Uniting America? Don't Count on it

[Some Schmo]

Even Icarus and Schmo know better than to post under their real name.

You have a severe issue understanding simple chronology. I registered this user name about 15 years ago, and it had nothing to do with politics.

I get the feeling you go out of your way to prove to people you like being a damned moron.

[honorentheos]

You don't need to identify with a person's views to maintain respect for their humanity.

Have I said anything that makes you think I don't see them as human? I call them idiots because they should know better. If I thought they were animals, I would just let it go, because what would one expect from an animal?

Referencing "them" is different from individual judgements made. So, above the use of "them" is dehumanizing in the context being discussed. It's mild, but it more typically is presented as blanket derogatory descriptions. It's not so binary as it seems you are suggesting. Human/animal is extreme. Higher/inferior is closer to what's going on.

[canpakes]

Given that both my grandfathers paid but never collected a cent ...

Did they die too young to withdraw benefits?

Perhaps one thing that will make you feel less angry about this is that the rate they were paying into the system during their working years was so low that your inheritance was likely not ‘cheated’ out of too much. It didn’t crack 3% until the 1960s, or 5% until the 1970s... and even at that point, only the first 10k of income was taxed.

Your family has also received, back in the day, free government-issued land and title. That should at least balance out the sense of theft that you feel about the Social Security payments of your grandfathers. Think positively. : )

[Some Schmo]

Referencing "them" is different from individual judgements made. So, above the use of "them" is dehumanizing in the context being discussed. It's mild, but it more typically is presented as blanket derogatory descriptions. It's not so binary as it seems you are suggesting. Human/animal is extreme. Higher/inferior is closer to what's going on.

Well, if your overarching point is that when I talk about Trump supporters, I'm exposing the idea that I think they're inferior, then yeah. That's a no brainer, and there's no way I'd apologize for that. Often, that's what criticism amounts to: telling someone what they're doing/saying/thinking is inferior to what it could be.

That's not dehumanizing, honor. It's called criticism. Your sensitivity here is on par with universities boycotting speakers.

ETA: In fact, I could easily accuse you of dehumanizing me by offering this criticism, because you are taking a position of superiority.

[canpakes]

OK then honor, give us the forgiving, reasonable view of a Trump voter we can all identify with. This should be interesting.

You don't need to identify with a person's views to maintain respect for their humanity.

I have never been a typical user of Facebook, having set up an account originally to chat with my SO during ‘away’ times many years ago and then visiting maybe once a month or two afterwards. But I still have some family as ‘friends’, and I can relate to the experience of watching folks that I dearly love begin and continue to post the worst sort of batshyte nuttery and Trumpiam propaganda (typically LDS folks, but the worst offender is a self-professed Evangelical), beginning during the latter half of the Obama Presidency and intensifying exponentially during the last 4 years. Because of the content they post, I can definitely relate to some of the sentiments of the OP. Their activity doesn’t stop me from still being able to have a good relationship with them, but any political topic has become a lightning rod for controversy that I’m not willing to let gum up familial relationships. Those topics didn’t use to be so toxic, but some prevailing attitudes promoted on the Right now make them so.

If saying so amounts to ‘dehumanizing’ my relatives in the eyes of some others, then I can’t change that conclusion for anyone. But I don’t think that it’s a universally accurate way to sum up some very real observations about the behaviors of groups at times. Like it or not, people band into cohorts bound by shared similarities, and the attitudes and/or behaviors within can occasionally be broadly identified without doing so necessarily being ‘dehumanizing’.

[Some Schmo]

But I don’t think that it’s a universally accurate way to sum up some very real observations about the behaviors of groups at times.

It's such a stretch to identify the nuttiness on the left and declare it the growing mirror image of what's happening on the right. I sometimes have a hard time trying to figure out where honor is coming from when he says stuff like this, but I suspect it has something to do with a (mild?) sympathy for the Trump vote/voter. I don't know that for sure, but I asked a very direct question about how to view the Trump voter in a positive or forgiving way and I got a deflection.

There's no damned way I can be told to feel a certain way toward the Trump voter without a simple acknowledgement as part of that request that they are who they are. Anyone who tries to shoehorn equality into what's happening on the left and right is, well, nutty, and part of the problem.

[honorentheos]

Because of the content they post, I can definitely relate to some of the sentiments of the OP. Their activity doesn’t stop me from still being able to have a good relationship with them, but any political topic has become a lightning rod for controversy that I’m not willing to let gum up familial relationships. Those topics didn’t use to be so toxic, but some prevailing attitudes promoted on the Right now make them so.

If saying so amounts to ‘dehumanizing’ my relatives in the eyes of some others, then I can’t change that conclusion for anyone.

That isn't what the OP describes, though, is it? It's not talking about maintaining good relationships with boundaries. You are describing something different from the OP.

[honorentheos]

But I don’t think that it’s a universally accurate way to sum up some very real observations about the behaviors of groups at times.

It's such a stretch to identify the nuttiness on the left and declare it the growing mirror image of what's happening on the right. I sometimes have a hard time trying to figure out where honor is coming from when he says stuff like this, but I suspect it has something to do with a (mild?) sympathy for the Trump vote/voter. I don't know that for sure, but I asked a very direct question about how to view the Trump voter in a positive or forgiving way and I got a deflection.

There's no damned way I can be told to feel a certain way toward the Trump voter without a simple acknowledgement as part of that request that they are who they are. Anyone who tries to shoehorn equality into what's happening on the left and right is, well, nutty, and part of the problem.

Let's go back to my first post in this thread -

I don't agree with Steve Schmidt's view as expressed in the OP. Keep in mind that he admitted the Republican party he was part of created a dead trigger trap of liberal hate and distrust of government they sold to the Fox News watchers because it worked but that they never believed any politician would be insane enough to actually set off. Then came Trump.

I appreciate that Schmidt feels like he lost a party he believes in and gave much to and has seen it overrun by insanity. But he helped create the insanity and thought it could be kept under control as the conservative elite would wink wink and nudge nudge each other as they played their base for rubes.

He's wrong if he supports this. And he's doing the left dirty by putting this out there just as he helped do the right dirty for years.

ETA: I am curious if Icarus would source the OP? I couldn't find where Schmidt said this but did find it in a link I shared below.

What's the concern here again? That the decades long campaign on the right that created conditions that gave us Trump is being followed by the left now. Is the OP an example of that? Yes. Yes it is. Conservative voices have been progresaively dehumanizing and castigating the liberal perspective in American politics to the point of became so bad the right is ready to kiss Putin while setting fire to Republic. And we are seeing this more and more, with greater acceptance and buy in on the left. I mean, the OP was originally written by a guy in Facebook but it's being passed around under other names including being attributed to Schmidt presumably to give it more authority than "some guy on the internet". It's problematic.

BUT ThEY dESERVE IT and STARTED IT!!!

Ok.

[canpakes]

Because of the content they post, I can definitely relate to some of the sentiments of the OP. Their activity doesn’t stop me from still being able to have a good relationship with them, but any political topic has become a lightning rod for controversy that I’m not willing to let gum up familial relationships. Those topics didn’t use to be so toxic, but some prevailing attitudes promoted on the Right now make them so.

If saying so amounts to ‘dehumanizing’ my relatives in the eyes of some others, then I can’t change that conclusion for anyone.

That isn't what the OP describes, though, is it? It's not talking about maintaining good relationships with boundaries. You are describing something different from the OP.

Yes, and no. Per one line,

“We’ve decided to minimize our interactions with people who cannot be reasoned with.”

‘Minimizing’ can still meet that criteria you’re mentioning. Simply deciding to not attend family reunions, not always so - although not sharing in the communal act of consuming potato salad does have some health benefits. : )

But there’s also something to be said for the latter. Many things that should not be politicized have become so within the last few years. The latest example is mask-wearing. How much of a problem is it for a family member to show up at a reunion sporting a mask, where they might be in the minority doing so, and inviting political commentary from others who won’t wear a mask given their political loyalty to Trump? That even this has turned into a test of political ideology is indicative of the larger problem, and I believe that it was dragged into that sphere of politicization with gusto more so by ‘the Right’ than by any actions of ‘the Left’.

Maybe ‘staying away’ ... even for a few years ... is one effective way to keep family members with diverging political allegiances from further damaging their relationships, and allows time to erase some of those issues, or at least reduce their intensity. In a way, that still maintains a ‘relationship’ protected by boundaries, even if the relationship is in suspended animation for part of the journey.

[canpakes]

Case in point:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... -armed?amp