3 ms·

I think the author is ultimately wrong. * I'll leave a trigger warning * Let's have a real conversation. - Half of the US wants their country, traditions and

I think the author is ultimately wrong. * I'll leave a trigger warning * Let's have a real conversation. - Half of the US wants their country, traditions and values - Half of the US doesn't want a country (no border), upended traditions and no values There are two countries and will destroy each other. One country believes the world is going to end from climate change; that COVID19 is 10-100x more deadly than it actually is; that men can transition to women; that abortion is not murder.. I can go on. The other believes the climate is always changing, but humans can adapt over years; that COVID19 is only 5x-10x more deadly than it actually is; and that a man can be a eunuch and dress like a woman, but still is not a woman; that abortion is murder... again, I can go on. The polarization isn't really mend-able. Both sides believe in polar opposites. Only one side believes this is the land of the free where anything is possible. The other side wants believes it needs to impose it's will to "stop climate change", "stop the spread", "stop the hate". Don't you see it!? The hypocrisy of it? Only one side wants to take away peoples ability to work, to travel, to raise a family, to educate your children, even your bodily autonomy. This polarization is driven by hate. Hatred of traditions and of a history. > “With those three words—‘very fine people’—the president showed that he was sympathetic to the men who staged the most highly publicized march for racism and antisemitism in the United States in many decades.” Yes, because there were "many 'very fine people' on both sides", the omitted words are important. "There's no excuse for what happened" indeed. This stops when both sides can admit that last years riots which left at least 38 dead were not "mostly peaceful", but a deadly riot. Similarly, that "January 6" was not an "insurrection", but a deadly riot (as the FBI already stated). Yes, there were and are 'very fine people' on both sides, but the extremes on both sides are violent. We as a free people should not oppress our neighbors and that collaboration is required for us to continue as a civilization ... if we can even agree we want a civilization any more.

fizzyfizz 5y ago
You are the kind of person the authors are talking about. You're getting way too much of your information from social media. You think the people who are not in your defined tribe take cartoonishly extreme positions and therefore they must be stopped at all costs.
- lettergram 5y ago
  Millions of people are losing their ability to work. Can't be hired unless they have an irreversible medical procedure, can't be hired based on quotes for race, banned from social media, etc Do you understand? This is cartoonishly extreme and it is reality; I know multiple people living this experience today. Lost their job and can't get another one in the field of their expertise. People are in their own bubbles and not listening to those outside of their class / social circles. IMO this is the impact of having half of the views being censored on social media. So, I guess we agree in part.
  - adfgaertyqer 5y ago
    >Can't be hired unless they have an irreversible medical procedure How can something be extreme if it has been the status quo everywhere on the planet for 50 years? Something extreme is, by definition, unusual. You can think compulsory vaccinations are wrong, but there were compulsory vaccinations ten years ago. It has always been difficult for antivaxxers to find work, particularly in healthcare or education.
    - lettergram 5y ago
      > there were compulsory vaccinations ten years ago That’s simply not true. People didn’t used to need to show papers to go inside McDonald’s in NYC. Similarly, there are many many laws against discriminating based on medical status and they always had religious exemptions. Employers are ignoring that at the moment and there are hundreds to thousands of ongoing lawsuits atm. And I know many people who were and are working in healthcare without vaccines. Some of whom have lost their ability to work only the past 6 months. Anyway, it appears pretty unusual. There weren’t many of these issues 4-5 years ago. So clearly something extreme happened.
      - adfgaertyqer 5y ago
        > there are many many laws against discriminating based on medical status There are laws requiring discrimination based on vaccination status and have been for your entire life. >religious exemptions Please. There is a tiny, tiny minority of people who actually object to vaccinations on religious grounds. This is an excuse.
cblconfederate 5y ago
But disagreement is not equivalent to polarization. Polarization means that the middle grounds are not inhabited and everyone takes shelter at the poles. They grow too far apart to even hear each other. Most people can still remember a time when this wasn't the case, in fact the most interesting thing about politics was listening to people arguing and trying to convince each other.

fizzyfizz 5y ago

You are the kind of person the authors are talking about. You're getting way too much of your information from social media. You think the people who are not in your defined tribe take cartoonishly extreme positions and therefore they must be stopped at all costs.

lettergram 5y ago
Millions of people are losing their ability to work. Can't be hired unless they have an irreversible medical procedure, can't be hired based on quotes for race, banned from social media, etc Do you understand? This is cartoonishly extreme and it is reality; I know multiple people living this experience today. Lost their job and can't get another one in the field of their expertise. People are in their own bubbles and not listening to those outside of their class / social circles. IMO this is the impact of having half of the views being censored on social media. So, I guess we agree in part.
- adfgaertyqer 5y ago
  >Can't be hired unless they have an irreversible medical procedure How can something be extreme if it has been the status quo everywhere on the planet for 50 years? Something extreme is, by definition, unusual. You can think compulsory vaccinations are wrong, but there were compulsory vaccinations ten years ago. It has always been difficult for antivaxxers to find work, particularly in healthcare or education.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    > there were compulsory vaccinations ten years ago That’s simply not true. People didn’t used to need to show papers to go inside McDonald’s in NYC. Similarly, there are many many laws against discriminating based on medical status and they always had religious exemptions. Employers are ignoring that at the moment and there are hundreds to thousands of ongoing lawsuits atm. And I know many people who were and are working in healthcare without vaccines. Some of whom have lost their ability to work only the past 6 months. Anyway, it appears pretty unusual. There weren’t many of these issues 4-5 years ago. So clearly something extreme happened.
    - adfgaertyqer 5y ago
      > there are many many laws against discriminating based on medical status There are laws requiring discrimination based on vaccination status and have been for your entire life. >religious exemptions Please. There is a tiny, tiny minority of people who actually object to vaccinations on religious grounds. This is an excuse.

cblconfederate 5y ago

But disagreement is not equivalent to polarization. Polarization means that the middle grounds are not inhabited and everyone takes shelter at the poles. They grow too far apart to even hear each other. Most people can still remember a time when this wasn't the case, in fact the most interesting thing about politics was listening to people arguing and trying to convince each other.