There is a recurring theme in thin arguments where it is argued that "the same people" argue two different, apparently contrasting things (without evidence.) T

There is a recurring theme in thin arguments where it is argued that "the same people" argue two different, apparently contrasting things (without evidence.) The reality is that there are some groupings of people with contradictory beliefs, but more realistically, each individual has a belief of each issue somewhere on a spectrum. Polarization has further grouped issues together, and attributed each stance as one side or the other, but this is not a useful way to explore issues or try to find the right balance or compromise for individual issues. You might be left-wing and also support a demilitarization of law enforcement, especially when you look at uneven responses to protests[0], but political affiliation is not nearly as consistent as that just based on race alone[1], despite the greater risk of lethal force being applied when you have black skin[2]. And if you are right-wing and support overrunning the Capitol and disrupting the election process, you believe what was done was right and a fight against a corrupt and oppressive government. But wherever you fall on the political spectrum, if you believe that the individuals broke the law by forcefully entering the Capitol, you may find it dutiful to respond to requests from the FBI to aide in identifying those individuals (particularly if you believe this behavior attacks an important component of elected representative democracy.) What keeps surprising me, though, is the failure to see President Donald Trump as an oppressor. He labels roughly half of his own citizens as enemies, discredits alternative sources of information (basically anyone that disagrees with him); accepting that behavior is a dangerous way to choose your political leaders. You should strive to unite the citizens, and your government should not be the strongest, loudest voice you listen to, because you need checks and balances against government controlled information. [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-response-to-the-capitol-breach-wasnt-an-aberration/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-respo... [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-two-party-system-obscures-the-complexity-of-black-americans-politics/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-two-party-syste... [2] https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... > The finding of elevated risk for Black victims in the Mental Health Crisis group suggests two worrisome features of police killings: First, training protocols focused solely on mental health may need to be redesigned to incorporate issues of greater perceptions of threat among Black civilians. Second, race may be more salient than other factors in the decision to use lethal force on a suspect across circumstances. This is particularly worrisome given the additional details of flight and threat in killings with less substantial bases for reasonableness. In other words, race appears to distinguish these killings even after taking into account the additional factors that might justify an officer’s use of lethal force. Police killings, then, are neither race-neutral nor linked to specific features of the incident.