# Building and maintaining relationships with people whose politics are the opposite of yours.



## Tony Lou (Jun 12, 2019)

That is... how can you be comfortable with someone defending things that you condemn with every fiber of your being? And comdening things you consider important. Supporting politicians you consider absolutely vile.

Some people say you just have to avoid the subject, But... is it truly friendship then? Isn't it built on a false foundation that relies on blocking out an aspect of that person?

And when you do have those debates, you avoid mentioning certain parts of your opinion because you're afraid they will hate you and the relationship will be damaged.


----------



## JoJo (Jun 12, 2019)

Being intensely aggravated by simply someone having differing politic opinions than you and allowing that to cause potentially huge rifts into possibly any relationship you have with another person sounds like a symptom of a much, much larger problem.

Either way, just like literally anything else that is related to your differences to another you accept them. You don't have to acknowledge that they're correct, that they're better or worse, etc. You just allow person x you like for z to harbor their views on what the fuck ever they want.

This is a bit of a tangent, but: and it basically sounds like you're unable to take your head out of your ass and realize that another person's perspective on literally anything is typically based upon their life experiences, how they grew up, what kinds of things they studied, related to their personal philosophies, etc. You don't even account for the fact that being different from you can offer perspectives you haven't thought of, or even help evolve and refine the current things you believe.

Anyways, this is all presuming that you liked the person prior to finding out their politic stances. I'm not actually sure if you're detailing this a current dilemma you're facing, but I'm assuming you are.

But if you aren't, and all of your relationships with other people and start with politics and end with politics and you mistakenly befriended someone who is your political antithesis then that's on you. It's on you precisely for predicating literally any relationship on politics and nothing else.

tl;dr

either ur friend is different and that's ok cause u like hella other shit about them

or

everything in ur life is about giga autistic politics and ur an insecure beta who cant handle someone who isnt 1:1 on ur views

which is where u should reevaluate everything about urself


----------



## Island (Jun 12, 2019)

Just don't talk about politics.



Luiz said:


> Some people say you just have to avoid the subject, But... is it truly friendship then? Isn't it built on a false foundation that relies on blocking out an aspect of that person?


No.

You don't see 1:1 with anybody and are almost always going to be ignoring/overlooking something you don't like about a person.

As long as somebody isn't advocating violence or a flagrant conspiracy theorist, I can make a friendship work. Probably not best friend material, but it can work.

I wouldn't tell somebody that I don't want to go to the bar with them because they disagree with me on America's foreign policy or how the economy should be managed.


----------



## Ashi (Jun 12, 2019)

Island said:


> Just don't talk about politics.


This


----------



## pfft (Jun 12, 2019)

Most ppls political beliefs are detrimental to my race and my culture. I defend my life always and the lives of all Native Americans. Cannot for the life of me say that I can tolerate someone who is out to destroy my ppl, my lands,my life.

But I’ll pretend to tolerate it for a moment in passing just to fucking get through the goddamn day. Just can’t see myself respecting someone’s political thoughts if they harm my way of life.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 13, 2019)

The thing about politics is that it's _a bit fuckin' different_ from a casual opinion.

I may like pineapple and pepperoni on my pizza and you may think it's heresy; you may prefer Madden with my favorite game being Pokemon... but at the end of the day those are the sort of differences that don't really do any harm to each other.

Politics is different: It's more than simply the theater (the pivoting and promising we see representatives doing). Politics is fundamentally about how you think the world should work, how you think people should be treated. Politics is making laws saying Madden players gets certain incentives and Pokemon fans don't. At the root, it's basically the rules and who has to follow them, and where you stand on that comes from your core values.



Luiz said:


> Some people say you just have to avoid the subject, But... is it truly friendship then?


Short answer: no.

Long answer: there's different levels of friendship. Some are cordial acquaintances with whom you share a common location (school, work, etc) and _aren't_ enemies at first sight, there are the friendships with those you share a common activity (games, books, sports), and then usually the deepest friendships, with whom you share core values and a natural affinity.

Usually, the first two can go unharmed so long as politics are never brought up, but once they're brought up it's really hard to go back. The third, it's just about impossible not to have political affinity.

Unless you bend over backwards to ignore it, anyone with values diametrically opposed to your own will inevitably end in friction and conflict. The only time I think it's possible (and necessary) to set it aside is for work, on account of that whole trade-labor-for-survival- dynamic. And even then, if your boss's politics differ from your own such that they harm you and yours... well, it lends to a toxic work environment and something inevitably gives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Island (Jun 13, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> Politics is different: It's more than simply the theater (the pivoting and promising we see representatives doing). Politics is fundamentally about how you think the world should work, how you think people should be treated. Politics is making laws saying Madden players gets certain incentives and Pokemon fans don't. At the root, it's basically the rules and who has to follow them, and where you stand on that comes from your core values.


I agree to with this to a degree.

If somebody thinks that all LGBT+ people should go to the gulag, I can't be friends with them, but I don't hold a grudge because somebody has strong opinions on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 13, 2019)

Island said:


> I agree to with this to a degree.
> 
> If somebody thinks that all LGBT+ people should go to the gulag, I can't be friends with them, but I don't hold a grudge because somebody has strong opinions on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.


It all depends on what the opinion is and how married they are to it in light of the details behind the kneel.

It tells me a lot about their core values in relation to my own. It's a little different than, say, the next team Kyrie Irving chooses.


----------



## Natty (Jun 14, 2019)

JoJo said:


> everything in ur life is about giga autistic politics and ur an insecure beta who cant handle someone who isnt 1:1 on ur views



Some people are able to be apolitical on many things, but others are not. Example: me or pfft.

If somebody denies the existence or opposes any LGBT sort of thing, or hates people like me, I don't want to be friends with them. I'll let them know what I think, but if they still harbor that same opinion, I don't want to be near it. It's for my own sanity.

It really depends on the severity of what view they have, but I don't really want to be close friends with people who's ideals/values don't line up with mine. I doubt many people do. I can be acquaintances at most, or be friendly, but I don't want to be close.

If it's a current close friendship where they have a political stance where I think it's completely abhorrent, I'd have to reconsider what that person is really like. It could be a red flag for other things that I was blind to. It also depends on what it is, I'd be more willing to look over a flat earther's opinion than someone who doesn't want trans people to have treatment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Harmonie (Jun 14, 2019)

It would be interesting to be able to look at politics as just "opinions", but I don't really feel like I can do that. I am a part of more than one group that Republicans and Trump adamantly attack. Pre-Trump, I hated Republicanism just as much as I do now, but I was able to assume that most of the Republicans among me were still well-intentioned people were duped by Republican politicians who put on a nice facade over their despicable views. Now with Trump, that facade is gone. The raw true colors of many of my Republican acquaintances over the years became all too clear (I always knew that higher up politicians were like this, but not most of the people I knew). Most of them hid their more gross views about minorities away for years, but once Trump came onto the field they were suddenly very proud about it.

These are not mere differences in "opinion" that one should casually set aside. I may not have a lot of respect for myself, but I sure as heck have more respect for myself than being "friends" with someone who both hates and denies the very existence of traits about myself that are out of my control and harm no one. That's not a friendship. You can't simply be friends with someone who is a part of groups you hate and vote to discriminate against. In the end, I'd just be that "See, I have a gay friend" they'd use as an excuse to fight back against people saying the individual is hateful right after they said "Homosexuals are just like pedophiles" and if you think I haven't seen that happen, you're wrong.

I have a little more respect for myself than just being the token minority 'friend' for a hateful bigot. I'm not your 'friend'. See me as a person who is deserving of respect and rights like you, otherwise our 'friendship' feels very off and you being "nice" to me when we're talking comes off as very fake.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JoJo (Jun 14, 2019)

Natty said:


> Some people are able to be apolitical on many things, but others are not. Example: me or pfft.


this is not relevant to the line you quoted 

what i spoke was him directly revolving his life around politics, not his or someone else's inability to be apolitical 



Natty said:


> If somebody denies the existence or opposes any LGBT sort of thing, or hates people like me, I don't want to be friends with them. I'll let them know what I think, but if they still harbor that same opinion, I don't want to be near it. It's for my own sanity.
> 
> It really depends on the severity of what view they have, but I don't really want to be close friends with people who's ideals/values don't line up with mine. I doubt many people do. I can be acquaintances at most, or be friendly, but I don't want to be close.


this goes far beyond politics then

i was going to add a disclaimer to my post about this but found it unnecessary, but i might as well say it now. If the person's """politics""" involves any form of legitimate bigotry or whatever else, then you shouldn't be friends with someone like that in the first place. I thought something like this was pretty obvious, but yeah, I guess it's worth it to actually say. If someone's views are completely abhorrent because it involves things like racism, religious intolerance, etc. then it's best to stay away from them. Because as you said, it's telltale for other things about them 



Natty said:


> If it's a current close friendship where they have a political stance where I think it's completely abhorrent, I'd have to reconsider what that person is really like. It could be a red flag for other things that I was blind to. It also depends on what it is, I'd be more willing to look over a flat earther's opinion than someone who doesn't want trans people to have treatment.


which is what I was mostly referencing. If you think abortion should be allowed and your close friend think it shouldn't, and everything else about them is perfectly fine, then why allow this one difference in opinion open a rift between you guys?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ashi (Jun 14, 2019)

JoJo said:


> this is not relevant to the line you quoted
> 
> what i spoke was him directly revolving his life around politics, not his or someone else's inability to be apolitical
> 
> ...


To play devil's advocate here, it's likely because they do think certain political views/dynamic are abhorrent enough to be counted as character flaws.

For instance, a lot of people take a stance against abortion as an attack against the autonomy females have over their own body.

So yeah, I do agree that some opinions go beyond just the policy, but I feel like the lines get blurry to some people


----------



## JoJo (Jun 14, 2019)

Ashi said:


> To play devil's advocate here, it's likely because they do think certain political views/dynamic are abhorrent enough to be counted as character flaws.
> 
> For instance, a lot of people take a stance against abortion as an attack against the autonomy females have over their own body.
> 
> So yeah, I do agree that some opinions go beyond just the policy, but I feel like the lines get blurry to some people


i had a tl;dr written out, but i deleted it 

i rather not open up this can of worms here


----------



## Ashi (Jun 14, 2019)

JoJo said:


> i had a tl;dr written out, but i deleted it
> 
> i rather not open up this can of worms here


Good call bruv


----------



## JoJo (Jun 14, 2019)

Ashi said:


> Good call bruv


im not against PMing it to u, if u like


----------



## Ashi (Jun 14, 2019)

JoJo said:


> im not against PMing it to u, if u like


I’d rather we save it for the league talk


----------



## pfft (Jun 14, 2019)

JoJo said:


> im not against PMing it to u, if u like


Pm it to me next

I want to see the worms


----------



## pfft (Jun 14, 2019)

I want that tldr @JoJo


----------



## Island (Jun 14, 2019)

Natty said:


> If somebody denies the existence or opposes any LGBT sort of thing, or hates people like me, I don't want to be friends with them. I'll let them know what I think, but if they still harbor that same opinion, I don't want to be near it. It's for my own sanity.


Reminds me of this:



Somebody's political stances become a deal breaker the moment their stances are about the dehumanization of other people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Drake (Jun 14, 2019)

I don't really care about someone's political stances. If they can get along with me, then obviously whatever ideologies we may hold can't be that incompatible. And either way, I do not and have no desire to share the same values as all my friends, and I've actually changed some of my own stances from learning from people who think very differently from me.


----------



## Keishin (Jun 14, 2019)

Childish.


----------



## A Optimistic (Jun 14, 2019)

Having friends who have different political views is simply unacceptable. I simply mentally crush them until their way of thinking is the same as mine.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 15, 2019)

JoJo said:


> If you think abortion should be allowed and your close friend think it shouldn't, and everything else about them is perfectly fine, then why allow this one difference in opinion open a rift between you guys?


Because that one difference can change the quality of life for roughly half the planet's population. It's not a small thing.


----------



## JoJo (Jun 15, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> Because that one difference can change the quality of life for roughly half the planet's population. It's not a small thing.


I never said it was small or pointless. I simply brought it up as a possible point of contention between two people where disagreeing on that doesn’t have to cause a major rift. The main point of it also ties in to what I originally said about how people hold views for various reasons, which is important for understanding the difference people have with each other. 

But if you think that someone’s opinion on that is enough for you not to like them and let’s you freely demonize them and give them your own mental labels without caring, then you do that.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 16, 2019)

JoJo said:


> I never said it was small or pointless. I simply brought it up as a possible point of contention between two people where disagreeing on that doesn’t have to cause a major rift. The main point of it also ties in to what I originally said about how people hold views for various reasons, which is important for understanding the difference people have with each other.
> 
> But if you think that someone’s opinion on that is enough for you not to like them and let’s you freely demonize them and give them your own mental labels without caring, then you do that.


I'm confused. You seem aware that the issue is not small... so why wouldn't it cause a major rift? 

You keep framing it as only an opinion, as if the course of people's lives is as casual as how you tie your shoelaces.


----------



## JoJo (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> I'm confused. You seem aware that the issue is not small... so why wouldn't it cause a major rift?
> 
> You keep framing it as only an opinion, as if the course of people's lives is as casual as how you tie your shoelaces.


Because in a realistic scenario where you don't assume the other person holds that opinion because they want to take rights away from women, then things change drastically.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

If you're both adults then it's not hard to just brush off even the most heated debate.

I know that's increasingly difficult as more and more people seem incapable of maturing into adults but yeah.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

Island said:


> Reminds me of this:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody's political stances become a deal breaker the moment their stances are about the dehumanization of other people.



On the other hand that twitter post is a dismissal of opinion because someone doesn't share her race, gender, or orientation.

Are we going to move all black issues to be voted only by black people?

Are female centric issues only going to be voted on by females?

The reality here is she doesn't want to hear opposing opinions and she just gets EXTRA salty when someone isn't the same as her AND disagrees. That's immaturity of the highest order.

Yes a particular issue may affect you more directly than someone else but I'm afraid that's not a pass to hand wave away differing opinions.


----------



## Worm Juice (Jun 16, 2019)

I have some friends that have very different political and religious preferences. As friends that’s ok. I could never be in something more serious with those kinda differences. 


Sometimes I do discuss the topics we are disagreeing about. By keeping it respectful and just trying to understand each other we do get a new perspective on some views.


----------



## Island (Jun 16, 2019)

Nep Nep said:


> On the other hand that twitter post is a dismissal of opinion because someone doesn't share her race, gender, or orientation.


No it isn't.

It's about situations where people have really strong opinions about things that don't impact them whatsoever and insist on "debating" with people who are. It gets tiring if you constantly have to defend your dignity from people who ostensibly want to debate the issue.

I can't imagine that transgender people, for example, are particularly happy to defend which bathroom they get to use or women to defend why they should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

Island said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> It's about situations where people have really strong opinions about things that don't impact them whatsoever and insist on "debating" with people who are. It gets tiring if you constantly have to defend your dignity from people who ostensibly want to debate the issue.



How is them having an opinion an assault to your dignity?



Island said:


> I can't imagine that transgender people, for example, are particularly happy to defend which bathroom they get to use, for example, or women having to defend why they should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.



You know what those groups have in common? They don't live in a vacuum.

Both of those DIRECTLY affect those groups... but there's really no way that those things ONLY affect those groups.

Unfortunately due to our technological and medical limitations, transitioning isn't fool proof. There's still going to be a difference of strength between trans women and women. Nevermind that anyone can say they're a trans person and just go ahead and abuse what this allows and use it for ill purpose.

In terms of abortion... Well I've gotten high so let me collect my thoughts and get back to you on that one.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 16, 2019)

Nep Nep said:


> How is them having an opinion an assault to your dignity?


The problem is constantly having to rationalize _not_ being a second-class citizen to people that neither share that issue nor (on some level) benefit from understanding it. 




> You know what those groups have in common? They don't live in a vacuum.
> 
> Both of those DIRECTLY affect those groups... but there's really no way that those things ONLY affect those groups.
> 
> ...


The point is that if you're not in those groups, it's not your conversation to have. It's those people fighting those battles, and those of us _not_ fighting them are effectively tourists. They're under no obligation to cater to sightseers while navigating issues affecting their futures.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> The problem is constantly having to rationalize _not_ being a second-class citizen to people that neither share that issue nor (on some level) benefit from understanding it.



Especially in the trans bathroom issue, it's not a simple rights issue. It's not making them second class citizens, it's necessary caution due to our own limitations.
Which btw is literally what laws our, necessary rules due to our limited technological and mental prowess. For example, if we somehow evolved to have individual minds connected to a sort of group mind where thoughts can be shared. In this case laws could be applied on an individual level. Crazy af I know but it's just to point out that they're to help us due to our limits.
Because we have no way of knowing if someone is truly trans or if they're just saying it to get into the womens restroom, we can't just say, yeah everyone who says they're trans can use whichever they want.



Sunrider said:


> The point is that if you're not in those groups, it's not your conversation to have. It's those people fighting those battles, and those of us _not_ fighting them are effectively tourists. They're under no obligation to cater to sightseers while navigating issues affecting their futures.



Well again, why don't we restrict voting on those issues to just those groups? Doesn't sound so great when you put it that way right? Issues are too nuanced to really apply a blanket rule like, the group should choose, or we should choose together.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 16, 2019)

I'm lost as to what 'limits' trans folk suffer that restricts their restroom usage, but I'm gonna leave other trans folk to address that one. 

Tag who you like to respond to that. 


Nep Nep said:


> Well again, why don't we restrict voting on those issues to just those groups? Doesn't sound so great when you put it that way right?


No, as a matter of fact, that sounds _fan-fucking-tastic_. 

Men disallowed from weighing in on issues impacting women's rights? White folks barred from interjecting on POC issues? Wealthy excluded from working class policy? That sounds brilliant.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> I'm lost as to what 'limits' trans folk suffer that restricts their restroom usage, but I'm gonna leave other trans folk to address that one.
> 
> Tag who you like to respond to that.



Already addressed it in previous posts, trans women still tend to be stronger and have denser bone mass, they may be pre-op AND the only qualifier for being trans because you could be at ANY stage of transitioning when you come out as trans, is that anyone can say they're trans and then get into the opposite sex bathroom for reasons other than natures call.
Just like literally every other law in existence, they're present for the worst of humanity. You don't need a law not to kill people right? But some people do so it has to be a law.

If a law leaves a loophole for the worst of humanity to do something heinous... well that's obviously not a tight enough law.



Sunrider said:


> No, as a matter of fact, that sounds _fan-fucking-tastic_.
> 
> Men disallowed from weighing in on issues impacting women's rights? White folks barred from interjecting on POC issues? Wealthy excluded from working class policy? That sounds brilliant.



And why don't we form different countries in several groups of states split up by race, gender, and sexual orientation while we're at it?

The point is they're issues that affect not just one person but all of society... and both issues DO and thus everyone has to be allowed to vote on it, even IF the issue only affects them indirectly and again, it wouldn't be a political issue if it had zero possible consequences for us as a whole, they can't just be silenced because you believe they should have no right to speak on the matter.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 16, 2019)

Nep Nep said:


> Already addressed it in previous posts, trans women still tend to be stronger and have denser bone mass, they may be pre-op AND the only qualifier for being trans because you could be at ANY stage of transitioning when you come out as trans, is that anyone can say they're trans and then get into the opposite sex bathroom for reasons other than natures call.


That sounds like the most pseudoscientific excuse for barring trans folk from using the restroom they identify with and completely ignorant of any kind of precedent or data, but like I said, I'll let other trans folk respond to that. 


> And why don't we form different countries in several groups of states split up by race, gender, and sexual orientation while we're at it?


There are a number of revolutionaries that beat you to that idea by about fifty years. Still doesn't sound bad. 


> The point is they're issues that affect not just one person but all of society... and both issues DO and thus everyone has to be allowed to vote on it, even IF the issue only affects them indirectly and again, it wouldn't be a political issue if it had zero possible consequences for us as a whole, they can't just be silenced because you believe they should have no right to speak on the matter.


Not all issues affect everyone equally, and input has to reflect that. 

It sounds like you want minority groups to put up with whatever just for the benefit of 'everyone living together.' You've spent all this time arguing why affected groups should include the unaffected in the conversation and not once confronted what unaffected groups could to to make themselves useful to the conversation.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 16, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> That sounds like the most pseudoscientific excuse for barring trans folk from using the restroom they identify with and completely ignorant of any kind of precedent or data, but like I said, I'll let other trans folk respond to that.



Pseudoscience? What's pseudoscientific about saying that bad people will abuse a loophole? They do and will always.



Sunrider said:


> There are a number of revolutionaries that beat you to that idea by about fifty years. Still doesn't sound bad.
> Not all issues affect everyone equally, and input has to reflect that.



Like who? America? Canada? The UK? Germany? Which one of these countries is composed entirely of one race and which of them demanded that no other race ever be allowed within its borders for any reason?

Input should definitely not reflect that, cause as I said, neither of the issues relate to only the person... Nobody lives in a vacuum, you can't apply laws like only one group matters because there is almost next to nothing that doesn't affect other individuals or society as a whole.



Sunrider said:


> It sounds like you want minority groups to put up with whatever just for the benefit of 'everyone living together.'



Like a country is supposed to do if they want everyone to be equal? Everyone legal citizen has a say.



Sunrider said:


> You've spent all this time arguing why affected groups should include the unaffected in the conversation and not once confronted what unaffected groups could to to make themselves useful to the conversation.



Because your point is predicated on an alternate reality where these issues only affect women or trans people and it's simply not the case.

They're useful to the conversation because it's everyone's right to express an opinion and vote on it in civilized countries.
Everyone has all rights or everyone has no rights. That's the only fair way with the level of intelligence and technology we have now.
That's kinda been the major point of diversity/civil rights/inclusion. To make sure that everyone has the same rights. Provided they're legal citizens and not criminals of course.


----------



## Aphrodite (Jun 16, 2019)

I avoid politics so it makes no difference to me. My ex was hugely into politics and always insulted white people  every day and threw it in my face every day and tried to get me to argue about it. I just ignored it and refused to argue till I got to the point of telling him to stop bringing the outside world into our relationship. So when he watched politics I just stayed away in my room.


----------



## Island (Jun 16, 2019)

Not to step on @Raiden’s toes, but let’s avoid actually discussing politics here. That’s what the Perspectives section is for.


----------



## Island (Jun 16, 2019)

But yes, people don’t want to have to constantly defend their rights in “healthy debate” with people who have no personal experience or understanding of their perspective.

It’s mentally and emotionally draining.


----------



## Tony Lou (Jun 16, 2019)

Some people here are using extreme examples like "If they hate people like me", but this isn't all that politics is about.

Same goes for political debates.



Island said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> It's about situations where people have really strong opinions about things that don't impact them whatsoever and insist on "debating" with people who are. It gets tiring if you constantly have to defend your dignity from people who ostensibly want to debate the issue.
> 
> I can't imagine that transgender people, for example, are particularly happy to defend which bathroom they get to use, for example, or women having to defend why they should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.



I think it depends a lot on the topic. If we're talking about personal experiences then sure, nobody has the right to say they understand your life better than you do.

But if the subject is about something that is objectively verifiable through hard data and evidence, then being born [insert here] doesn't make anyone the ultimate authority that can't be challenged.


----------



## Island (Jun 16, 2019)

Luiz said:


> But if the subject is about something that is objectively verifiable through hard data and evidence, then being born [insert here] doesn't make anyone the ultimate authority that can't be challenged.


I never said it did.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 17, 2019)

Nep Nep said:


> Pseudoscience? What's pseudoscientific about saying that bad people will abuse a loophole? They do and will always.


Like I said Imma let folks with personal experience touch on that. Imma tag @Natty and see her feelings on imposing bans on trans folk because some cis folk _might_ abuse it. 

What I _will_ weigh in on is that there is a history of spurious arguments lobbied against a people.


> Like who? America? Canada? The UK? Germany? Which one of these countries is composed entirely of one race and which of them demanded that no other race ever be allowed within its borders for any reason?


I can't tell if you're legitimately curious, but two salient examples are Thomas Sankofa and Marcus Garvey, proponents of black nationalism and African repatriation. 

Sankofa made good headway before ruffling too many feathers, but Garvey was actually a success.


> Like a country is supposed to do if they want everyone to be equal? Everyone legal citizen has a say.


So vulnerable classes should remain vulnerable so that everyone gets to enjoy having input? 


> Input should definitely not reflect that, cause as I said, neither of the issues relate to only the person... Nobody lives in a vacuum, you can't apply laws like only one group matters because there is almost next to nothing that doesn't affect other individuals or society as a whole.


That's precisely how laws work. 

Labor laws exist to protect workers from capitalist-class exploitation. Civil rights laws exist to protect minority groups from abuse by the dominant hegemony. Due process was created to protect the accused from undue punishment. In each of these cases the laws were applied to restrict the resourced, the dominant demographic, or prosecutorial. 

But _because_ of what you're arguing for, protections to vulnerable segments of the population are undermined: thanks to wealthy private entities and industrial lobby, worker protections put in place in the 1940s have been steadily eroded, landlords have been chipping away at rental protections in place in NYC since WW2, and women's health legislation and abortion protections are being rolled back in multiple states by primarily-male leadership and committees. 

In each of these cases the input of people with no stake in the matter (or have an active interest in opposition) did damage to those vulnerable groups. 


> They're useful to the conversation because it's everyone's right to express an opinion and vote on it in civilized countries.


_'I'm useful to the conversation because I'm allowed to insert myself into the conversation.'_ that's what you just said. 


> Everyone has all rights or everyone has no rights. That's the only fair way with the level of intelligence and technology we have now.
> That's kinda been the major point of diversity/civil rights/inclusion. To make sure that everyone has the same rights.


Civil rights and inclusion aren't _'everyone in everyone's shit all the time,'_ they're about giving more space to underrepresented groups. Allowing those groups the space to speak and be heard. For that to happen, groups that have had a voice need to be silent. 


> Provided they're legal citizens and not criminals of course.


Yikes.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> Like I said Imma let folks with personal experience touch on that. Imma tag @Natty and see her feelings on imposing bans on trans folk because some cis folk _might_ abuse it.



That's how our legal system has always worked... We have to restrict everyone because of bad people. You can't leave loop holes.



Sunrider said:


> What I _will_ weigh in on is that there is a history of spurious arguments lobbied against a people.
> I can't tell if you're legitimately curious, but two salient examples are Thomas Sankofa and Marcus Garvey, proponents of black nationalism and African repatriation.



African repatriation... of who? Black people that were born in the USA? That grew up in the USA? That's not repatriation. They're literally Americans.

Idk about Black people but I certainly don't want to go live in Venezuela and Africa is hardly better. Face it, most of us are lucky to be here, whining about stupid shit on the internet instead of dying of starvation, unsanitary conditions, and all the other things that come along with a country being trash.



Sunrider said:


> So vulnerable classes should remain vulnerable so that everyone gets to enjoy having input?



This is typical modern day group think. Well that person is white so obviously they're only looking out for themselves. We shouldn't discriminate on opinions based on race/gender/orientation or anything else that can't be changed. That's a slippery slope to a horrifying future where we literally regress into colonies of people that aren't actually like us but hey they have the same fucking skin color so I guess we all think alike so why the fuck not?



Sunrider said:


> That's precisely how laws work.
> 
> Labor laws exist to protect workers from capitalist-class exploitation. Civil rights laws exist to protect minority groups from abuse by the dominant hegemony. Due process was created to protect the accused from undue punishment. In each of these cases the laws were applied to restrict the resourced, the dominant demographic, or prosecutorial.



Thanks for agreeing with me. Because nobody lives in a vacuum, we need those discrimination laws because some bad people will abuse minorities otherwise. Hence, in the case of trans people, we can't just say yeah sure, just use whatever bathroom just like that, because it DOES and can affect other people.

Laws are blanket laws that are made for the worst of our kind who can't behave themselves unless there's negative consequences attached to bad behaviors.



Sunrider said:


> But _because_ of what you're arguing for, protections to vulnerable segments of the population are undermined: thanks to wealthy private entities and industrial lobby, worker protections put in place in the 1940s have been steadily eroded, landlords have been chipping away at rental protections in place in NYC since WW2, and women's health legislation and abortion protections are being rolled back in multiple states by primarily-male leadership and committees.



That implies only Black people want what's best for Black people which is nonsensical. Society evolves solely through exactly those struggles, because we allow choice things don't always move in the direction we like 100% of the time... but overall progress is ceaseless.
You're going to have resistance for anything for a period of time. That's simply reality. If it's not legally allowed resistance, it may well be illegal resistance. This system isn't perfect but it's still the best one we've devised so far.



Sunrider said:


> In each of these cases the input of people with no stake in the matter (or have an active interest in opposition) did damage to those vulnerable groups.
> _'I'm useful to the conversation because I'm allowed to insert myself into the conversation.'_ that's what you just said.
> Civil rights and inclusion aren't _'everyone in everyone's shit all the time,'_ they're about giving more space to underrepresented groups. Allowing those groups the space to speak and be heard. For that to happen, groups that have had a voice need to be silent.



I'd love to have SJWs shut up about "objectification" of fictional female video game characters because it's retarded but even the retarded have a right to speak.
I don't think that's a valuable conversation to have at all, are you going to tell me I can't speak about it because I'm not a woman? It affects me cause I'm a gamer and a male.

In your world, a certain subset of women and purtianical men could ban such things. Meanwhile books like Twilight would still be on sale. Y'know because women don't have a problem with that, even though it's the same thing except men are the "objectified" (A stupid nonsensical term quite frankly that fails to recognize the differences between how men and women express their sexuality) and it's text.



Sunrider said:


> Yikes.



No yikes about it. Non-citizens have no place at all voting about anything in a country. That is absolute. 

Neither do criminals who have not proven themselves to be reformed.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 17, 2019)

... so yeah, the dumpster fire above me (and the exchange leading to it) is a case study on the thread's topic.


----------



## Natty (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> Like I said Imma let folks with personal experience touch on that. Imma tag @Natty and see her feelings on imposing bans on trans folk because some cis folk _might_ abuse it.





Island said:


> I can't imagine that transgender people, for example, are particularly happy to defend which bathroom they get to use or women to defend why they should be able to decide what happens to their bodies.



Historically the stats don't support the narrative of people en masse faking being trans to abuse people in the bathroom. Those people are already breaking the law, they'd do it or something like it even if trans people weren't allowed in the bathrooms of their choice. Trans people have a higher chance of getting abused in the bathroom.

As far as the sports things go, it's something I'm still learning about and info is still being produced so I'm not exactly sure. My feelings say no for competition, but I am seeing contradictory information. Not sure.

I had a lengthy discussion about it in the cafe a couple months back. I asked to be section banned from the cafe to avoid these sort of discussions since they're exhausting, upsetting and ultimately go nowhere.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 17, 2019)

Natty said:


> Historically the stats don't support the narrative of people en masse faking being trans to abuse people in the bathroom. Those people are already breaking the law, they'd do it or something like it even if trans people weren't allowed in the bathrooms of their choice. Trans people have a higher chance of getting abused in the bathroom.


If we're using the argument that people fake being trans to get into another bathroom, then the logical response would be to ban cis people from bathrooms.

(the argument falls apart anyway since cases of sexual assault in restrooms are overwhelmingly perpetrated by cis men who've already decided which bathroom they're going into and that the argument was trumped up by people who already think trans folk are unnatural or 'faking it,' but I wanted a trans person to weigh in before I brought that up)


> As far as the sports things go, it's something I'm still learning about and info is still being produced so I'm not exactly sure. My feelings say no for competition, but I am seeing contradictory information. Not sure.


The general argument I've observed is that there's enough physical/performance variation among cis folk that there's no reason trans folk shouldn't be included.

Case in point: Serena Williams and Caster Semeneya. Both cis women with powerful, athletic frames, both the subject of misogynistic epithets (calling them men), and the latter actually requested to take performance-limiting drugs. And there are trans women with smaller frames than either of them.


> I had a lengthy discussion about it in the cafe a couple months back. I asked to be section banned from the cafe to avoid these sort of discussions since they're exhausting, upsetting and ultimately go nowhere.


Case in fucking point. When unaffected/opposed outsiders insert themselves/are allowed into the conversation we spend unnecessary amounts of energy explaining ourselves to them, among other issues. 

Unions don't take the company owner's input on what the workers need, the same principle applies to minority groups.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunrider said:


> If we're using the argument that people fake being trans to get into another bathroom, then the logical response would be to ban cis people from bathrooms.
> 
> (the argument falls apart anyway since cases of sexual assault in restrooms are overwhelmingly perpetrated by cis men who've already decided which bathroom they're going into and that the argument was trumped up by people who already think trans folk are unnatural or 'faking it,' but I wanted a trans person to weigh in before I brought that up)



We are talking about a minuscule amount of people who could and would abuse it sure, but even that isn't going to fly with the average person.

If one person feels their safety could possibly be threatened in anyway by even a 0.1% increase then they'll probably vote against something.



Sunrider said:


> IWhen unaffected/opposed outsiders insert themselves/are allowed into the conversation we spend unnecessary amounts of energy explaining ourselves to them, among other issues.
> 
> Unions don't take the company owner's input on what the workers need, the same principle applies to minority groups.



People confuse what's nice with the right thing to do today. Which has led to the moral authoritarian behavior people adopt these days.
I have plenty of opinions but rarely do I think my views are the one and only path. That's why we let these so called outsiders speak.

Because by nature humans are biased towards themselves and their groups. If we let only one group speak, it will most likely lean to what they want, at the detriment of others.
We built the system for everyone to speak because in the end we reach the most balanced conclusion... Yes it takes more time, but we lessen the probability of adopting extremism this way.

Ofc not all people in some vague group think the same, but that seems to be the basis of how people view the world these days. If it was like that of course, then the majority race and gender would always decide how things go.
Hence why all the voices are needed for a balanced view. All of those so white straight males might have an opinion that's favorable to you. They can help you push something through. They're not allowed to help you because they agree but they're not the same color/orientiation/race?
Your point about those directly affected works on paper, but when you dissect it, it's revealed to be quite ludicrous. Silencing one group based on the pretense that they have an opposing view is already insanity. Taking away the right to vote and speak on something cause of race/sexuality/orientation is discrimination. It doesn't matter if they agree or disagree with what you believe is right.

I want to be crystal clear here too... I don't give a damn about trans people using any bathroom. It's an opinion that I will certainly spread as I do enjoy a political debate from time to time.
I already said it but I'm pro-choice. Hell some people should not be parents. Just about the whole of Alabama would benefit greatly if they never reproduced.
It's just that, limiting who can vote on an issue due to unchangeable characteristics? That's an easy no. You can't be for tolerance and diversity and then spin it back into segregation and intolerance.

EDIT - Fucking high and put pro-life instead of pro-choice


----------



## Raiden (Sep 13, 2019)

A lot of my friends are undergrad are Republicans. We usually don't talk about politics anymore. Interestingly, they were a bit divided on the Obama Presidency, though many of them supported Romney in 2012. 

Recently though, they have gone all in for the current President and do not like the prospective nominees. 

So that's definitely a little awkward. I try not to talk about politics with them. We usually talk about IRL stuff, games etc.


----------



## The Great One (Sep 13, 2019)

If someone is a good friend of mine and helpful and a good person (to me), I don't care how he/she treats either Sikhs, Hindu, Muslims, Christian or white, Blacks, brown, Yellow or his political views etc.

Because those things do not effect me personally.


----------



## Son Of Man (Sep 13, 2019)

Not into politics enough to really care but if they're blowhards for either "side" or whatever they can ead.


----------



## Snowless (Sep 13, 2019)

To be completely honest, I'm good at seeing people as human beings, which lets me see both the good and bad in them. And even if I consider the bad to be pretty shitty and hateful, I'm capable of being amicable with them and try to live by the philosophy of giving people space to change their minds and let go of hatred. And I also think it's important to not let yourself get caught living in a bubble and to expose yourself to different ideas and to challenge yourself.

For example, I'm fairly left-leaning in my political views, but I know and get along with Trump supporters, who I think are really kind and nice people.


----------



## Trueno (Sep 16, 2019)

I think the old American "I don't like what you say but I'll fight for your right to say it" sums it up


----------



## A Optimistic (Sep 18, 2019)

I don't agree with most of my friend's political views but it doesn't get in the way of our friendship whatsoever.


----------



## Kitsune (Sep 19, 2019)

I have no problem cordially conversing with people who hold opposite values from my own, but I have no interest in a close friendship with someone like that.


----------



## Aduro (Sep 19, 2019)

I think that a person's political views are very revealing about a person's peronality. If they significantly disagree with me about a political issue that I feel strongly about, I probably won't like other things they think or believe in either. I don't think its a shallow thing to dislike people who disagree with me about important issues. Even if that person is fun to be around, if we talk about something serious or important to me, and they consistently say something I strongly disagree with, I will inevitably grow to dislike them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

