity to achieve those general aims (i.e. "the best government is a small government") Third, it's important to understand how much upbringing and experiences in life affect an individual's political ideology and the philosophy from which it is derived. It is no mistake or surprise that cities tend to be more liberal and rural locations tend to be more conservative in the United States. It's a result of somewhat unintended consequences of democracy conceptually and the realities of optimizing for bureaucratic efficiency. We know that basic rules of optimization (the Pareto principle) says that 80% of the job requires 20% of the work. This is true of many things when it comes to urban/rural divides, all the way down to broadband Internet connectivity. Democracy in its simplest form becomes rule by the majority, so larger concentrations of people (cities) hold more sway. These two items result in people inhabiting rural areas being felt that not only do they not have a voice but that nobody cares to help them with their problems. The response to this is "clinging to traditions" because those traditions are by and large what has helped get them and their families through hard times for many years. In a fit of irony, the more underfunded the government the more heavily the government focuses on cities as that becomes the most rational pathway. Finally, conservatism is rooted in two additional beliefs that are about the conduct of a person individually. That is, that generally everyone should be treated as an individual rather than via group identity (individualism as a loose philosophical base) and that because of this personal responsibility and hard work are the most important factors in success. This is one reason why people with conservative beliefs are less likely to approve of social safety nets, even though they would likely qualify as beneficiaries. The philosophy includes a belief structure of the self that would refuse the help out of shame at personal failure, and at the same time would judge others as failing for taking that help. In this mindset all that matters is taking responsibility for your self, including the outcome/reaction to a bad situation, and working hard to better things. I've touched briefly on a lot of different things, and I've provided basically no sources for these statements. I'd like to write something much more thorough, but the reality is it'd be entirely too lengthy and I should be doing work right now. The topic is very complex, political ideologies themselves are complex, and this is one reason why I find it distasteful when someone is painted in broad strokes because of their political ideology (regardless of what that ideology is). Hopefully this comment is helpful to the discussion though.
rayiner 9y ago
I'm not sure why we'd expect politics not to be highly contentious and divisive. It's life-or-death stuff. Do you force a teenager carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, or allow her doctor to kill an organism that is, at least genetically, human? Do we let unfettered immigration undermine the welfare state, or break apart families who are just trying to have a better life? What kind of legacy will we leave our children? It's bizarre to thing these sorts of questions wouldn't lead to fist fights. I myself tend to get along with people with a wide range of political views. But I've always assumed it's because I'm a bit of a sociopath. I don't care enough to put other peoples' struggles above my personal relationships.
- RepressedEmu 9y ago
  I really enjoyed your framing of some common issues. Most people don't think there are actually two sides to any political argument and spend the majority of their time laughing at strawmen rather than learning about someone else's perspective. Also I think lowered emotional connection to the issues can actually be a huge benefit to understanding them rather than just "feeling" what side to pick.
  - well-framed 9y ago
    I wanted to second this comment re: approval of the framing of the discussion. One of the few ways to have, IMO, meaningful discourse if to be able to understand the other side, for who they are and instead of a talking point (e.g. a strawman). I can't say that I've lived enough to be firmly on one side of the discourse or the other, but I've found that it's much easier to be "center" when the issues are framed in such a way that show both sides properly.
- harryh 9y ago
  Another thing that might make it easier for you to get along with people of other political persuasions is that you will personally be less affected by whatever policy decisions are made. If you were a pregnant teenager or a poor person who just lost their job to an illegal immigrant you would likely care more. So maybe you aren't a sociopath. :)
twoquestions 9y ago
In these instances, context matters a lot. Coworker: "My younger brother was killed in Iraq in 2007." You: "I voted for Bush." I'm sure you can see why Coworker wouldn't be pleased by your statement in this instance. I'm on the Left working at an oil company, so I feel your pain. It helps if you want to talk about these things to shift their Overton window slowly, not to expect tolerance for unthinkable actions right out of the gate (it's not right, but that's how it is). Liberals and Left-wingers are people too, and thus are vulnerable to the same tribal bullshit that some (luckily few) people on the Right and (luckily) fewer people on the Left are proud of. Despite all effort, you (general and specific) and they can't stop from feeling these tribal in-group feelings any more than they can just stop feeling thirsty after a day of not drinking any water. EDIT: One of these days I should write a post, How to Talk About Politics with People Who Disagree With You.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I agree with what you say, but your example of context seems to (unconsciously?) reflect your own politics. What if the coworker's brother signed up specifically to go to Iraq because he truly believed in the mission? What if the coworker's family viewed him as an all American hero? In that case, why would the coworker be upset? Your conversation leading to upset is based in the assumption that the coworker already shares your worldview in regard to the Iraq war. It's one I share too, so I can see why that'd be automatic, but I've met and known people who fought in Iraq. They didn't exactly seem ashamed!

brookside 9y ago

That anger could be reasonable or not, depending on your opinions.

subru 9y ago
No, it's not reasonable. It's a vote, not justification to throw fists or anything in between, even.
- brookside 9y ago
  Throwing fists is violence, not anger.
  - dwringer 9y ago
    OP edited the original comment to mention an alleged fist fight after getting a slew of responses directed at the "anger" aspect.
- AndrewDucker 9y ago
  A vote to treat people badly is _absolutely_ a good reason to be angry at someone. If you're voting to take away people's healthcare, or to discriminate against them based on who they love, or their gender, then of course they are angry!
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Still no excuse for physical violence. Votes are how we make decisions in our society. You don't always win. You can argue your position all you want, but you don't get to intimidate others with violence.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - brookside 9y ago
      Am I missing where somebody in this thread was advocating for violence?
    - gizmo 9y ago
      Taking away people's healthcare is violence though.
  - 2017Dude 9y ago
    What if you vote for someone willing to pardon long-overstaying illegal aliens?
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    Nobody can tell you what to feel, and it's unfair to expect you to not feel angry about stuff that is important to you. But it's fair to expect that you won't get into a fistfight with someone just because they make you angry.
    - plandis 9y ago
      That's fair but as we keep seeing from radical Conservatives, you can and possibly will be attacked for holding certain views.
- anon1385 9y ago
  OP said the fight was about a different viewpoint, not voting for a different party. There's a whole world of viewpoints outside the two dominant political parties in the US.
- kurthr 9y ago
  "I think your kind is an abomination that should be hearded into camps and slaughtered", is a political opinion that might well lead to a fight or 'anything in between'. It has little to do with a vote. Some 'conservative' people now believe it's ok to voice those opponions at work. We don't know what was said based on the parent, and we don't know how it escalated... so maybe that's it? Some people won't be cowed by a publicly aggressive racist... I'd tell my boss that I'm uncomfortable working with them. I'm not a snowflake, if someone else can't handle my speach and the resulting consequences of their own.
anbende 9y ago
Anger at another perspective might be argued to be reasonable. There are some pretty abhorrent perspectives in the world. Getting into a fistfight with someone because they hold a different point of view, no matter how heinous, is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable. The idea that there are points of view (not actions or laws but ideas) that warrant violence is a large and growing problem.
- classybull 9y ago
  Not to Godwin it or anything, but... Wasn't the passivity and meekness of the opposition the exact reason fascists were able to rise relatively easily in the intrawar period? Personally, I think the concept that there aren't ideas worth throwing a punch over is equally as repugnant as saying you should punch anyone you disagree with.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    The position "Your people shouldn't exist", or "Your people shouldn't be in this country" to be specific. Tolerance to all but the intolerant. This is because if we tolerate the intolerant, they'll just eliminate tolerance, and then nobody will get to express their views.
    - bsenftner 9y ago
      You describe the Paradox of Tolerance: for a tolerant society to exist, it must be intolerant towards intolerance, or the intolerant slowly dominate. This is the paradox enabling many to blindly say Antifa is a racist or fascist organization. No, they are the intolerant side of tolerance laying down the law. Without them, any tolerant society devolves slowly to fascism.
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        It's not a paradox, it's just doublethink. The key is to realise that the "Antifa" agenda has nothing to do with tolerance, regardless of what they claim.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

DoctorNick 9y ago

Upon what viewpoint did they differ?

tboyd47 9y ago

There is a reason why voting machines have curtains. If you resent people judging you for how you vote, just don't tell them.

nwenzel 9y ago
Don't ask. Don't tell. It wasn't a great policy before. It's not great now. Hiding who you are to avoid ridicule doesn't solve the problem. If the majority opinion is safe to express, but your opinion isn't, then being forced to hide doesn't actually solve the problem. Even if you hide your views, you may get asked why you don't support the majority's viewpoints.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  I see it less as a "policy" and more of an issue of maturity and professionalism. If you are going to take a controversial stance on something you have to accept that you might not be Mr. Joe Popular after that. This is true at work and in life. So you either let it go or get okay with being "that weirdo." As others have said, it goes both ways: liberal in a red state, conservative in a blue state. At the end of the day, the people you meet at work are not there because they want to be friends. They're there for one reason: to make money. If you respect other people's boundaries then they respect you.
- namdnay 9y ago
  If sexual orientation were a matter of choice, DADT wouldn't have been as controversial
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    Arguably political orientation is not a choice if your political choices are informed solely by facts. Unless you are arguing that facts can be whatever you want.
jcranmer 9y ago
Except sometimes it's public information. Brendan Eich was pilloried not for telling people how he voted, but for having made a contribution to an unpopular cause several years past.

stult 9y ago

Having moved from the liberal coasts to Texas, I can tell you that you're right about the opposite experience happening too, and you definitely don't have to go looking for it.

Jtsummers 9y ago
I was assaulted by a ROTC cadet once, around 2005 or 2006 in a conservative town at a conservative college for saying that the Iraq War was a mistake (in several ways, I'm not sure which one was specifically being discussed that day). I wasn't even speaking to the guy, just discussing news with some friends and he happened to be nearby. I found it amusing that a man who was going to take an oath to defend the Constitution thought it was reasonable to call me un-American and try to beat me into silence. He left when I laughed at him instead of fighting back. I had friends un-friend me on Facebook after my sister married a woman and I posted pictures and congratulations to them. I had colleagues who stopped talking to me after the same. They talk to me now (2 years later), but only professionally, formally. No more informal or loose friendship happening between us apparently. This shit definitely happens on both sides.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Trump uttering "Bush lied, people died" at debate, inside Bush library, to the cheers of the crowd, Republican Conservative crowd. If Trump hadn't done that, I would have gone for eternity judging those people as war mongers no matter the cost. If Trump hadn't said "I want some punishment for the woman" on abortion, I would have gone for eternity judging all anti-choice folks to be for incarceration of women for exercising choice.

api 9y ago

I was going to ask: what happens in small town Texas if you are an atheist, don't support the war, support a woman's right to have an abortion, etc.? It's been my experience that each region has its dominant sociopolitical culture and that there are always people who are unable to see beyond that and who become angry when confronted by anything other.

classybull 9y ago
I grew up in small(ish) town Texas with those exact viewpoints. I wouldn't say that my viewpoint was exactly ostracized, but it was definitely "odd" and Other. I never really suffered any physical intimidation for my viewpoints, but that's probably because I'm a giant ogre that people tend not to feel like they can mess with. But I did have my fair share of heated arguments when refusing to pray before a football game or counter-protest the abortion protestors, etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

sharemywin 9y ago

Funny, wonder how many moderate liberals would beg to have him back as president now. Myself included.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
malmsteen 9y ago
r u kidding ? bush was largely more evil than trump. trump is just randomly going from one to another mostly unconsequential decision. bush went to war, purposefully let torture be instigated (while trump say ok for torture motsly to look tough) and promoted hugh oil conglomerates.. he's also the governor who order the most inmates to be sent to death row Learn to see the difference between talk and action.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  your comparing 8 years to 6 months and legislative agenda that's so right wing they can't even get anything passed by their own party.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    > so right wing they can't even get anything passed by their own party. I do have to say this part has amused me the most, as a registered independent who leans heavily socially liberal (I'm more conservative when it comes to economic issues - but more in the sense that I want money going to things that advance the species, rather than destroy it). I certainly expected after the last election to see a steamroller of conservative GOP legislation being passed left and right. Instead, we got a bunch of EOs - and a stalled Congress. I was not expecting that. Not that I like it, mind you...
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > Not that I like it, mind you. I think it is great. If we could stick the Senate and the House onto vacation for 364 days a year the country would be able to adjust quite quickly.

Shivetya 9y ago

politics is used to divide people in this country, not bring them together. sadly it won't be fixed until we can find some means to secure a third or fourth party's ability to compete but Congress does its best to prevent any money from entering politics which does not support the norm

vgh 9y ago
Neither of the two major presidential candidates last election came anywhere near halfway matching my stances on issues. Yet there was a third party (I guess sort of a fourth) whom I agreed with on quite a few things, as did many others. But those votes got drowned out by the "wasted vote" crowd. I'm curious if any nation has experimented with a hybrid of direct and representative democracies: people choose their stances on actual issues, and the candidate most matching the spirit of society is elected.
- feedjoelpie 9y ago
  Most democracies don't have winner-take-all systems like ours. I would argue as part of the "wasted vote" crowd that this viewpoint is entirely justified given the mechanics of a U.S. presidential election, and that the best any of us can do is take our idealism to a more local level. Parliamentary systems with proportional representation and "coalition" governments exist throughout the world. The U.S. just isn't one of them and would require a big overhaul of the Constitution in order to change that.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  ... Canada? While there still exists voting along party lines, having more than 2 major parties there tends to be a little more variety in official platforms. Recently, Alberta which is traditionally more conservative voted for a Muslim mayor in Calgary, and the NDP (Canada's socialist democratic party) into provincial office. Even our Green party gained a seat in Victoria/Saanich (British Columbia) last election.

austenallred 9y ago

I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). The leadership at the company was very reasonable, but the politically active folks terrified me, and didn't just think that those that held conservative viewpoints were misguided, but that they were actively evil. There's a big difference. I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. I made the mistake of mentioning that once and somehow that turned me into a pro-Trump spokesperson. I can do that for the sake of a rational conversation, but I somehow ended up being the Trump supporter spokesperson despite the fact that I can't stand the guy. I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.

plandis 9y ago
In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own.
- austenallred 9y ago
  I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a rational person would hold those beliefs?
  - mfringel 9y ago
    Define "rational". If you mean "Can someone justify those beliefs to themselves through a logical chain, while allowing for personal belief systems", then yes, of course, there are plenty of non-evil reasons a rational person could hold those. However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.

moretai 9y ago

It feels like people don't want to hear your thoughts. They want their thoughts to be validated.

djsumdog 9y ago

Back in university, I had a flatmate that was pro-Bush. He wasn't unintelligent. He was getting his masters. He was a good guy and generally progressive in his views. He actually had pretty well laid out arguments as far as what he saw as best for the country and policy with the continuation of the Bush administration over Kerry. Both myself and my other housemates didn't understand it at the time, but I didn't lose respect for him as a person. In the most recent election, I've come to at least understand more of his views. I wish I could talk to him about it, but he passed away a few years ago. I currently hold a controversial opinion myself, that the parties are essentially the same and the elections simply do not matter. I do not think anything would be different under either potential candidate. You can say some of the social issues would be affected (trans people in the military), but if you focus on those, you view the current government as just stupid. But they're not. They knew banning trans people would cause outrage. You add a stupid reason, and you need to realize they knew that was an intentionally stupid reason, and people focus their hate. It is literally the 2 minute hate from Orwell's 1984, except it's been around for over a decade and it's now the 24/7 hate from all the news networks. http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-anger/ http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-a... In big tech areas, I cannot get over the number of people who would say, "No there is a difference [between the parties]!" whenever I expressed this view. Over 60 million people voted for Trump. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are uneducated or stupid or racist. Over 60 million people voted for Clinton. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are compromising or ignorant. Over 40% of those eligible chose not to vote. They all get clumped together, even though their reasons are greatly varied. And keep in mind, there is a 2014 Princeton Study that shows the the opinions of the average voter in America have a statically insignificant, near zero, effect on all policy decisions (unless you're part of the top 10% of income earners): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... America, and even many European nations, are becoming increasingly polarized. But human beings don't fit into two categories. There is no real left or right. Someone might be supportive of gay rights, be for gun control and yet still think trans people suffer from mental illness. Another might be against gun control and affirmative action, and have other libertarian-ish beliefs, yet believe strongly in public transportation and universal health care. We do not fit into the nice cylinders of political categories, and we certainly don't fit into the false dichotomy of the left/right. But we're taught that's where the line is, that we have to take sides, and keep fighting each other instead of the real players, the _eminence grise_ of Exxon, BP, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Boeing and all the other players who really control what's going on and who are systematically implementing policy that increases tension, increases conflict and escalates war throughout the would.

Shish2k 9y ago

> Go to Texas and I'm sure you can find the opposite if you are looking for it I went to Texas and wasn't looking for it - but the first bar I walked into had photos of Obama and Hillary duct taped to the urinal for people to aim at :P

chrisabrams 9y ago
Was this in Dallas? If so I know which bar you speak of..
humanrebar 9y ago
They'll also do that kind of thing with Texas A&M logos, so don't read too much into it.
- justforFranz 9y ago
  It's 'cause Texans are classy.

Eric_WVGG 9y ago

As a theoretical coworker of yours, my reaction would depend a lot on which vote you were talking about. In 00 I thought Bush voters were just sort of clods, hopelessly partisans with a poor understanding of the dangers of nepotism and monarchy. (I thought the same about Clinton voters in 08 and much of 16, to be fair) In 04, Bush voters were supporting a guy who responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading _the wrong country_ (secular Hussein working with bin Ladin? honestly), and okaying the torture of human beings for information. You can’t chalk this up to “some people like chocolate, others vanilla,” Abu Ghraib doesn’t fit under a comfy blanket. If you had admitted voting for his re-election to me at lunch I would have gotten up and left the table without saying a word. ((Not that it matters, but I grew up in Montana, I understand conservatives and conservativism))

nkurz 9y ago
If you had admitted voting for his re-election to me at lunch I would have gotten up and left the table without saying a word. I can understand feeling this way, but do you see this as a response that improves the situation? Is your impulse to silent action just that it's easier than engaging, or is there a positive outcome of silently leaving that would not be also achieved by explaining your reasons for leaving? Engaging in a discussion of why you feel the way you do seems like it might have the best chance of a possible outcome. If their response is that are in favor of our behavior at Abu Graib that you despise, then I can understand giving up and leaving. (Ironically, this responseless post was voted below zero when I found it, and dead from user flagging when I tried to reply, which I think is equivalent to the "silently leaving" approach espoused by the author. I'd be interested to hear from those who flagged it why they did so.)
- Eric_WVGG 9y ago
  Thank you for responding. No. I don't think "just leaving" would have improved the situation. A screaming match and fists wouldn't have improved the situation either. American culture has found itself in this weird space where arguments that were supposedly settled in the last century are apparently still up for debate. In the case of torture, there are two questions at hand: One, does it work, and two, if it works, is its use defensible. Believing the first is ignorant; believing the second is inhumane. I don't see any sort of constructive middle ground or even argument to be had over such a basic conversation of good vs. evil. Since I spent most of 2004-2008 in a state of rage over the presence and defense of actual evil in a country and society that I love, I would not have had the self-control necessary to engage in a dialogue. So I would have left. (The down-voting was weird but predictable.)

threatofrain 9y ago

What does conservative mean? Some people say that conservatism includes things like gun rights, support for anti-immigration and lower taxes. As well as Christian values, which for a decade or two, has meant something around abortion, homosexuals, and recently transgenders. What are these viewpoints that are claimed to be conservative in nature? I have read the Texas GOP platform. Is that representative of conservatism? https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLATFORM.pdf https://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLA...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seba_dos1 9y ago
This. When I read stuff like "his conservative support for free speech" the only thing that comes to my mind is excusing hate speech by appealing to freedom of expression, and generally the "tolerating the intolerance" issue. I'm from Europe though, so maybe my point of view on what "conservative" and "liberal" means differs from American one, so an explanation would sure be handy.
tristor 9y ago
> What does conservative mean? This is a fair question at this point. I would posit answering this and also answering "What does liberal mean?" would be great things to address in high school political science classrooms, however it doesn't seem to be in the curriculum. We've had the better part of 30 years where media pundits have been doing their best to conflate these terms with concepts which are tangential at best or completely unrelated at worst. First, I think it's important to understand that concepts like "conservative" and "liberal" refer to overarching political philosophies, and the actual ideology a person holds that describes themselves as such is probably a subset. Since we're focused on conservatism, I'll provide examples from there. So, in this case there may be broad differences in beliefs about particular political issues between an evangelical conservative Republican and a Libertarian, however both are conservatives. This type of difference arises with the concept of liberalism as well. Fundamentally, the liberal/conservative distinction is a line, and therefore each person falls at some point on that line within a broad spectrum. Second, let's address the most simplistic explanation of the overarching philosophy, and then we'll get into some specifics of how this might manifest when applied to an individual. Conservatism is effectively a combination of three ideas: 1. Individuals know best about their own situations and working together can improve things better than a central authority (i.e. "government sucks at doing things" 2. Broad social and political change should be infrequent and considered fully, and therefore an adhesion to our founding charter (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) is critical to correct governance (i.e. "we've done it this way and it's worked out so far, why change?") 3. In order to ensure that both of the above are true it's essential to have a small central government which is only empowered and funded minimally at the bare necessity to achieve those general aims (i.e. "the best government is a small government") Third, it's important to understand how much upbringing and experiences in life affect an individual's political ideology and the philosophy from which it is derived. It is no mistake or surprise that cities tend to be more liberal and rural locations tend to be more conservative in the United States. It's a result of somewhat unintended consequences of democracy conceptually and the realities of optimizing for bureaucratic efficiency. We know that basic rules of optimization (the Pareto principle) says that 80% of the job requires 20% of the work. This is true of many things when it comes to urban/rural divides, all the way down to broadband Internet connectivity. Democracy in its simplest form becomes rule by the majority, so larger concentrations of people (cities) hold more sway. These two items result in people inhabiting rural areas being felt that not only do they not have a voice but that nobody cares to help them with their problems. The response to this is "clinging to traditions" because those traditions are by and large what has helped get them and their families through hard times for many years. In a fit of irony, the more underfunded the government the more heavily the government focuses on cities as that becomes the most rational pathway. Finally, conservatism is rooted in two additional beliefs that are about the conduct of a person individually. That is, that generally everyone should be treated as an individual rather than via group identity (individualism as a loose philosophical base) and that because of this personal responsibility and hard work are the most important factors in success. This is one reason why people with conservative beliefs are less likely to approve of social safety nets, even though they would likely qualify as beneficiaries. The philosophy includes a belief structure of the self that would refuse the help out of shame at personal failure, and at the same time would judge others as failing for taking that help. In this mindset all that matters is taking responsibility for your self, including the outcome/reaction to a bad situation, and working hard to better things. I've touched briefly on a lot of different things, and I've provided basically no sources for these statements. I'd like to write something much more thorough, but the reality is it'd be entirely too lengthy and I should be doing work right now. The topic is very complex, political ideologies themselves are complex, and this is one reason why I find it distasteful when someone is painted in broad strokes because of their political ideology (regardless of what that ideology is). Hopefully this comment is helpful to the discussion though.

rayiner 9y ago

I'm not sure why we'd expect politics not to be highly contentious and divisive. It's life-or-death stuff. Do you force a teenager carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, or allow her doctor to kill an organism that is, at least genetically, human? Do we let unfettered immigration undermine the welfare state, or break apart families who are just trying to have a better life? What kind of legacy will we leave our children? It's bizarre to thing these sorts of questions wouldn't lead to fist fights. I myself tend to get along with people with a wide range of political views. But I've always assumed it's because I'm a bit of a sociopath. I don't care enough to put other peoples' struggles above my personal relationships.

RepressedEmu 9y ago
I really enjoyed your framing of some common issues. Most people don't think there are actually two sides to any political argument and spend the majority of their time laughing at strawmen rather than learning about someone else's perspective. Also I think lowered emotional connection to the issues can actually be a huge benefit to understanding them rather than just "feeling" what side to pick.
- well-framed 9y ago
  I wanted to second this comment re: approval of the framing of the discussion. One of the few ways to have, IMO, meaningful discourse if to be able to understand the other side, for who they are and instead of a talking point (e.g. a strawman). I can't say that I've lived enough to be firmly on one side of the discourse or the other, but I've found that it's much easier to be "center" when the issues are framed in such a way that show both sides properly.
harryh 9y ago
Another thing that might make it easier for you to get along with people of other political persuasions is that you will personally be less affected by whatever policy decisions are made. If you were a pregnant teenager or a poor person who just lost their job to an illegal immigrant you would likely care more. So maybe you aren't a sociopath. :)

twoquestions 9y ago

In these instances, context matters a lot. Coworker: "My younger brother was killed in Iraq in 2007." You: "I voted for Bush." I'm sure you can see why Coworker wouldn't be pleased by your statement in this instance. I'm on the Left working at an oil company, so I feel your pain. It helps if you want to talk about these things to shift their Overton window slowly, not to expect tolerance for unthinkable actions right out of the gate (it's not right, but that's how it is). Liberals and Left-wingers are people too, and thus are vulnerable to the same tribal bullshit that some (luckily few) people on the Right and (luckily) fewer people on the Left are proud of. Despite all effort, you (general and specific) and they can't stop from feeling these tribal in-group feelings any more than they can just stop feeling thirsty after a day of not drinking any water. EDIT: One of these days I should write a post, How to Talk About Politics with People Who Disagree With You.

peoplewindow 9y ago
I agree with what you say, but your example of context seems to (unconsciously?) reflect your own politics. What if the coworker's brother signed up specifically to go to Iraq because he truly believed in the mission? What if the coworker's family viewed him as an all American hero? In that case, why would the coworker be upset? Your conversation leading to upset is based in the assumption that the coworker already shares your worldview in regard to the Iraq war. It's one I share too, so I can see why that'd be automatic, but I've met and known people who fought in Iraq. They didn't exactly seem ashamed!