3 ms·

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, h

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.)

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.)