3 ms·

There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a b

There was a time where people could passionately debate politics, or even more personal issues such as abortion, and then still enjoy a game, party, or have a beer at the pub with someone you just passionately disagreed with on another topic. It seems today if persons / groups have an ideological opposition in anything, they must treat their opposition as if they are immoral and completely banish them from their lives When was this mythical time? It wasn't too long ago when abortion clinics were being bombed and abortion doctors were gunned down at their homes and places of work. In living memory are periods when anti-war and civil rights protestors were set upon by dogs and firehoses. Gun companies were boycott for cooperating with gun-control measures. There was the whole South Africa divestment movement. PMRC was doing it's best to "cancel" rock & rap, Terry Rakolta was doing her level best to get Married with Children kicked off the network. And let's not forget Robert Bork. Americans have always been passionate about issues, only the platforms and terminology are new.

mtberatwork 6y ago
Let's not forget Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, etc.
evgen 6y ago
Yes, whenever you see someone wax nostalgic for some golden era in the past when everything was better you can be absolutely certain that this was a period when the group they most strongly identify with was in power and able to exert undue influence over everyone else. Why were they able to have those debates and then go have a beer? I am guessing it was because the stakes were low or abstract and did not have a direct impact on their life (like when you are the mid-20s upper middle-class white male that the OP clearly was during this golden age...) or because they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege. What annoys this person is not the conflict, but the possibility that they might face consequences -- consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with and certainly not something that they should ever need to consider.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  "privilege" is a weaponised term that relies on an overly simplistic view of power relationships. > they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege What is the alternative - people not being allowed to ignore some side of a debate? This isn't just about stakes/skin in the game; It's also about quality of the debate, and when someone has so much invested in the outcome that they won't allow their position to lose, the quality wrt a free exchange of ideas, isn't likely to happen. In fact, most versions of this can't be described as a debate at all. "shut up and listen" while being dictated to (without the right of reply) bears no similarities. This perspective is basically: "certain people believe the wrong things, so shouldn't discuss them; they should just be told what to think by the right people, and believe that.". If "wrong-thinkers" now want to debate amongst themselves without correction from self-appointed "right-thinkers", is it any wonder, even if they valued diversity of opinion/perspective? > consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with Can you give an example? There is a big difference between, say, the consequences of the topic of a discussion, and the consequences of the discussion itself.
Chris2048 6y ago
> It wasn't too long ago when abortion clinics were being bombed Yes, by a minority, because they where a minority. If the majority disagreed with the clinic, they would simply be illegal and no-one would need to seek extra-legal means of suppression. Divorcing this discussion from quantitate measures allows for a distorted view based on cherry-picked examples.

mtberatwork 6y ago

Let's not forget Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, etc.

evgen 6y ago

Yes, whenever you see someone wax nostalgic for some golden era in the past when everything was better you can be absolutely certain that this was a period when the group they most strongly identify with was in power and able to exert undue influence over everyone else. Why were they able to have those debates and then go have a beer? I am guessing it was because the stakes were low or abstract and did not have a direct impact on their life (like when you are the mid-20s upper middle-class white male that the OP clearly was during this golden age...) or because they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege. What annoys this person is not the conflict, but the possibility that they might face consequences -- consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with and certainly not something that they should ever need to consider.

Chris2048 6y ago
"privilege" is a weaponised term that relies on an overly simplistic view of power relationships. > they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege What is the alternative - people not being allowed to ignore some side of a debate? This isn't just about stakes/skin in the game; It's also about quality of the debate, and when someone has so much invested in the outcome that they won't allow their position to lose, the quality wrt a free exchange of ideas, isn't likely to happen. In fact, most versions of this can't be described as a debate at all. "shut up and listen" while being dictated to (without the right of reply) bears no similarities. This perspective is basically: "certain people believe the wrong things, so shouldn't discuss them; they should just be told what to think by the right people, and believe that.". If "wrong-thinkers" now want to debate amongst themselves without correction from self-appointed "right-thinkers", is it any wonder, even if they valued diversity of opinion/perspective? > consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with Can you give an example? There is a big difference between, say, the consequences of the topic of a discussion, and the consequences of the discussion itself.

Chris2048 6y ago

> It wasn't too long ago when abortion clinics were being bombed Yes, by a minority, because they where a minority. If the majority disagreed with the clinic, they would simply be illegal and no-one would need to seek extra-legal means of suppression. Divorcing this discussion from quantitate measures allows for a distorted view based on cherry-picked examples.