6 ms·

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you ha

> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it's not an irrational decision to decide they're probably not compatible.

gruez 5y ago
seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  Think of how much of a better world we would live in if everyone respected the individual private choices of others (What drugs you want to consume, what medical procedures you want to take part in, who you are allowed to marry and fall in love with). Unfortunately both the Left and the Right salivate at the thought of using the government's monopoly on violence to control people depending on what they think is for the good of "society".
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    That is my main political issue, but it comes with a major cavaet: where do you put the dividing line between humans? It is not as obvious as you might think, as both sides of the abortion comes down to the rights of the individual. Same thing, but with opposite supports on a vaccine mandate.
claytongulick 5y ago
I feel like your comment supports the parent's point. Lack of tolerance is the issue. Which is ironic, given that traditionally the left has been known as being much more tolerant than the right. I don't see that anymore, online or with the people I know personally. My family has split over it. My brother refuses to ever speak to my father again because he believes my father voted for Trump. The excuses I hear are similar to your comment, but mostly boil down to: 1) take a wedge issue 2) build a strawman around it and a dramatic case that doesn't reflect reality 3) somehow make it personal and claim victimhood 4) use that victim status to demonize the "attacker"
JohnWhigham 5y ago
OP presents a perfectly reasonable statement and your rebuttal is to strawman/argue in bad faith. You are exactly who they are talking about. You are part of the problem.
- ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
  I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that it's not unreasonable to want to disassociate from a person who is actively supporting a movement/platform/party that actively works to harm/negatively affect them, especially when it's at a legislative level. EDIT: Also, to be clear, my original comment was intended for the stat presented that people are saying they wouldn't date someone that voted Republican. I think it's even less unreasonable to not romantically pursue a stranger with political incompatibilities
brightball 5y ago
You’re illustrating my point here. You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements. This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label. I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The bulk of opposition is to late term abortions. The lack of reasonable discourse is what sets extremes in place. Another example: Tim Scott’s police reform bill that he thought could move forward with bipartisan support. It didn’t solely because Democratic leadership wanted to ensure that it remained an election issue. We still have no movement on an equivalent bill since Biden took office. Examples like this make it pretty clear that the party leadership doesn’t actually want to resolve issues. Allowing the people who benefit from division to keep doing it will only make things worse.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > opposition is to late term abortions That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?
  - brightball 5y ago
    3rd trimester
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Again, barely actually happening: https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-abortions-are-really-performed-in-the-united-states/ https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-aborti... and used as a pretext for restricting all abortion by dishonest legislators and advocates. To the extent that it does happen it's often in situations where the mother's life is in danger, and it was a particularly nasty death in such situation that _finally_ got Ireland to change its constitution.
- ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
ninorata 5y ago
The left talking about body autonomy in 2021... the irony.

gruez 5y ago

seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"

oceanplexian 5y ago
Think of how much of a better world we would live in if everyone respected the individual private choices of others (What drugs you want to consume, what medical procedures you want to take part in, who you are allowed to marry and fall in love with). Unfortunately both the Left and the Right salivate at the thought of using the government's monopoly on violence to control people depending on what they think is for the good of "society".
- tomjen3 5y ago
  That is my main political issue, but it comes with a major cavaet: where do you put the dividing line between humans? It is not as obvious as you might think, as both sides of the abortion comes down to the rights of the individual. Same thing, but with opposite supports on a vaccine mandate.

claytongulick 5y ago

I feel like your comment supports the parent's point. Lack of tolerance is the issue. Which is ironic, given that traditionally the left has been known as being much more tolerant than the right. I don't see that anymore, online or with the people I know personally. My family has split over it. My brother refuses to ever speak to my father again because he believes my father voted for Trump. The excuses I hear are similar to your comment, but mostly boil down to: 1) take a wedge issue 2) build a strawman around it and a dramatic case that doesn't reflect reality 3) somehow make it personal and claim victimhood 4) use that victim status to demonize the "attacker"

JohnWhigham 5y ago

OP presents a perfectly reasonable statement and your rebuttal is to strawman/argue in bad faith. You are exactly who they are talking about. You are part of the problem.

ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm stating that it's not unreasonable to want to disassociate from a person who is actively supporting a movement/platform/party that actively works to harm/negatively affect them, especially when it's at a legislative level. EDIT: Also, to be clear, my original comment was intended for the stat presented that people are saying they wouldn't date someone that voted Republican. I think it's even less unreasonable to not romantically pursue a stranger with political incompatibilities

brightball 5y ago

You’re illustrating my point here. You’re assuming that everyone fully believes and supports anything in the party platform, especially the most extreme elements. This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label. I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The bulk of opposition is to late term abortions. The lack of reasonable discourse is what sets extremes in place. Another example: Tim Scott’s police reform bill that he thought could move forward with bipartisan support. It didn’t solely because Democratic leadership wanted to ensure that it remained an election issue. We still have no movement on an equivalent bill since Biden took office. Examples like this make it pretty clear that the party leadership doesn’t actually want to resolve issues. Allowing the people who benefit from division to keep doing it will only make things worse.

pjc50 5y ago
> opposition is to late term abortions That's not what's actually happened in legislation though, is it? And there wasn't a huge "late term" abortion problem in the first place, was there? And what are you considering "late term"?
- brightball 5y ago
  3rd trimester
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Again, barely actually happening: https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-abortions-are-really-performed-in-the-united-states/ https://drjengunter.com/2016/10/27/how-many-late-term-aborti... and used as a pretext for restricting all abortion by dishonest legislators and advocates. To the extent that it does happen it's often in situations where the mother's life is in danger, and it was a particularly nasty death in such situation that _finally_ got Ireland to change its constitution.
ilikecakeandpie 5y ago

ninorata 5y ago

The left talking about body autonomy in 2021... the irony.