3 ms·

MAGA isn't 50% of the population. Voter turnout was 63.7% for 2024, so I'm saying that ~32% of the USA population are objectively shit people, in the same way t

MAGA isn't 50% of the population. Voter turnout was 63.7% for 2024, so I'm saying that ~32% of the USA population are objectively shit people, in the same way that Germans who supported Hitler were objectively shit people. If you can't see that disappearing people without due process is wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see that pardoning conmen, and insurrectionists is wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see the use of Venezuelan prisons and Guantanamo Bay as extralegal black sites as wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see that a president illegally ignoring the courts and congress is wrong, you don't have good values. You could say that some of the other stuff that's happening is just an extension of the culture war, and that it's a matter of interpretation of whether it's wrong or not (DEI hate, transgender issues, abortion rights, etc). I don't agree, but those topics are harder to give a black and white answer on whether it's wrong or right. Clear violations of the constitution, ignoring basic human rights, and doing straight up crime are black and white issues, and in general, most Trump voters support these things, and these are things he campaigned on, so even if they disagree with them now, they voted to allow it to happen.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Even if true, the point OP was making that you are dismissing their political stance for no other reason than your disagreement with it. It does not make for a useful, productive.. or any kind of conversation that results in some sort of mutually agreeable state.
- ryan_lane 2y ago
  Yeah, it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle". I'm not tolerant of intolerance, I'm not OK with hate, and you shouldn't be either.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    I truly do wish we could move a little past bumper sticker conversations, because it is HN. The guidelines of the site do expect more from all of us when we post. Still, allow me to address what you wrote. << This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle". Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish? What do you think happens when people stop talking? I would like you to think this through before reflexively answering. On this forum, I semi-consistently argue for at least trying to reach out to the other party before talking stops. << I'm not tolerant of intolerance, In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this. << it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. Friend, it is always ok to disagree. There is no need to qualify it. Unless I am not reading your post right, let me ask you a simple question: 'When is it not ok to disagree?'
    - samtheDamned 2y ago
      > because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate I just want to suggest that there may be a difference between hating a person for something they were born with, or for an uncontrollable feature of a person, compared to hating someone for explicit choices they have made. Not saying that hating people for any reason is necessarily okay, but I think an argument can be made that there is a difference between those two cases of hatred.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
        And what if the person if mentally on the severely disabled end of the spectrum? They still made a choice based on your distinction and it is hardly a given that they were born with it. As always, the drawing lines makes the difference ( and naturally adds a focus on people drawing the lines ). FWIW, I do get what you are trying to say, but I am not sure you considered the other side of the equation.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago

Even if true, the point OP was making that you are dismissing their political stance for no other reason than your disagreement with it. It does not make for a useful, productive.. or any kind of conversation that results in some sort of mutually agreeable state.

ryan_lane 2y ago
Yeah, it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle". I'm not tolerant of intolerance, I'm not OK with hate, and you shouldn't be either.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  I truly do wish we could move a little past bumper sticker conversations, because it is HN. The guidelines of the site do expect more from all of us when we post. Still, allow me to address what you wrote. << This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle". Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish? What do you think happens when people stop talking? I would like you to think this through before reflexively answering. On this forum, I semi-consistently argue for at least trying to reach out to the other party before talking stops. << I'm not tolerant of intolerance, In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this. << it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. Friend, it is always ok to disagree. There is no need to qualify it. Unless I am not reading your post right, let me ask you a simple question: 'When is it not ok to disagree?'
  - samtheDamned 2y ago
    > because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate I just want to suggest that there may be a difference between hating a person for something they were born with, or for an uncontrollable feature of a person, compared to hating someone for explicit choices they have made. Not saying that hating people for any reason is necessarily okay, but I think an argument can be made that there is a difference between those two cases of hatred.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      And what if the person if mentally on the severely disabled end of the spectrum? They still made a choice based on your distinction and it is hardly a given that they were born with it. As always, the drawing lines makes the difference ( and naturally adds a focus on people drawing the lines ). FWIW, I do get what you are trying to say, but I am not sure you considered the other side of the equation.