9 ms·

I'll provide an opposing viewpoint. In the last 10 years, I've lost friendships and family because people in my life have voted for candidates that stripped rig

I'll provide an opposing viewpoint. In the last 10 years, I've lost friendships and family because people in my life have voted for candidates that stripped rights away from women, minorities, etc. Having a vast difference between opinions is fine, but some of their decisions are fundamentally against my core beliefs and have done literal harm to many people I know. For that reason, terminating family and friendships has been absolutely worth it for me. Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected, we have no common ground, and it's pointless to tiptoe around these insanely harmful beliefs while maintaining a facade of friendship.

curiousgal 2y ago
[flagged]
- shw1n 2y ago
  agreed actually, I'm not preaching moderation or apolitical-ness, I'm arguing for merely acknowledging when a view is reason-based vs tribal in nature see my reply to rdegges
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  > The only people I have seen preaching moderation and apolitical discussion are those who voted for a particular candidate and either regret it and are too proud to admit it or are in peak cognitive dissonance. Hello. I preach moderation and apolitical discussion. You were vague about what "particular candidate" you meant, but if you meant Trump I didn't vote for him. In fact I did not cast a vote for any presidential candidate this year because none of them was someone I wanted in office. So, you now have seen at least one person who does not match your description. I preach moderation and apolitical discussion because the toxicity of political discussion is tearing our country in two. It is the single biggest threat our society faces today. If we cannot learn to resolve our differences (which starts with genuine attempts to reach each other even when others' actions seem reprehensible to us), this country will die. People do not, as a rule, choose evil. They are often mistaken about what is good, or disagree with each other on the best way to achieve good ends. But to round that off as "they are evil" is intellectually lazy and toxic to a civilized society. > You cannot not discuss politics when the political scene that dictates your daily life is governed by objectively evil people and subjectively less evil people on the other side of the aisle. If people were objectively evil, they would be considered evil by all. The fact that this has not happened is by itself proof that these people are not objectively evil, and that their evil is a matter of subjective views. If you wish to change others' views, the first step must be to recognize this so that you can formulate a plan of persuasion. Blasting people as "objectively evil" feels good, but accomplishes nothing.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    > I preach moderation and apolitical discussion because the toxicity of political discussion is tearing our country in two. It is the single biggest threat our society faces today. If we cannot learn to resolve our differences No, MAGA led by Trump, assisted by the Heritage Foundation and the tech billionaire Yarvin disciples are the biggest threat, because they have power and are in the process of implementing an autocratic takeover. It's crazy to me how many moderate, apolitical people don't see this. But I was that way a few months ago and started paying attention. > They are often mistaken about what is good, or disagree with each other on the best way to achieve good ends. I don't think there is any agreement to be had anymore. They don't care about the Constitution, they just want a king/CEO to force things through. What can you say about a president talking about a third term, making Canada a 51st state, claiming Greenland will 100% join the US, saying allies have been ripping us off, deporting people without due process because they had suspicious looking tattoos, calling for impeachment of judges because they ruled against Trump. Refusing to pay agencies what Congress already approved. Forcing big law agencies into making deals. Rand Paul gave a speech tonight about how the president doesn't have the power to tax the American people, which is what tariffs are. MAGA is out to win the culture and political war. Permanently. Wake up.
fatbird 2y ago
Elsewhere in this thread I've said that you can have non-judgemental, solicitous conversations with anyone, just to learn how they feel or think about something. But I agree with parent that it's perfectly justifiable to draw lines that limit potential relationships. You're not obligated to welcome everyone or tolerate views in others that have unbearable consequences for yourself. Vote with your feet.
daft_pink 2y ago
I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family. I’m pretty sure that they weren’t voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for. I’ll be honest that I’m Jewish and certain posts about Palestine where friends or non Jewish family have specifically expressed values that I find anti-myself I have completely cut out of my life. (not all beliefs about pro Palestine are anti-semetic, but most are) But I believe that most views at the party level are just different priorities or different view points and tolerance is necessary, because they are not directly in conflict.
- rdegges 2y ago
  I totally get where you're coming from. But regardless of their reason for voting for a candidate, if the net effect is that 150m+ women lost rights and other horrible outcomes, it's the same as endorsing it.
  - gmoot 2y ago
    It's not though. Looking at exit pool demographics might help if you're struggling to have any empathy for a Trump voter. They are largely working class and undereducated and astonishingly diverse for a republican candidate in recent memory.
    - hooverd 2y ago
      There's an amazing ability for people to not believe Trump is going to do the things he says. See Venezuelan immigrants getting screwed over or the recent tariffs.
    - Arainach 2y ago
      Empathy is for people who did something for understandable reasons. Trump hurt the poor the last time he was in office. Republicans literally WROTE DOWN ALL THEIR PLANS to hurt the poor and destroy the country well before the elections. Anyone who saw that and still voted for them gets no empathy.
pcblues 2y ago
If you remove yourself from a group, how will they change their minds without a dissenting opinion? I had to do it myself eventually, for my own sanity, but I believe this is still a real problem I am no longer addressing among my loved ones.
- rdegges 2y ago
  In my case, my goal isn't to change anyone's mind. It's to preserve sanity -- I can't in good faith "pretend" to get along and have normal conversations when people are actively engaging in behavior that directly harms myself and others.
  - fastball 2y ago
    Could you give an example of behavior that "directly" harmed yourself or others which caused you to sever ties? Politics is almost always indirect, usually with multiple levels of indirection.
    - Philpax 2y ago
      People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.
      - duckfan 2y ago
        How are their lives being destroyed? Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.
        Philpax 2y ago
        I don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/
bayarearefugee 2y ago
[flagged]
- vixen99 2y ago
  Priceless! Maybe you should move to the UK. Might be a job opening on the Guardian newspaper where you'd be welcomed with open arms. They think much the same about the British Conservatives and as for the new Reform Party - I guess they are beyond contempt.
- thinkingemote 2y ago
  Whataboutism is outsider tribe X also does thing B therefore B is not to be argued about. Instead maybe consider that it's thinking in tribes that's the issue at root. Personally I think it's impossible to stop being in a tribe. One should, if free, only be able to choose the tribe to join. We can't choose not to join a tribe. Most people either are not free to choose or not willing to consider that they can choose. Freedom to choose a tribe is very scary. Looking at how other countries do politics might help. For example did you know that conspiracy and paranoia is a characteristic strategy used in American politics? It's not used as much in other parts of the world. It's incredibly difficult for a person to see themselves as being paranoid or to believe in a conspiracy theory. But paranoid people who believe in conspiracy theories make great tribe members. It is literally a way to make people think of things as "us vs them"
shw1n 2y ago
I actually agree, I don't think people should merely dismiss differences on issues that strike at core values -- I think it's okay to cut friends/family off on huge differences in values. I have actually done this to both left and right-leaning friends. But what I'm arguing is that most people do not actually come to these values by way of thinking, but rather by blindly adopting them en masse from their chosen tribe. And when they choose not to be open to the possibility they might be wrong, then they have a religion, not a intellectually-driven view. This is okay if acknowledged imo, as per this sentence in the piece: "If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, that’s totally fair. I respect it like I’d respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
- KyleJune 2y ago
  One way people keep themselves in bubbles is by dismissing counter opinions as being tribal or trendy. Some opinions may appear that way because the people that have them seem similar. But it could also be due to them having similar backgrounds that led them to those opinions. For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
  - memonkey 2y ago
    Ah, for some reason, this is the comment that reminded me specifically of Nietzche's Master-Slave Morality[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
  - shw1n 2y ago
    correct, but then those individuals could explain those views popularity is not the same as tribal, tribal implies a blind following -- when individuals cannot explain why they believe something
  - sfink 2y ago
    > For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think. I'm willing to bet that in most cases, that is groupthink. It's hard to tell, because the conclusion is identical to one based on evidence, so you can't infer from the opinion whether it's groupthink or not. Sometimes you can tell by how someone holds a belief. Defensiveness, unwillingness to consider ways in which their chosen belief is not 100% wholly good, or shouting someone down are evidence of groupthink. For example: if someone brings up that in the past some inactive virus vaccines contained live viruses and a doctor claims that it never happened and could never happen, that's either groupthink or just a doctor sick of arguing with uninformed patients who has given up bothering with explaining the intellectual basis of his beliefs. My personal suspicion is that the 1% don't exist, that everyone's opinions and beliefs are a mishmash of tribalism and intellectual conclusions, it's just that the balance is very different in different people. I try very hard to make my stances intellectually based and evidence-driven, yet I continually discover that more and more of my deeply held policy positions aren't as clear cut and the real world is more nuanced than I thought. It's not like nuance is a binary thing (by definition!)
wileydragonfly 2y ago
Have they eaten two plates of food and enjoyed two drinks and then announced, “I’m a proud republican and support Trump 1000%?” Because that’s what we’re getting and we’re banning neighbors and friends we’ve had for 25 years over it.
gedy 2y ago
Maybe try understanding that expecting everyone to hold their nose and vote for the dog shit alternative "opposition" candidates provided is not a good litmus test for friendship either.
- gedy 2y ago
  And I say this with all sincerity: I'm also disappointed in my friends continually voting for Democratic candidates after Obama, as it's clear the DNC will do nothing as long as they can rely on these votes. They put up losing and awful candidates while supposedly our democracy depends on it. If I were to cut them off as friends for being part of the problem, that sounds unreasonable right?
  - themacguffinman 2y ago
    Why does it sound unreasonable? If it's problem that affects you deeply enough, if you sincerely believe that they're a core part of that problem, then I don't see why the person you replied to would be opposed to it.
    - gedy 2y ago
      Possibly, but I've seen a lot of passionate types also very often have double standards. E.g. "That's different!", etc.
skellington 2y ago
[flagged]
hattmall 2y ago
How does having less friends actually benefit you though? It just seems dumb, because presumably you were friends for some reason. I don't see how cutting them out creates a positive. It's like "Javy thinks men can become women", now I have one less person to play disc golf with. What's the point of that? People can have different opinions, it's not their only character trait.
- petersellers 2y ago
  I don't have friends for the sake of "having friends". I choose the people I want to hang out with because I enjoy their company and like/respect them. Being around them makes me happy. Similarly, people I dislike (rude or mean people, for example) make me unhappy when I'm around them. Cutting them out of my life is a net benefit there too, because I'm happier without them.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  It seems to me that when some of your friends want to imprison, institutionalize, or straight-up murder some of your other friends, not taking a side and standing up for the latter group of friends is being a shitty friend. And maybe "How does this benefit me?" isn't the right question to be asking in this situation. "Moderates" always like to speak in vague terms as if it's not literal murder being proposed by one side. I literally know a guy who is accumulating firearms, has bumper stickers that say "kill your local pedophile", and thinks all trans people are pedophiles. This is not a person I am going to be friends with just because we play the same kind of guitar music.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- theshackleford 2y ago
  > how does having less friends benefit you? Quality over quantity for a start. > people can have different opinions Not every opinion deserves the same level of tolerance, respect or acceptance. If someone I know starts goose-stepping I’m not going to write it off a “just a difference in opinion.”
- 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 2y ago
The question then becomes how to convert a member of a tribe to ones own correct tribe. It's a very tough question to answer. It's like spycraft during the cold war. A double agent must pass as being in both tribes for the good of their country. They literally isolate themselves from their homelands tribe to embed themselves in another. They are forever changed. They can't go back. In other words: to change another changes oneself too. It weakens ones own group identity. Almost all people would never want to risk their identity to change another person for the good of their group. It's very risky and very painful. Another way that the article suggests is to let people change themselves.
yhavr 2y ago
Lol. "Liberal" people create an echo chamber by eliminate opposing opinions and then are surprised that people elect far-right candidates. > Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected It wasn't hiding from uncomfortable things, opinions and people, that created the world where you can even think about women or minority rights, or even know how to write to express your opnions. So this approach will not create the world you described.
- Dansvidania 2y ago
  indeed. This kind of attitude is contrary to what is needed to produce the sort of world desired. The conceptualization of what fundamental even means is very much subjective, so posing such a condition to dialogue is, in principle, the negation of possibility of improvement on either side. this is the core kernel of what a tribe even is in my opinion: pose a subjective condition, divide people based on it.
- havblue 2y ago
  The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected. Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable? So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?
HamsterDan 2y ago
+1. I had to cut a lot of people out of my life after seeing the Democrats' response to October 7th. I cannot be friends with anybody who votes for candidates that support exterminating Jews.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  +1. I'm cutting people out of my life who think it's justified to harass families on the street or write Nazi symbols on their property because they happen to be riding in a particular brand of car. Fascism/Nazism should not be tolerated.
  - rimbo789 2y ago
    I agree that’s why Musk should driven out of society
hackeraccount 2y ago
I'm jealous of you. I've got a limited number of family members and friends and find it difficult to get more of either. I don't think I'm in a position to burn them on politics so I'll just have to take them as they are.
- sporkit150 2y ago
  Wow. This is well put. Thanks. I wonder how those so quick to write others off will reflect on it at the end of life.
tombert 2y ago
I haven't talked to my grandmother since Trump won the first time in 2016. It wasn't just that she voted for him, but the fact that she actively supported all of his policies around immigration, including mass deportations that would have included my wife (who was on DACA at the time). She has also said some extremely disturbing stuff about what should happen to gay people that I don't even know that I can post without breaking some form of TOS, which would be horrible already, but slightly worse to me because my sister is gay. It's easy to say "just be neutral and don't talk about politics around her", but there are some issues with that. First, you don't know my grandmother; no matter how much I try and avoid any political subject she will keep bringing it up. She will divert a conversation about my job as a software engineer to somehow a rant about how Mexicans are stealing American jobs (this actually happened). I could just roll my eyes and bite my tongue, but this brings me to my next point: Second, neutrality isn't neutral. I don't really know who started this myth that somehow avoiding the subject is "not taking a side", it's just a lazy way to endorse the status quo. If I keep trying to be amicable with people who actively want my wife to be deported, then that's sort of signaling to my wife that I don't give a shit about what happens to her. I don't want to signal that, because it's not true. At that point, my only option is to either stop talking to my grandmother or talk to her and constantly push back she says something racist or horrible, which isn't productive. Before you give me shit over this, all of you do this. You all draw the line somewhere. You probably all draw it at different points than I do, but you absolutely do draw the line. If your best friend suddenly joined the Klan and became the Grand Wizard, you probably wouldn't continue being friends with them, even if you could avoid talking politics, because that would signal that you're ok with their racism. You also probably wouldn't be friends with Jeffrey Dahmer even if you could avoid the whole "killing and eating people" topic. As it stands, I don't really feel bad for cutting her off. I absolutely do not make a concession for age on this. If you're going to live as a grownup in 2025 then it's not wrong to judge someone by 2025 standards. I don't give a fuck what the world was like when you grew up, you have to live in the world as it is now.
horns4lyfe 2y ago
[flagged]

curiousgal 2y ago

[flagged]

shw1n 2y ago
agreed actually, I'm not preaching moderation or apolitical-ness, I'm arguing for merely acknowledging when a view is reason-based vs tribal in nature see my reply to rdegges
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> The only people I have seen preaching moderation and apolitical discussion are those who voted for a particular candidate and either regret it and are too proud to admit it or are in peak cognitive dissonance. Hello. I preach moderation and apolitical discussion. You were vague about what "particular candidate" you meant, but if you meant Trump I didn't vote for him. In fact I did not cast a vote for any presidential candidate this year because none of them was someone I wanted in office. So, you now have seen at least one person who does not match your description. I preach moderation and apolitical discussion because the toxicity of political discussion is tearing our country in two. It is the single biggest threat our society faces today. If we cannot learn to resolve our differences (which starts with genuine attempts to reach each other even when others' actions seem reprehensible to us), this country will die. People do not, as a rule, choose evil. They are often mistaken about what is good, or disagree with each other on the best way to achieve good ends. But to round that off as "they are evil" is intellectually lazy and toxic to a civilized society. > You cannot not discuss politics when the political scene that dictates your daily life is governed by objectively evil people and subjectively less evil people on the other side of the aisle. If people were objectively evil, they would be considered evil by all. The fact that this has not happened is by itself proof that these people are not objectively evil, and that their evil is a matter of subjective views. If you wish to change others' views, the first step must be to recognize this so that you can formulate a plan of persuasion. Blasting people as "objectively evil" feels good, but accomplishes nothing.
- goatlover 2y ago
  > I preach moderation and apolitical discussion because the toxicity of political discussion is tearing our country in two. It is the single biggest threat our society faces today. If we cannot learn to resolve our differences No, MAGA led by Trump, assisted by the Heritage Foundation and the tech billionaire Yarvin disciples are the biggest threat, because they have power and are in the process of implementing an autocratic takeover. It's crazy to me how many moderate, apolitical people don't see this. But I was that way a few months ago and started paying attention. > They are often mistaken about what is good, or disagree with each other on the best way to achieve good ends. I don't think there is any agreement to be had anymore. They don't care about the Constitution, they just want a king/CEO to force things through. What can you say about a president talking about a third term, making Canada a 51st state, claiming Greenland will 100% join the US, saying allies have been ripping us off, deporting people without due process because they had suspicious looking tattoos, calling for impeachment of judges because they ruled against Trump. Refusing to pay agencies what Congress already approved. Forcing big law agencies into making deals. Rand Paul gave a speech tonight about how the president doesn't have the power to tax the American people, which is what tariffs are. MAGA is out to win the culture and political war. Permanently. Wake up.

fatbird 2y ago

Elsewhere in this thread I've said that you can have non-judgemental, solicitous conversations with anyone, just to learn how they feel or think about something. But I agree with parent that it's perfectly justifiable to draw lines that limit potential relationships. You're not obligated to welcome everyone or tolerate views in others that have unbearable consequences for yourself. Vote with your feet.

daft_pink 2y ago

I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family. I’m pretty sure that they weren’t voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for. I’ll be honest that I’m Jewish and certain posts about Palestine where friends or non Jewish family have specifically expressed values that I find anti-myself I have completely cut out of my life. (not all beliefs about pro Palestine are anti-semetic, but most are) But I believe that most views at the party level are just different priorities or different view points and tolerance is necessary, because they are not directly in conflict.

rdegges 2y ago
I totally get where you're coming from. But regardless of their reason for voting for a candidate, if the net effect is that 150m+ women lost rights and other horrible outcomes, it's the same as endorsing it.
- gmoot 2y ago
  It's not though. Looking at exit pool demographics might help if you're struggling to have any empathy for a Trump voter. They are largely working class and undereducated and astonishingly diverse for a republican candidate in recent memory.
  - hooverd 2y ago
    There's an amazing ability for people to not believe Trump is going to do the things he says. See Venezuelan immigrants getting screwed over or the recent tariffs.
  - Arainach 2y ago
    Empathy is for people who did something for understandable reasons. Trump hurt the poor the last time he was in office. Republicans literally WROTE DOWN ALL THEIR PLANS to hurt the poor and destroy the country well before the elections. Anyone who saw that and still voted for them gets no empathy.

pcblues 2y ago

If you remove yourself from a group, how will they change their minds without a dissenting opinion? I had to do it myself eventually, for my own sanity, but I believe this is still a real problem I am no longer addressing among my loved ones.

rdegges 2y ago
In my case, my goal isn't to change anyone's mind. It's to preserve sanity -- I can't in good faith "pretend" to get along and have normal conversations when people are actively engaging in behavior that directly harms myself and others.
- fastball 2y ago
  Could you give an example of behavior that "directly" harmed yourself or others which caused you to sever ties? Politics is almost always indirect, usually with multiple levels of indirection.
  - Philpax 2y ago
    People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.
    - duckfan 2y ago
      How are their lives being destroyed? Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.
      - Philpax 2y ago
        I don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/

bayarearefugee 2y ago

[flagged]

vixen99 2y ago
Priceless! Maybe you should move to the UK. Might be a job opening on the Guardian newspaper where you'd be welcomed with open arms. They think much the same about the British Conservatives and as for the new Reform Party - I guess they are beyond contempt.
thinkingemote 2y ago
Whataboutism is outsider tribe X also does thing B therefore B is not to be argued about. Instead maybe consider that it's thinking in tribes that's the issue at root. Personally I think it's impossible to stop being in a tribe. One should, if free, only be able to choose the tribe to join. We can't choose not to join a tribe. Most people either are not free to choose or not willing to consider that they can choose. Freedom to choose a tribe is very scary. Looking at how other countries do politics might help. For example did you know that conspiracy and paranoia is a characteristic strategy used in American politics? It's not used as much in other parts of the world. It's incredibly difficult for a person to see themselves as being paranoid or to believe in a conspiracy theory. But paranoid people who believe in conspiracy theories make great tribe members. It is literally a way to make people think of things as "us vs them"

shw1n 2y ago

I actually agree, I don't think people should merely dismiss differences on issues that strike at core values -- I think it's okay to cut friends/family off on huge differences in values. I have actually done this to both left and right-leaning friends. But what I'm arguing is that most people do not actually come to these values by way of thinking, but rather by blindly adopting them en masse from their chosen tribe. And when they choose not to be open to the possibility they might be wrong, then they have a religion, not a intellectually-driven view. This is okay if acknowledged imo, as per this sentence in the piece: "If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, that’s totally fair. I respect it like I’d respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."

KyleJune 2y ago
One way people keep themselves in bubbles is by dismissing counter opinions as being tribal or trendy. Some opinions may appear that way because the people that have them seem similar. But it could also be due to them having similar backgrounds that led them to those opinions. For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
- memonkey 2y ago
  Ah, for some reason, this is the comment that reminded me specifically of Nietzche's Master-Slave Morality[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
- shw1n 2y ago
  correct, but then those individuals could explain those views popularity is not the same as tribal, tribal implies a blind following -- when individuals cannot explain why they believe something
- sfink 2y ago
  > For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think. I'm willing to bet that in most cases, that is groupthink. It's hard to tell, because the conclusion is identical to one based on evidence, so you can't infer from the opinion whether it's groupthink or not. Sometimes you can tell by how someone holds a belief. Defensiveness, unwillingness to consider ways in which their chosen belief is not 100% wholly good, or shouting someone down are evidence of groupthink. For example: if someone brings up that in the past some inactive virus vaccines contained live viruses and a doctor claims that it never happened and could never happen, that's either groupthink or just a doctor sick of arguing with uninformed patients who has given up bothering with explaining the intellectual basis of his beliefs. My personal suspicion is that the 1% don't exist, that everyone's opinions and beliefs are a mishmash of tribalism and intellectual conclusions, it's just that the balance is very different in different people. I try very hard to make my stances intellectually based and evidence-driven, yet I continually discover that more and more of my deeply held policy positions aren't as clear cut and the real world is more nuanced than I thought. It's not like nuance is a binary thing (by definition!)

wileydragonfly 2y ago

Have they eaten two plates of food and enjoyed two drinks and then announced, “I’m a proud republican and support Trump 1000%?” Because that’s what we’re getting and we’re banning neighbors and friends we’ve had for 25 years over it.

gedy 2y ago

Maybe try understanding that expecting everyone to hold their nose and vote for the dog shit alternative "opposition" candidates provided is not a good litmus test for friendship either.

gedy 2y ago
And I say this with all sincerity: I'm also disappointed in my friends continually voting for Democratic candidates after Obama, as it's clear the DNC will do nothing as long as they can rely on these votes. They put up losing and awful candidates while supposedly our democracy depends on it. If I were to cut them off as friends for being part of the problem, that sounds unreasonable right?
- themacguffinman 2y ago
  Why does it sound unreasonable? If it's problem that affects you deeply enough, if you sincerely believe that they're a core part of that problem, then I don't see why the person you replied to would be opposed to it.
  - gedy 2y ago
    Possibly, but I've seen a lot of passionate types also very often have double standards. E.g. "That's different!", etc.

skellington 2y ago

[flagged]

hattmall 2y ago

How does having less friends actually benefit you though? It just seems dumb, because presumably you were friends for some reason. I don't see how cutting them out creates a positive. It's like "Javy thinks men can become women", now I have one less person to play disc golf with. What's the point of that? People can have different opinions, it's not their only character trait.

petersellers 2y ago
I don't have friends for the sake of "having friends". I choose the people I want to hang out with because I enjoy their company and like/respect them. Being around them makes me happy. Similarly, people I dislike (rude or mean people, for example) make me unhappy when I'm around them. Cutting them out of my life is a net benefit there too, because I'm happier without them.
kerkeslager 2y ago
It seems to me that when some of your friends want to imprison, institutionalize, or straight-up murder some of your other friends, not taking a side and standing up for the latter group of friends is being a shitty friend. And maybe "How does this benefit me?" isn't the right question to be asking in this situation. "Moderates" always like to speak in vague terms as if it's not literal murder being proposed by one side. I literally know a guy who is accumulating firearms, has bumper stickers that say "kill your local pedophile", and thinks all trans people are pedophiles. This is not a person I am going to be friends with just because we play the same kind of guitar music.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
theshackleford 2y ago
> how does having less friends benefit you? Quality over quantity for a start. > people can have different opinions Not every opinion deserves the same level of tolerance, respect or acceptance. If someone I know starts goose-stepping I’m not going to write it off a “just a difference in opinion.”
2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thinkingemote 2y ago

The question then becomes how to convert a member of a tribe to ones own correct tribe. It's a very tough question to answer. It's like spycraft during the cold war. A double agent must pass as being in both tribes for the good of their country. They literally isolate themselves from their homelands tribe to embed themselves in another. They are forever changed. They can't go back. In other words: to change another changes oneself too. It weakens ones own group identity. Almost all people would never want to risk their identity to change another person for the good of their group. It's very risky and very painful. Another way that the article suggests is to let people change themselves.

yhavr 2y ago

Lol. "Liberal" people create an echo chamber by eliminate opposing opinions and then are surprised that people elect far-right candidates. > Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected It wasn't hiding from uncomfortable things, opinions and people, that created the world where you can even think about women or minority rights, or even know how to write to express your opnions. So this approach will not create the world you described.

Dansvidania 2y ago
indeed. This kind of attitude is contrary to what is needed to produce the sort of world desired. The conceptualization of what fundamental even means is very much subjective, so posing such a condition to dialogue is, in principle, the negation of possibility of improvement on either side. this is the core kernel of what a tribe even is in my opinion: pose a subjective condition, divide people based on it.
havblue 2y ago
The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected. Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable? So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?

HamsterDan 2y ago

+1. I had to cut a lot of people out of my life after seeing the Democrats' response to October 7th. I cannot be friends with anybody who votes for candidates that support exterminating Jews.

qwerpy 2y ago
+1. I'm cutting people out of my life who think it's justified to harass families on the street or write Nazi symbols on their property because they happen to be riding in a particular brand of car. Fascism/Nazism should not be tolerated.
- rimbo789 2y ago
  I agree that’s why Musk should driven out of society

hackeraccount 2y ago

I'm jealous of you. I've got a limited number of family members and friends and find it difficult to get more of either. I don't think I'm in a position to burn them on politics so I'll just have to take them as they are.

sporkit150 2y ago
Wow. This is well put. Thanks. I wonder how those so quick to write others off will reflect on it at the end of life.

tombert 2y ago

I haven't talked to my grandmother since Trump won the first time in 2016. It wasn't just that she voted for him, but the fact that she actively supported all of his policies around immigration, including mass deportations that would have included my wife (who was on DACA at the time). She has also said some extremely disturbing stuff about what should happen to gay people that I don't even know that I can post without breaking some form of TOS, which would be horrible already, but slightly worse to me because my sister is gay. It's easy to say "just be neutral and don't talk about politics around her", but there are some issues with that. First, you don't know my grandmother; no matter how much I try and avoid any political subject she will keep bringing it up. She will divert a conversation about my job as a software engineer to somehow a rant about how Mexicans are stealing American jobs (this actually happened). I could just roll my eyes and bite my tongue, but this brings me to my next point: Second, neutrality isn't neutral. I don't really know who started this myth that somehow avoiding the subject is "not taking a side", it's just a lazy way to endorse the status quo. If I keep trying to be amicable with people who actively want my wife to be deported, then that's sort of signaling to my wife that I don't give a shit about what happens to her. I don't want to signal that, because it's not true. At that point, my only option is to either stop talking to my grandmother or talk to her and constantly push back she says something racist or horrible, which isn't productive. Before you give me shit over this, all of you do this. You all draw the line somewhere. You probably all draw it at different points than I do, but you absolutely do draw the line. If your best friend suddenly joined the Klan and became the Grand Wizard, you probably wouldn't continue being friends with them, even if you could avoid talking politics, because that would signal that you're ok with their racism. You also probably wouldn't be friends with Jeffrey Dahmer even if you could avoid the whole "killing and eating people" topic. As it stands, I don't really feel bad for cutting her off. I absolutely do not make a concession for age on this. If you're going to live as a grownup in 2025 then it's not wrong to judge someone by 2025 standards. I don't give a fuck what the world was like when you grew up, you have to live in the world as it is now.

horns4lyfe 2y ago

[flagged]