8 ms·

'You are no longer my mother': How the election is dividing American families

61 points by andrewon 6y ago

steve_g 6y ago
It seems like this article solely blames Trump for this state of affairs. There's no agency given to the people who break off relationships based on political disagreement. It's all Trump's fault for being the most polarizing figure in the world today. There's no question he's polarizing, but you can't blame him for every disagreement. My suggestion - don't disown your family over Trump.
- phizy 6y ago
  I've disowned by family for their willingness to reject common and simple facts, their hostile attitude, their repeated willingness to denigrate all I stand for, and an utter lack of self-awareness. I'll let you guess who they vote for, because I can't be bothered to care.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
    Did they reject you or only some facts and something you cared for?
    - phizy 6y ago
      What's the difference? Let me quote them directly: "Oh, you're one of THOSE people." (What people?) "Trump is not being impeached." (Simple to verify, not up for debate.) "Biden is not Trump's opponent." (Didn't need to be questioned, but apparently it's also up for debate?) "There is no truth." (Then what are we talking about?) "You can't trust CNN." (But anyone with a YouTube account and a webcam is trustworthy.) "Vindman is from Ukraine, so we don't know what his loyalties are." (You can't tell how trustworthy a person is based on where they were born. Textbook racism.) "Watch the DOJ." (My spy van is in the shop and I lack a desire to confirm your biases.) "I love you." (You can't cross a bridge after you've just burned it to the ground.) The fact is, a person can only form correct beliefs if they test those beliefs in the crucible of reality. Sitting on the couch in some shit-smelling hoarder's hovel living off of your retirement is not a recipe for finding the truth. Beliefs must have consequences, and as a consequence of their beliefs, they won't be seeing me alive again. It's really the least I can do. I'm not interested in playing a stooge for them to gleefully fling their ignorance at.
      - Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
        The difference is that your beliefs are not you. Beliefs change and you remain. They disagree with your beliefs but not with you. They do love you.
sokoloff 6y ago
> “He specifically told me, ‘You are no longer my mother, because you are voting for Trump’,” Gomez, 41, a personal care worker in Milwaukee, told Reuters. Their last conversation was so bitter that she is not sure they can reconcile, even if Trump loses his re-election bid. I have a pretty strong suspicion that they didn't have the greatest relationship before that final moment. Otherwise, that's a massive over-reaction (same as it would be if the vote were reversed).
varispeed 6y ago
I wish people were taught in school about the various manipulation techniques that are being used against them. Unfortunately that would mean currently both sides would not be voteable, but that should in the long run make democracy healthier. Currently democracy is legal, because if you have enough money you can easily manipulate people into anything, and if you can print money they your power is unrestricted. I believe that whoever wins, there will be a minor difference to day to day life, except that one side will have this group oppressed and the other side another, whoever wins. If you use divide and conquer, you need to follow up with the work against imaginary threats to be seen as trustworthy.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  State committees, bureaucracies and advisory boards (it varies by state) that set school curriculum are ultimately accountable to politicians. They will never include strong education against indoctrination or how to balance a budget because that would be biting the hand that feeds them. Look at the incentives and the outcome is obvious. Nobody wants to do things that might draw the ire of their boss's boss's boss.
  - spamizbad 6y ago
    They won’t do that because governments do not, in fact, need balanced budgets.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    While bureaucracies are formally under politicians' control, politicians are elected, and bureaucrats are not. They easily outlast politicians, and definitely set their own conditions for politicians to follow if they don't want their orders obstructed and sabotaged. I would hazard to say that it's in the bureaucrats' best interest to have politicians unpleasant and unqualified, of the "both worse" kind. Interestingly, quite often election candidates tend to resemble this description, at least if their opposition is to be believed.
- smt88 6y ago
  This "both sides are the same" narrative is utter nonsense. If one side wins, handling of Coronavirus will be based on science and medical advice. Relief bills will be passed, allowing people to pay rent. Thousands more will live. That will make a huge difference in daily life. The last time Democrats had any real power, they gave health care to people with pre-existing conditions. That has changed my life and the lives of millions of other people. Maybe your daily life would be the same either way. Don't try to generalize that to the rest of us.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
> “ “The damage is done. In people’s minds, Trump is a monster. It’s sad. There are people not talking to me anymore, and I’m not sure that will change,” said Gomez, who is a fan of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and handling of the economy.” The real shame here is that she seems to mistakenly think her son is actively cutting her out. If she views Trump’s actions towards immigrants as defensible or even good, which is something that at this point is just utterly incompatible with the basics of civil society, then her own actions are forcing people away from her. It’s sad to see people clinging to aspects of Trump, going down with the ship like this, still so lacking of self-awareness of the extreme degree of (not hyperbole) fascist violence inherent in Trump’s presidency, that she can’t realize this is entirely and unequivocally her own doing. I wish we were still at a point where it was ideologically tractable to vote for Trump not because you like him but because of benign centrist Republican ideas, like generally lower taxes or states rights (regardless of the debates around these, at least they are legitimate, debatable aspects of the moderate Republican core). But we are waaaay past that possibility, to the point where a vote for Trump that claims to be based on other innocuous, normal-time-debatable right-leaning issues is no longer that, and is literally (again, not hyperbole) a tacit vote for fascism and anti-science.
- gadders 6y ago
  I think you are one of the people with extreme positions like those discussed in the original article.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Interesting. I view the OP's position as a moral one. If you think it is extreme then you're suggesting one compromise ones morals to "come to the center" or whatever. I mean, to throw in an admitted straw man, were abolitionists too extreme 150+ years ago?
    - gadders 6y ago
      No, abolitionists weren't too extreme, but for your straw man to work you'd have to think that Trump has done some things analogous to maintaining slavery.
istjohn 6y ago
As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to also maintain friendships across political divides. But some of my deepest regrets are the times when I was timidly silent while bigotry was voiced. In addition to the intrinsic value of family and community, I think we can catalyze change in our communities if we refuse to dehumanize the people we disagree with and engage them with empathy. But it's also easy to lapse into mere complicity.
- watwut 6y ago
  > As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to maintain friendships across political divides, too. I learned that self-restraint too. But then there was point where I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased. I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. If I would openly disagree, I would be seen as problem. And they would not use the same restraint nor be expected to. One set of opinions was allowed and the other one was not. Empathy gotta go two ways. Otherwise it is situation in which my kids hear something quite anti-semitic on occasion, but I am expected to be silent in response.
  - criley2 6y ago
    To provide a story of the opposite, I'm another atheist with very center-left politics with extremely Trumpy Christian family (they moved out to a rural area, prepping with guns and supplies, the whole nine yards) and I never took the "high road" of being silent with them when they went on their tirades. My rule was I never brought up religion or politics, but I would defend my religion and politics to the fucking end of the earth if you bring it up, condescend to me, attack my views with conservative media talking points etc. And my family learned, through the years, to never ever touch the subject because it isn't worth another big the-family-versus-me as I'm max volume playing evidence debunking their stories on my cellphone louder than they can shout their next narrative. It doesn't hurt that my grandfather is known to be "extraordinarily stubborn" and so, if he can, so can I, and if they accept his, they accept mine. The result is very civil and completely de-politicized family events. It's actually lovely for everyone. They know to turn Fox News off and keep their opinions on politics to themselves, and we've continued to have an active and healthy relationship even though they live much further away. Standing your ground isn't a bad option, because if your family doesn't respect you at all, why would you want to be around them anyway?
watwut 6y ago
This article is getting flagged and unflagged repeatedly.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Because it is about US politics directly. Per the guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics PS - I didn't flag, or unflag the story. Just providing context.
sandworm101 6y ago
We all have family members from which we, either actively or passively, have disconnected because of their beliefs. In the past we just called them crazy people but now "crazy" and "politics" are joined at the hip. For me it was relatives who started believing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then Obama was a secret muslim. Then climate change was a "China hoax". Then came rants against vaccinations. Today, masks are a democrat tool to wipe out old people. The final inevitable descent into madness will be flat earth. That hasn't come to them yet but it will. Not wanting to witness that final plunge, a few years ago some of the younger members of the family actively disconnected from them. We do not invite them to family gatherings and stay away from those at which they may appear. It is a cliche, but it is about the kids. We don't want the new generation hearing speeches about how chinese people are out to destroy democracy, or how teachers are all liars because schools teach "the climate hoax". There is only so much crazy we can mitigate.
- Steltek 6y ago
  You forgot "Little children were not mass murdered at school and the grieving parents are all faking it". The beliefs espoused by certain people are abhorrent to the point that you wonder if they're still human beings.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    We aren't a very gun-heavy family and so the crisis actors subject has not come up.
JeremyBanks 6y ago
Trump has forced horrible people to show themselves. It's painful, but the cancer must be cut out.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  Nevermind the fact that the exact "crime" he was impeached for, without any substantive evidence was done exactly by the former Vice President's son, with hard evidence?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    I'm glad the former Vice President's son isn't running for president!
    - noworriesnate 6y ago
      Here's a video of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine in order to get the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter fired. https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=3109 https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=3109
      - mmastrac 6y ago
        "But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim. "It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what...
    - 6y ago
vmception 6y ago
> A September report by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 80% of Trump and Biden supporters said they had few or no friends who supported the other candidate. As someone in the other 20% there are some weird things going on that are kind of new, for example, I can see that the caricatures of "the other side" are pretty inaccurate. "Both sides" care about different things, they weigh different things differently, the thing they don't like about the other side isn't what the other side weighs heavily or actively thinks about at all. Yes, whatever side immediately came to mind is different from what someone else immediately thought of. No, I'm not saying "both sides are the same". Yes, there are some things done the same and it is weird that people tune out as soon as "both sides" was said in any context whatsoever, as if there is a better word to convey the same message. Yes, someone on the other side was just as quick to say the exact same thing to convince me that both sides are not remotely similar and cannot be mentioned in the same context. How original and unique. Yes, it's weird that you all aren't talking to each other and don't even realize you're both doing the same things to maintain cohesion and temporary power by vilifying everyone that's not putting your party on a pedestal, whether they actually are on "the other side" or simply not repeating the stances verbatim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
motohagiography 6y ago
To add a fresh view on this: Not American, so outside this particular story, but these artifacts of language are causing people to isolate, index on invisible and intangible impressions, confuse real people with symbols and objects, and act out by attacking people who they perceive as representing reflections of their internal model. When you abstract away the meaning from television, the internet and entertainment, and look at what people physically do, they sit in front of a flickering light, talk themselves into a froth, and then go out and kill each other. There is a virus, and it is causing mass panic. It dislodges your ability to index on your physical experience of self and replaces it with an externally reflected one transmitted through language and filtered through an ego that has been isolated and fed like a foie gras duck or a veal calf. Whether you want to call it evil, a virus, society, or poor upbringing, doesn't matter. If it's words, it's a filtered reflection, and very likely a simulation for the virus to propagate its primitives and make a place for itself in your mind. I don't see how this view could be any crazier than the ones causing people to wreck their own relationships and societies. If you can, help others step back.
nine_zeros 6y ago
Personally for me, it was the double standards of boomers that made me raise my voice within the family. My grandparents came "illegally" from Europe. Caging their kids would have caused outrage. They are outraged at trees dying in their parks but its ok if entire cities drown elsewhere. White mentally deranged criminal => "poor kid", black criminal "those uncivilized people". We want tax cuts but we also want massive social security and medicare payments. And the worst of all, the mental gymnastics to justify Trump's actions. I raised my voice and have only cursory ties with them. My entire life is ahead of me and I don't want to go back to their era of bigotry. These boomers will die in 15 years but I can't leave their racist, sexist and selfish legacy to myself and my children.
blhack 6y ago
It’s twitter. I genuinely believe in the next 10 years or less, twitter will be looked at the way we look at cigarettes. There was a point when cigarettes were looked at as a mere nuisance, but eventually we as a society realized how terrible they are for us. That’s twitter. And to be clear: I mean twitter specifically. Facebook and the others are bad as well, but twitter is by far the worst. Tech journalists don’t tend to write about it though since they are the ones using it. They’d rather write about Facebook. You know: those dastardly OTHERS who are RUINING things and need to better. Pay attention!
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  I disagree. Mainly because Twitter doesn't mix politics and relationships as much as the average Facebook feed. Most people don't use twitter to interact with their family - it's Facebook where idealogical differences start harming real world relationships.
keiferski 6y ago
We used to have the cultural value of keeping politics separate from work and (mostly) separate from family. In the workplace, this was fairly strongly enforced via the concept of "professionalism", i.e. not personal. You didn't discuss your political or religious views because the workplace wasn't the appropriate venue. On the family front, you didn't discuss religion or politics at Thanksgiving. And so on. But, furthermore, I think, because the concept of "personal" was precisely that - personal, private. There was no social media ecosystem encouraging you to output your entire self into the public sphere. The fact that voting is private is an indicator that in the final analysis, your political opinions should be a private matter. In the last few decades, we've seen a wholesale rejection of this idea. Instead, you should "bring your whole self to work". Your political opinions are now a key, or even the only, important part of your personality. Markers of professionalism like wearing a suit or not swearing at work are seen as antiquated. A lot of this polarization would evaporate, IMO, if we brought back the professional-personal distinction and strongly enforced it.
- drewcoo 6y ago
  This is a pure and perfect version of the past that did not exist. Bigotry was always here. And even in the few "polite" places that smacked of Leave It To Beaver that didn't talk about "those people" at the dinner table, it was just under the surface. Or, like sexism, openly accepted, so don't worry your pretty little head about it, honey. Social media did not change this. The larger change has to do with where people get their news. It's not the same big 3 networks anymore. There are fewer actual local news sources (like papers). The stuff that's marketed to people as news is targeted but generally untethered from everyday life. It can be pretty raw ideology.
  - keiferski 6y ago
    People have problems. That's society. The issue here is that society is ceasing to function because the mechanisms for addressing said problems have failed and the dam has burst, overwhelming every other aspect of life. It's unsustainable.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
peterwwillis 6y ago
If you can't forgive people for their mistakes, that says more about you than about them.
- rutledge87 6y ago
  Let's not lose nuance about the scales of "mistakes" about Transcendental Meditation or bell bottoms with taking and placing children in concentration camps (places where people are kept against their will, but not killed) when beliefs and choices reveal fundamental attributes about a person such as their ability to be manipulated, willingness to ignore criminal behavior, and acceptance of scapegoating as a panacea. Does forgiveness forget, condone, or excuse reprehensible behavior? If not, then how do we punish brutal malice that suddenly becomes normalized? As not Godwinnian, how do we forgive the next Nazi supporters? Also, perhaps these times provide a unique opportunity to identify who are truly awful human beings?
  - peterwwillis 6y ago
    First of all, Obama had already been putting immigrants in concentration camps, so I don't think that example works towards an argument of "this time it's beyond the pale". And "but think of the children!" is a very old trope. Forgiveness is about letting go of anger, of putting aside mistakes of the past. It doesn't mean you stop seeking justice, or holding people accountable. And seeking justice is complex. Nazi supporters should be forgiven just like anybody else. They should be tried and held responsible based on laws, but holding a grudge is counter-productive. Every human being is awful. That's what I think some people are missing here. There's nothing inherently more rotten in a Nazi than in you, you've just lived a different experience. You might have ended up a Nazi if you were unfortunate enough to grow up on the wrong side of life. And even Nazis can be rehabilitated, like prisoners can. But that doesn't happen just by punishing them. In a certain sense these 'truly awful' people are just ethically sick and need help. Are you going to go out of your way to help these people? Or, like the lepers, will you shun them? Is that latter decision just or ethical? Nobody has a responsibility to help anyone in this world, but when we choose to, we are exercising a morality that benefits us in multiple ways. On the other hand, when people look at others as less than them, and use that as justification to treat them poorly, that's what's really unjust.
vinceguidry 6y ago
A lot of this is due to the blatantly undemocratic actions Republicans have been taking to maintain their hold on power. There was a lot of this sort of familial strife during the run-up to the Civil War. Both sides, for different reasons, feel increasingly frustrated that their political wills aren't being fulfilled, and Trump's pure recklessness in, basically stating that he won't accept any result that isn't a victory, is making Democrats feel that nothing short of a landslide will ensure that this mess won't get worse. Peaceful power transitions have historically been one of America's great advantages, look to our Southern neighbor for just how not having that can hold us back.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bmitc 6y ago
My worry that has happened with Trump’s presidency is the normalization that has occurred. For example, it is not my impression or understanding that Trump has any actual policies or stances and that he does not actually do any presiding. My understanding is that if he is not rallying, he is either tweeting, vacationing, or watching TV and barely takes on more than a few meetings a day. A president who reportedly spends upwards of six to eight hours a day watching TV is no president. The problem is that he is simply a caricature of a president, letting others do the actual policing making and tasks behind the scenes. For example, Trump doesn’t have anything to do with his own supposed immigration policies. They’re primarily written by a third generation Jewish immigrant who somehow is a white supremacist. The secondary effect of this normalization is the normalization of hate. That is, the idea that these policies rooted in hate and bigotry are somehow normalized into legitimate stances. It’s mind boggling to me that a person with the last name of Gomez as found in the article could somehow support policies that have Mexican children in concentration camps on U.S. soil. We’re all immigrants here who forcefully took this land. It’s mind boggling that anyone in the U.S. could hate immigrants enough to want them treated the way the Trump “presidency” has. It’s just very concerning. A president who is not a president is treated as one, and it legitimatizes his hateful and ignorant words. Trump likely has clinical personality disorders, and I would not be surprised if his mental capacity is extremely low. He took on running for presidency as yet another attempt to recover his brand and be a source of revenue, and it’s in all likelihood that if he loses, he will be launching his own TV network, i.e. continuing to abuse his presidency to further his brand. He basically only won in the first place due to the undue influence of Robert Mercer, a living breathing Bond villain. Trump is a literal cancer and has been used as a character actor by the Republican Party. That is it. Whether someone dislikes Democrats or whatever, you cannot argue for the legitimacy of Trump and his presidency.
JackFr 6y ago
No one is the villain in their own narrative. Approach people with a good faith belief that everyone want's the world to be a better place. They may be misguided, manipulated or misinformed, but they want a better world and a better life just like you do. And if your especially gifted with an open mind, accept that informed, intelligent, people of good will can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about policy.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  amen to this, if there's anything that's present across the political spectrum: hubris and joylessness
- Steltek 6y ago
  We could only be so lucky if they looked at facts instead of dismissing them as some new elaborate hoax, concocted just in time on Facebook.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  This is what my approach is, but I've found that it's very difficult to find people who disagree with me, but do so in good faith, and who are just as willing to be skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of mine, and I am of mine. I know from my personal growth that I've been wrong often in my beliefs about what is true in the world, and so I must account for that. I'm always prepared to change my mind when faced with contradictory facts. Unfortunately this is not a very common mindset. We are slaves to ideology and ego.
- brudgers 6y ago
  I'm sometimes a villain. I try to avoid it. I try to accept and acknowledge it when I am. Hard as it is, I have even apologized for what I have done to people who did not expect, let alone demand, an apology. There are people who don't act in good faith. People who will harm those who love them because those who love them deserve it. Thinking about it as agreeing to disagree is a categorical error. This is orthogonal to familial obligations one might observe. It is healthy to recognize that difference. To recognize that observance does not require assuming good will. By not making one's self vulnerable in the way that such an assumption makes one vulnerable. There are times for "my colleagues on the other side of the aisle." And there times to accept that some people are harmful to one's well being.
refracture 6y ago
Sometimes I feel like a real piece of crap for being relieved that my father isn't around to have these arguments with. I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter if he didn't pass away several months before the 2016 election. Not to say I don't miss the hell out of him.. but statements like "I don't remember being raised by a racist" when he'd throw around racial slurs to describe the then-current president led to a few fights that I didn't know how to reconcile. It felt like it was out of left field because I never saw such crap in my family growing up, but all of a sudden he was flooding with it because he didn't like Obama.
- apta 6y ago
  > I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter And that somehow automatically makes him a bad person? If you truly think that, I recommend rethinking your priorities and taking a self reflection look.
  - instaclay 6y ago
    I'm 99% certain they never called their father a bad person.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - refracture 6y ago
    Didn't say it would. My father was my best friend. He had flaws, like any of us. He was difficult to deal with when it came to politics because it could never be an 'agree to disagree' type of deal that I strive for whenever I disagree with somebody.. but we did so much together and it was really hard when we had to bury him. If he voted for Trump then so be it, I'd shake my head and get in the truck for that fishing trip he wants to take me on because that's way more important to me.
apta 6y ago
I'm honestly not surprised that this was the reaction coming from a leftist. Cutting off your mother for voting for Trump, even if you disagree with him, is just loathsome and disgusting. This is peak virtue signaling and cancel culture.
NoOneNew 6y ago
Y'all realize the silliness here? People are willing to end their family ties due to becoming a fan for a political figure. I don't care which side you are on, but to be hateful against someone close to you, literally an individual that would, I don't know, give/lend you money to eat if you're broke, just because they "support" someone. And yes, it's a two way street, which makes it even sicker. 99% of people will never meet these humans playing government. Which is all they are. Flawed humans. No matter how good or bad you think a politician is, you shouldn't revolve your life around them and their ideals. Just basing your personal ideals on someone else's bullshit marketing platform just so you can have an easy category bias against people is pretty fucked up. In truth, if you're a pro-politician anything, you're generally a complete idiot. Yea, unpopular opinion. But that was the real lesson from WW2. Don't follow any type of political trend or leader, no matter how well intentioned because the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Make your decisions for yourself and judge people on their own character and actions. But hey, everyone loves a good witch hunt mixed with a lynching.

61 points by andrewon 6y ago

It seems like this article solely blames Trump for this state of affairs. There's no agency given to the people who break off relationships based on political disagreement. It's all Trump's fault for being the most polarizing figure in the world today. There's no question he's polarizing, but you can't blame him for every disagreement. My suggestion - don't disown your family over Trump.

phizy 6y ago
I've disowned by family for their willingness to reject common and simple facts, their hostile attitude, their repeated willingness to denigrate all I stand for, and an utter lack of self-awareness. I'll let you guess who they vote for, because I can't be bothered to care.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
  Did they reject you or only some facts and something you cared for?
  - phizy 6y ago
    What's the difference? Let me quote them directly: "Oh, you're one of THOSE people." (What people?) "Trump is not being impeached." (Simple to verify, not up for debate.) "Biden is not Trump's opponent." (Didn't need to be questioned, but apparently it's also up for debate?) "There is no truth." (Then what are we talking about?) "You can't trust CNN." (But anyone with a YouTube account and a webcam is trustworthy.) "Vindman is from Ukraine, so we don't know what his loyalties are." (You can't tell how trustworthy a person is based on where they were born. Textbook racism.) "Watch the DOJ." (My spy van is in the shop and I lack a desire to confirm your biases.) "I love you." (You can't cross a bridge after you've just burned it to the ground.) The fact is, a person can only form correct beliefs if they test those beliefs in the crucible of reality. Sitting on the couch in some shit-smelling hoarder's hovel living off of your retirement is not a recipe for finding the truth. Beliefs must have consequences, and as a consequence of their beliefs, they won't be seeing me alive again. It's really the least I can do. I'm not interested in playing a stooge for them to gleefully fling their ignorance at.
    - Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
      The difference is that your beliefs are not you. Beliefs change and you remain. They disagree with your beliefs but not with you. They do love you.

sokoloff 6y ago

> “He specifically told me, ‘You are no longer my mother, because you are voting for Trump’,” Gomez, 41, a personal care worker in Milwaukee, told Reuters. Their last conversation was so bitter that she is not sure they can reconcile, even if Trump loses his re-election bid. I have a pretty strong suspicion that they didn't have the greatest relationship before that final moment. Otherwise, that's a massive over-reaction (same as it would be if the vote were reversed).

varispeed 6y ago

I wish people were taught in school about the various manipulation techniques that are being used against them. Unfortunately that would mean currently both sides would not be voteable, but that should in the long run make democracy healthier. Currently democracy is legal, because if you have enough money you can easily manipulate people into anything, and if you can print money they your power is unrestricted. I believe that whoever wins, there will be a minor difference to day to day life, except that one side will have this group oppressed and the other side another, whoever wins. If you use divide and conquer, you need to follow up with the work against imaginary threats to be seen as trustworthy.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
State committees, bureaucracies and advisory boards (it varies by state) that set school curriculum are ultimately accountable to politicians. They will never include strong education against indoctrination or how to balance a budget because that would be biting the hand that feeds them. Look at the incentives and the outcome is obvious. Nobody wants to do things that might draw the ire of their boss's boss's boss.
- spamizbad 6y ago
  They won’t do that because governments do not, in fact, need balanced budgets.
- nine_k 6y ago
  While bureaucracies are formally under politicians' control, politicians are elected, and bureaucrats are not. They easily outlast politicians, and definitely set their own conditions for politicians to follow if they don't want their orders obstructed and sabotaged. I would hazard to say that it's in the bureaucrats' best interest to have politicians unpleasant and unqualified, of the "both worse" kind. Interestingly, quite often election candidates tend to resemble this description, at least if their opposition is to be believed.
smt88 6y ago
This "both sides are the same" narrative is utter nonsense. If one side wins, handling of Coronavirus will be based on science and medical advice. Relief bills will be passed, allowing people to pay rent. Thousands more will live. That will make a huge difference in daily life. The last time Democrats had any real power, they gave health care to people with pre-existing conditions. That has changed my life and the lives of millions of other people. Maybe your daily life would be the same either way. Don't try to generalize that to the rest of us.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

> “ “The damage is done. In people’s minds, Trump is a monster. It’s sad. There are people not talking to me anymore, and I’m not sure that will change,” said Gomez, who is a fan of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and handling of the economy.” The real shame here is that she seems to mistakenly think her son is actively cutting her out. If she views Trump’s actions towards immigrants as defensible or even good, which is something that at this point is just utterly incompatible with the basics of civil society, then her own actions are forcing people away from her. It’s sad to see people clinging to aspects of Trump, going down with the ship like this, still so lacking of self-awareness of the extreme degree of (not hyperbole) fascist violence inherent in Trump’s presidency, that she can’t realize this is entirely and unequivocally her own doing. I wish we were still at a point where it was ideologically tractable to vote for Trump not because you like him but because of benign centrist Republican ideas, like generally lower taxes or states rights (regardless of the debates around these, at least they are legitimate, debatable aspects of the moderate Republican core). But we are waaaay past that possibility, to the point where a vote for Trump that claims to be based on other innocuous, normal-time-debatable right-leaning issues is no longer that, and is literally (again, not hyperbole) a tacit vote for fascism and anti-science.

gadders 6y ago
I think you are one of the people with extreme positions like those discussed in the original article.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Interesting. I view the OP's position as a moral one. If you think it is extreme then you're suggesting one compromise ones morals to "come to the center" or whatever. I mean, to throw in an admitted straw man, were abolitionists too extreme 150+ years ago?
  - gadders 6y ago
    No, abolitionists weren't too extreme, but for your straw man to work you'd have to think that Trump has done some things analogous to maintaining slavery.

istjohn 6y ago

As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to also maintain friendships across political divides. But some of my deepest regrets are the times when I was timidly silent while bigotry was voiced. In addition to the intrinsic value of family and community, I think we can catalyze change in our communities if we refuse to dehumanize the people we disagree with and engage them with empathy. But it's also easy to lapse into mere complicity.

watwut 6y ago
> As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to maintain friendships across political divides, too. I learned that self-restraint too. But then there was point where I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased. I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. If I would openly disagree, I would be seen as problem. And they would not use the same restraint nor be expected to. One set of opinions was allowed and the other one was not. Empathy gotta go two ways. Otherwise it is situation in which my kids hear something quite anti-semitic on occasion, but I am expected to be silent in response.
- criley2 6y ago
  To provide a story of the opposite, I'm another atheist with very center-left politics with extremely Trumpy Christian family (they moved out to a rural area, prepping with guns and supplies, the whole nine yards) and I never took the "high road" of being silent with them when they went on their tirades. My rule was I never brought up religion or politics, but I would defend my religion and politics to the fucking end of the earth if you bring it up, condescend to me, attack my views with conservative media talking points etc. And my family learned, through the years, to never ever touch the subject because it isn't worth another big the-family-versus-me as I'm max volume playing evidence debunking their stories on my cellphone louder than they can shout their next narrative. It doesn't hurt that my grandfather is known to be "extraordinarily stubborn" and so, if he can, so can I, and if they accept his, they accept mine. The result is very civil and completely de-politicized family events. It's actually lovely for everyone. They know to turn Fox News off and keep their opinions on politics to themselves, and we've continued to have an active and healthy relationship even though they live much further away. Standing your ground isn't a bad option, because if your family doesn't respect you at all, why would you want to be around them anyway?

watwut 6y ago

This article is getting flagged and unflagged repeatedly.

Someone1234 6y ago
Because it is about US politics directly. Per the guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics PS - I didn't flag, or unflag the story. Just providing context.

sandworm101 6y ago

We all have family members from which we, either actively or passively, have disconnected because of their beliefs. In the past we just called them crazy people but now "crazy" and "politics" are joined at the hip. For me it was relatives who started believing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then Obama was a secret muslim. Then climate change was a "China hoax". Then came rants against vaccinations. Today, masks are a democrat tool to wipe out old people. The final inevitable descent into madness will be flat earth. That hasn't come to them yet but it will. Not wanting to witness that final plunge, a few years ago some of the younger members of the family actively disconnected from them. We do not invite them to family gatherings and stay away from those at which they may appear. It is a cliche, but it is about the kids. We don't want the new generation hearing speeches about how chinese people are out to destroy democracy, or how teachers are all liars because schools teach "the climate hoax". There is only so much crazy we can mitigate.

Steltek 6y ago
You forgot "Little children were not mass murdered at school and the grieving parents are all faking it". The beliefs espoused by certain people are abhorrent to the point that you wonder if they're still human beings.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  We aren't a very gun-heavy family and so the crisis actors subject has not come up.

JeremyBanks 6y ago

Trump has forced horrible people to show themselves. It's painful, but the cancer must be cut out.

dimitrios1 6y ago
Nevermind the fact that the exact "crime" he was impeached for, without any substantive evidence was done exactly by the former Vice President's son, with hard evidence?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mmastrac 6y ago
  I'm glad the former Vice President's son isn't running for president!
  - noworriesnate 6y ago
    Here's a video of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine in order to get the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter fired. https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=3109 https://youtu.be/Q0_AqpdwqK4?t=3109
    - mmastrac 6y ago
      "But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim. "It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what...
  - 6y ago

vmception 6y ago

> A September report by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 80% of Trump and Biden supporters said they had few or no friends who supported the other candidate. As someone in the other 20% there are some weird things going on that are kind of new, for example, I can see that the caricatures of "the other side" are pretty inaccurate. "Both sides" care about different things, they weigh different things differently, the thing they don't like about the other side isn't what the other side weighs heavily or actively thinks about at all. Yes, whatever side immediately came to mind is different from what someone else immediately thought of. No, I'm not saying "both sides are the same". Yes, there are some things done the same and it is weird that people tune out as soon as "both sides" was said in any context whatsoever, as if there is a better word to convey the same message. Yes, someone on the other side was just as quick to say the exact same thing to convince me that both sides are not remotely similar and cannot be mentioned in the same context. How original and unique. Yes, it's weird that you all aren't talking to each other and don't even realize you're both doing the same things to maintain cohesion and temporary power by vilifying everyone that's not putting your party on a pedestal, whether they actually are on "the other side" or simply not repeating the stances verbatim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

motohagiography 6y ago

To add a fresh view on this: Not American, so outside this particular story, but these artifacts of language are causing people to isolate, index on invisible and intangible impressions, confuse real people with symbols and objects, and act out by attacking people who they perceive as representing reflections of their internal model. When you abstract away the meaning from television, the internet and entertainment, and look at what people physically do, they sit in front of a flickering light, talk themselves into a froth, and then go out and kill each other. There is a virus, and it is causing mass panic. It dislodges your ability to index on your physical experience of self and replaces it with an externally reflected one transmitted through language and filtered through an ego that has been isolated and fed like a foie gras duck or a veal calf. Whether you want to call it evil, a virus, society, or poor upbringing, doesn't matter. If it's words, it's a filtered reflection, and very likely a simulation for the virus to propagate its primitives and make a place for itself in your mind. I don't see how this view could be any crazier than the ones causing people to wreck their own relationships and societies. If you can, help others step back.

nine_zeros 6y ago

Personally for me, it was the double standards of boomers that made me raise my voice within the family. My grandparents came "illegally" from Europe. Caging their kids would have caused outrage. They are outraged at trees dying in their parks but its ok if entire cities drown elsewhere. White mentally deranged criminal => "poor kid", black criminal "those uncivilized people". We want tax cuts but we also want massive social security and medicare payments. And the worst of all, the mental gymnastics to justify Trump's actions. I raised my voice and have only cursory ties with them. My entire life is ahead of me and I don't want to go back to their era of bigotry. These boomers will die in 15 years but I can't leave their racist, sexist and selfish legacy to myself and my children.

blhack 6y ago

It’s twitter. I genuinely believe in the next 10 years or less, twitter will be looked at the way we look at cigarettes. There was a point when cigarettes were looked at as a mere nuisance, but eventually we as a society realized how terrible they are for us. That’s twitter. And to be clear: I mean twitter specifically. Facebook and the others are bad as well, but twitter is by far the worst. Tech journalists don’t tend to write about it though since they are the ones using it. They’d rather write about Facebook. You know: those dastardly OTHERS who are RUINING things and need to better. Pay attention!

AlexandrB 6y ago
I disagree. Mainly because Twitter doesn't mix politics and relationships as much as the average Facebook feed. Most people don't use twitter to interact with their family - it's Facebook where idealogical differences start harming real world relationships.

keiferski 6y ago

We used to have the cultural value of keeping politics separate from work and (mostly) separate from family. In the workplace, this was fairly strongly enforced via the concept of "professionalism", i.e. not personal. You didn't discuss your political or religious views because the workplace wasn't the appropriate venue. On the family front, you didn't discuss religion or politics at Thanksgiving. And so on. But, furthermore, I think, because the concept of "personal" was precisely that - personal, private. There was no social media ecosystem encouraging you to output your entire self into the public sphere. The fact that voting is private is an indicator that in the final analysis, your political opinions should be a private matter. In the last few decades, we've seen a wholesale rejection of this idea. Instead, you should "bring your whole self to work". Your political opinions are now a key, or even the only, important part of your personality. Markers of professionalism like wearing a suit or not swearing at work are seen as antiquated. A lot of this polarization would evaporate, IMO, if we brought back the professional-personal distinction and strongly enforced it.

drewcoo 6y ago
This is a pure and perfect version of the past that did not exist. Bigotry was always here. And even in the few "polite" places that smacked of Leave It To Beaver that didn't talk about "those people" at the dinner table, it was just under the surface. Or, like sexism, openly accepted, so don't worry your pretty little head about it, honey. Social media did not change this. The larger change has to do with where people get their news. It's not the same big 3 networks anymore. There are fewer actual local news sources (like papers). The stuff that's marketed to people as news is targeted but generally untethered from everyday life. It can be pretty raw ideology.
- keiferski 6y ago
  People have problems. That's society. The issue here is that society is ceasing to function because the mechanisms for addressing said problems have failed and the dam has burst, overwhelming every other aspect of life. It's unsustainable.
raxxorrax 6y ago

peterwwillis 6y ago

If you can't forgive people for their mistakes, that says more about you than about them.

rutledge87 6y ago
Let's not lose nuance about the scales of "mistakes" about Transcendental Meditation or bell bottoms with taking and placing children in concentration camps (places where people are kept against their will, but not killed) when beliefs and choices reveal fundamental attributes about a person such as their ability to be manipulated, willingness to ignore criminal behavior, and acceptance of scapegoating as a panacea. Does forgiveness forget, condone, or excuse reprehensible behavior? If not, then how do we punish brutal malice that suddenly becomes normalized? As not Godwinnian, how do we forgive the next Nazi supporters? Also, perhaps these times provide a unique opportunity to identify who are truly awful human beings?
- peterwwillis 6y ago
  First of all, Obama had already been putting immigrants in concentration camps, so I don't think that example works towards an argument of "this time it's beyond the pale". And "but think of the children!" is a very old trope. Forgiveness is about letting go of anger, of putting aside mistakes of the past. It doesn't mean you stop seeking justice, or holding people accountable. And seeking justice is complex. Nazi supporters should be forgiven just like anybody else. They should be tried and held responsible based on laws, but holding a grudge is counter-productive. Every human being is awful. That's what I think some people are missing here. There's nothing inherently more rotten in a Nazi than in you, you've just lived a different experience. You might have ended up a Nazi if you were unfortunate enough to grow up on the wrong side of life. And even Nazis can be rehabilitated, like prisoners can. But that doesn't happen just by punishing them. In a certain sense these 'truly awful' people are just ethically sick and need help. Are you going to go out of your way to help these people? Or, like the lepers, will you shun them? Is that latter decision just or ethical? Nobody has a responsibility to help anyone in this world, but when we choose to, we are exercising a morality that benefits us in multiple ways. On the other hand, when people look at others as less than them, and use that as justification to treat them poorly, that's what's really unjust.

vinceguidry 6y ago

A lot of this is due to the blatantly undemocratic actions Republicans have been taking to maintain their hold on power. There was a lot of this sort of familial strife during the run-up to the Civil War. Both sides, for different reasons, feel increasingly frustrated that their political wills aren't being fulfilled, and Trump's pure recklessness in, basically stating that he won't accept any result that isn't a victory, is making Democrats feel that nothing short of a landslide will ensure that this mess won't get worse. Peaceful power transitions have historically been one of America's great advantages, look to our Southern neighbor for just how not having that can hold us back.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bmitc 6y ago

My worry that has happened with Trump’s presidency is the normalization that has occurred. For example, it is not my impression or understanding that Trump has any actual policies or stances and that he does not actually do any presiding. My understanding is that if he is not rallying, he is either tweeting, vacationing, or watching TV and barely takes on more than a few meetings a day. A president who reportedly spends upwards of six to eight hours a day watching TV is no president. The problem is that he is simply a caricature of a president, letting others do the actual policing making and tasks behind the scenes. For example, Trump doesn’t have anything to do with his own supposed immigration policies. They’re primarily written by a third generation Jewish immigrant who somehow is a white supremacist. The secondary effect of this normalization is the normalization of hate. That is, the idea that these policies rooted in hate and bigotry are somehow normalized into legitimate stances. It’s mind boggling to me that a person with the last name of Gomez as found in the article could somehow support policies that have Mexican children in concentration camps on U.S. soil. We’re all immigrants here who forcefully took this land. It’s mind boggling that anyone in the U.S. could hate immigrants enough to want them treated the way the Trump “presidency” has. It’s just very concerning. A president who is not a president is treated as one, and it legitimatizes his hateful and ignorant words. Trump likely has clinical personality disorders, and I would not be surprised if his mental capacity is extremely low. He took on running for presidency as yet another attempt to recover his brand and be a source of revenue, and it’s in all likelihood that if he loses, he will be launching his own TV network, i.e. continuing to abuse his presidency to further his brand. He basically only won in the first place due to the undue influence of Robert Mercer, a living breathing Bond villain. Trump is a literal cancer and has been used as a character actor by the Republican Party. That is it. Whether someone dislikes Democrats or whatever, you cannot argue for the legitimacy of Trump and his presidency.

JackFr 6y ago

No one is the villain in their own narrative. Approach people with a good faith belief that everyone want's the world to be a better place. They may be misguided, manipulated or misinformed, but they want a better world and a better life just like you do. And if your especially gifted with an open mind, accept that informed, intelligent, people of good will can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about policy.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
amen to this, if there's anything that's present across the political spectrum: hubris and joylessness
Steltek 6y ago
We could only be so lucky if they looked at facts instead of dismissing them as some new elaborate hoax, concocted just in time on Facebook.
jmcqk6 6y ago
This is what my approach is, but I've found that it's very difficult to find people who disagree with me, but do so in good faith, and who are just as willing to be skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of mine, and I am of mine. I know from my personal growth that I've been wrong often in my beliefs about what is true in the world, and so I must account for that. I'm always prepared to change my mind when faced with contradictory facts. Unfortunately this is not a very common mindset. We are slaves to ideology and ego.
brudgers 6y ago
I'm sometimes a villain. I try to avoid it. I try to accept and acknowledge it when I am. Hard as it is, I have even apologized for what I have done to people who did not expect, let alone demand, an apology. There are people who don't act in good faith. People who will harm those who love them because those who love them deserve it. Thinking about it as agreeing to disagree is a categorical error. This is orthogonal to familial obligations one might observe. It is healthy to recognize that difference. To recognize that observance does not require assuming good will. By not making one's self vulnerable in the way that such an assumption makes one vulnerable. There are times for "my colleagues on the other side of the aisle." And there times to accept that some people are harmful to one's well being.

refracture 6y ago

Sometimes I feel like a real piece of crap for being relieved that my father isn't around to have these arguments with. I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter if he didn't pass away several months before the 2016 election. Not to say I don't miss the hell out of him.. but statements like "I don't remember being raised by a racist" when he'd throw around racial slurs to describe the then-current president led to a few fights that I didn't know how to reconcile. It felt like it was out of left field because I never saw such crap in my family growing up, but all of a sudden he was flooding with it because he didn't like Obama.

apta 6y ago
> I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter And that somehow automatically makes him a bad person? If you truly think that, I recommend rethinking your priorities and taking a self reflection look.
- instaclay 6y ago
  I'm 99% certain they never called their father a bad person.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- refracture 6y ago
  Didn't say it would. My father was my best friend. He had flaws, like any of us. He was difficult to deal with when it came to politics because it could never be an 'agree to disagree' type of deal that I strive for whenever I disagree with somebody.. but we did so much together and it was really hard when we had to bury him. If he voted for Trump then so be it, I'd shake my head and get in the truck for that fishing trip he wants to take me on because that's way more important to me.

apta 6y ago

I'm honestly not surprised that this was the reaction coming from a leftist. Cutting off your mother for voting for Trump, even if you disagree with him, is just loathsome and disgusting. This is peak virtue signaling and cancel culture.

NoOneNew 6y ago

Y'all realize the silliness here? People are willing to end their family ties due to becoming a fan for a political figure. I don't care which side you are on, but to be hateful against someone close to you, literally an individual that would, I don't know, give/lend you money to eat if you're broke, just because they "support" someone. And yes, it's a two way street, which makes it even sicker. 99% of people will never meet these humans playing government. Which is all they are. Flawed humans. No matter how good or bad you think a politician is, you shouldn't revolve your life around them and their ideals. Just basing your personal ideals on someone else's bullshit marketing platform just so you can have an easy category bias against people is pretty fucked up. In truth, if you're a pro-politician anything, you're generally a complete idiot. Yea, unpopular opinion. But that was the real lesson from WW2. Don't follow any type of political trend or leader, no matter how well intentioned because the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Make your decisions for yourself and judge people on their own character and actions. But hey, everyone loves a good witch hunt mixed with a lynching.