This is the bit that I can never quite grasp and the most common misinterpretation of other people’s point of view.
Criticising the excesses or mis-steps of any flavour of political belief is not an indication of support for the extremes of the opposition still less an indication that you are fully aligned with all the views that they may hold. Unfortunately this seems to be the option that people on both sides are eager to choose. Even better if you can chuck in a pejorative label as a shortcut.
There also seems to be a common problem of jumping to conflating aims and means. i.e. that disagreeing with the means by which you bring about change is the same as disagreeing with the desirability of the end result. I suspect that vanishingly small number of people on this thread or on this board do not want to promote harmony, equality and the thriving of all humans and yet all that agreement is masked by the fire and brimstone expended on arguing over the how.
This is not a direct criticism of anyone in this thread but I do see this on a depressingly regular basis in general and I can’t work out if it is this is symptom or cause. Is this behaviour driving polarisation or vice-versa?
I think it comes down to some manifestation of laziness and the impersonality of the online life. It takes time and some degree of interaction in order to properly engage and understand and find the 95% common ground that almost certainly exists.
I read through the thread that talks about left-leaning and right-leaning people and their shared views and it was clear that there is far more common-ground then you’d imagine from a skimmed reading of threads such as this. Take a dozen people at random from this thread and sit them down over dinner and I suspect the conversation pans out very differently and there would be far more consensus than conflict.
This is not a direct response to anything said so far but just my world-weary shrug of disappointment that we are probably all a bit guilty of widening that chasm, in many cases without even noticing it.
At work isn’t on the street. Whole different situation. And the presence of a sandwich (i.e., the preaching happening at lunch) doesn’t change a thing.
That’s absolutely permissible, right? To the point where I’ve been genuinely shocked by what’s permitted, at least when directed at members of an out-group.
Please – insulting language directed at those with different political views (or different religious beliefs) probably accounts for about 50% of the verbiage at SDMB.*
* Please don’t ask for a cite – that is, or should be, obviously hyperbole. But not by much.
By logical implication. Check for the Dunning Kruger effect.
One of my ongoing points, that you continue to miss, is that there is a machinery that is turning a lot of conspiracies that in the recent past had nothing to do with partisanship into weaponized litmus tests by the right wing. Anti vaccination is the latest example that the right wing in America has started to grab onto. The problem for many conservatives (and the ones that claim to be moderate or liberal) that are opposed to the conservative movement adding more anti-intelectual positions in their big tent, is that by trying to avoid dealing with what most of their side is doing, they are allowing things to get worse thanks to their inaction.
For my part, I do not encourage inaction, I also locked horns in the past with a few of the leftists in this board that showed support for anti-GMO positions.
I totally agree. I was disagreeing with @DemonTree’s distinction between bigoted actions and mere words. Words can be actions, imho. If they couldn’t be, we wouldn’t have this thread arguing about which words ought to be allowed on this forum.
The point you continue to miss is that they are not my side. Almost no one on this board thinks of those people as their side, or believes they can do anything about them. Much less by posting here, where there are none of them available to debate or persuade.
Well, I agree with @Saintly_Loser. Many things that are okay to do in general are unacceptable in the workplace, and that includes certain types of speech.
I prefer to hold those who react violently to non-violent speech (or writing) responsible for their own actions.
Also, what does “likely” mean? If someone says something with which you disagree, disagree so strongly that you punch that person in the face, should their speech have been “muzzled”? Does that mean that their speech should have been banned because they’re likely to provoke a violent asshole to violence?
And when and where, and to what, do the rules apply? We’ve all seen examples of speech inducing a violent reaction. You can find hours of video of demonstrators and freedom riders being beaten during the civil rights era.
Should their speech have been banned because it was quite likely to induce (and did, in fact, induce) a violent reaction?
You can’t control other people’s reactions, and there is nothing to say they will be rational. If some group decides to react violently to something you say, you have no problem being muzzled?
Think of the Muhammed cartoons for a real-life example. By their willingness to engage in violence, a small group of people are able to censor everyone else.
This is an odd example because it doesn’t include any government or official action. It’s just that a LOT of publishers don’t want their staff attacked.
