4 ms·

I agree with the central thesis -- we should be shaking hands with our neighbors and looking to take back power and wealth from the rich. But how do you get ne

I agree with the central thesis -- we should be shaking hands with our neighbors and looking to take back power and wealth from the rich. But how do you get neighbors to shake hands when one believes that gay marriage is truly evil and another is gay? Both sides in America constantly fight bitterly over identity politics and it seems like many of those identities are irreconcilable with one another. I'm non binary and use singular they, and I've had some absolutely incredible vitriol directed at me for nothing beyond, "hi, I'm name. I use they/them pronouns. Nice to meet you!" How do we get past the part where people decide it's ok to tell me I should be sterilized or committed, and get to the point where we start turning towards the capital class together?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The key point is that identities don’t have to be reconciled. There’s no reason a hunter and a vegan can’t work together on common problems, even though they don’t like or particularly respect each other’s lifestyles. On many hit button issues, unfortunately including nonbinary people, we’ve just lost this common understanding that working with someone neither constitutes an endorsement of how they live nor requires them to endorse how you live.
- HelloNurse 6y ago
  There's also the understanding that working with someone doesn't mean taking an inappropriate interest in their gender identity, their romantic interests, their health, how they vote, and so on.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I consider 'reconciled' to include 'willing to work with'. The behavior I'm calling out are, for example, the people who get abusive immediately when faced with an out group member. I can work with people whose personal views I consider morally bankrupt. If they start threatening others because of who those others are, that's a problem. And it's an uncomfortably common problem. People have asked about my politics, and I'll often say simply, "I'm a democratic socialist." and I've had people tell me I'm "a cursed person who has drunk from the trough of the demons" and that I'm "here to destroy freedom and the constitution." Those aren't exaggerations, those are real quotes in response to a short introduction. I'd be thrilled to get to the point where I could work alongside those types of people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lostcolony 6y ago
Yeah; that's really where I tend to give up too. If we can't start with accepting the others' right to exist and be treated with respect, there's no room to find common ground and actually build anything. It's why I find it so interesting (and concerning) how people respond to, say, college, or urban areas, coming from rural and more homogeneous ones. Some people find themselves realizing that those who are different than them...aren't so different, and learn to accept and respect others despite those differences. Others resist, seeking out others like themselves, building a bubble to operate in, avoiding the 'other', and become even less tolerant than they were before (while also demonizing the 'liberal brainwashing' happening in colleges and big cities and the like, that they saw happening around them).
yourapostasy 6y ago
Not advocating prescriptives, just sharing what has worked for me in my limited personal experience. YMMV. I keep the initial focus on them and I first introduce myself as a blank canvas with a known role between us. "Hi, what's your name, my name is yourapostasy your new neighbor/who waves at you on your 0500h run every day/who the mailman mixes up our mail all the time/etc." Then elicit details of "their story". People pretty universally love talking about themselves. Somewhere in that tapestry are common threads, and I build upon that. I've fortunately never met someone through this approach so odiously unrelatable we could not bond over something they care about. After that, it is a matter of time and resources put in the relationship, as long as you maintain a Nash Equilibrium. The more time and resources, the more differences you both will generally tolerate; not a linear relationship, but everyone I've met has a "clearing price" to voluntarily associate with another. I don't think in terms of "take back power and wealth from the rich", because there are too many layers between us for me to effectively address, and it doesn't scratch my agile itch. I instead have worked towards increasing both mutual assistance capabilities and self-sufficiency at the same time, and reducing my and others' reliance upon capital in an organic fashion. My position is that the capitalists (the 0.1%) have for all intents and purposes "won". They've "taken their 'ball' and gone home". The more I can decouple from capital "churn", the more I can save of myself and those I care for. There are some extremely broken systems (real estate, legal, political, medical, etc.) in the US that take unreasonable levels of capital to access for ordinary income citizens. Autarky isn't my goal; it's long-term consistent survival at an "acceptable" standard of living without requiring a poll tax of capital out of reach of ordinary income households. Sometimes that takes some involvement with capital, but preferably a more frugal method is used when feasible, trading off convenience/time/etc. that I have more readily available. I don't hate capital nor capitalists. I'm just (in the scheme of a US reality where booking a billion in annual individual income doesn't even place in the top 10 income list) capital poor and working around it as best I can. Let it be noted in this discussion however, that there are many US citizens who would give their left nut to be in my "poor" position; many of us by virtue of being on HN in a well-compensated industry (at this time, I never take good times for granted) are in a similar position. But if you're talking about grand "take them down" terms, I've found I've achieved far more stability, sooner, by pursuing the above path than getting all pissed about a system I have neither the capital nor power to help change at this time.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The key point is that identities don’t have to be reconciled. There’s no reason a hunter and a vegan can’t work together on common problems, even though they don’t like or particularly respect each other’s lifestyles. On many hit button issues, unfortunately including nonbinary people, we’ve just lost this common understanding that working with someone neither constitutes an endorsement of how they live nor requires them to endorse how you live.

HelloNurse 6y ago
There's also the understanding that working with someone doesn't mean taking an inappropriate interest in their gender identity, their romantic interests, their health, how they vote, and so on.
Pfhreak 6y ago
I consider 'reconciled' to include 'willing to work with'. The behavior I'm calling out are, for example, the people who get abusive immediately when faced with an out group member. I can work with people whose personal views I consider morally bankrupt. If they start threatening others because of who those others are, that's a problem. And it's an uncomfortably common problem. People have asked about my politics, and I'll often say simply, "I'm a democratic socialist." and I've had people tell me I'm "a cursed person who has drunk from the trough of the demons" and that I'm "here to destroy freedom and the constitution." Those aren't exaggerations, those are real quotes in response to a short introduction. I'd be thrilled to get to the point where I could work alongside those types of people.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lostcolony 6y ago

Yeah; that's really where I tend to give up too. If we can't start with accepting the others' right to exist and be treated with respect, there's no room to find common ground and actually build anything. It's why I find it so interesting (and concerning) how people respond to, say, college, or urban areas, coming from rural and more homogeneous ones. Some people find themselves realizing that those who are different than them...aren't so different, and learn to accept and respect others despite those differences. Others resist, seeking out others like themselves, building a bubble to operate in, avoiding the 'other', and become even less tolerant than they were before (while also demonizing the 'liberal brainwashing' happening in colleges and big cities and the like, that they saw happening around them).

yourapostasy 6y ago

Not advocating prescriptives, just sharing what has worked for me in my limited personal experience. YMMV. I keep the initial focus on them and I first introduce myself as a blank canvas with a known role between us. "Hi, what's your name, my name is yourapostasy your new neighbor/who waves at you on your 0500h run every day/who the mailman mixes up our mail all the time/etc." Then elicit details of "their story". People pretty universally love talking about themselves. Somewhere in that tapestry are common threads, and I build upon that. I've fortunately never met someone through this approach so odiously unrelatable we could not bond over something they care about. After that, it is a matter of time and resources put in the relationship, as long as you maintain a Nash Equilibrium. The more time and resources, the more differences you both will generally tolerate; not a linear relationship, but everyone I've met has a "clearing price" to voluntarily associate with another. I don't think in terms of "take back power and wealth from the rich", because there are too many layers between us for me to effectively address, and it doesn't scratch my agile itch. I instead have worked towards increasing both mutual assistance capabilities and self-sufficiency at the same time, and reducing my and others' reliance upon capital in an organic fashion. My position is that the capitalists (the 0.1%) have for all intents and purposes "won". They've "taken their 'ball' and gone home". The more I can decouple from capital "churn", the more I can save of myself and those I care for. There are some extremely broken systems (real estate, legal, political, medical, etc.) in the US that take unreasonable levels of capital to access for ordinary income citizens. Autarky isn't my goal; it's long-term consistent survival at an "acceptable" standard of living without requiring a poll tax of capital out of reach of ordinary income households. Sometimes that takes some involvement with capital, but preferably a more frugal method is used when feasible, trading off convenience/time/etc. that I have more readily available. I don't hate capital nor capitalists. I'm just (in the scheme of a US reality where booking a billion in annual individual income doesn't even place in the top 10 income list) capital poor and working around it as best I can. Let it be noted in this discussion however, that there are many US citizens who would give their left nut to be in my "poor" position; many of us by virtue of being on HN in a well-compensated industry (at this time, I never take good times for granted) are in a similar position. But if you're talking about grand "take them down" terms, I've found I've achieved far more stability, sooner, by pursuing the above path than getting all pissed about a system I have neither the capital nor power to help change at this time.