Can you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?

[ctuser1]

Human brain is inherently aware of, what we’d call ‘race’.

It’s an accident. But there are some genetically passed on physical features that catch our eye. Our eye can’t detect that genetic differences don’t follow race lines. So these “visible markers” are arbitrary. If you are white, another random white person is not much likely to be genetically closer to you than a black. There is peer reviewed research to this effect (which I’m too lazy to google up).

So, as long as someone is aware of this ‘flaw’ in how ALL human brain operates, including his/her own, and consciously works on correcting it, he/she is a good and ethical human being in my book. I would not consider him/her to be inferior in any way.

If however, that is not the case (as it seems to be the case with almost all ‘conservatives’ today), then i doubt it is ever possible to cross that moral chasm. Most ‘conservatives’ I see are uniquely incapable of any introspection. So I don’t quite see how you can get them to be aware of a ‘flaw’ in the hardware design in their brain that they must attempt to override with software (I.e. conscious thinking).

[Shane]

Seems to me that regardless of which side you're on, you should always leave the door open to being wrong, and to hearing the other side.  It's not good to have people hold their tongue around you.

It may be necessary if they wish to keep their employment.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself

Thanks for sharing Matt Taibbi's article. It was good. Had never heard of him before. Signed up for updates.

[Shane]

I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.

I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.

Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.

They don't cut off contact because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. They're classifying their pronouncements that racial profiling doesn't exist and that all liberals should be jailed or shot as "a difference of opinion." She's always been super opinionated and digs in her heels very easily.  The area she lives in is openly racist with the small black population receiving numerous death threats over the last couple weeks, but she insists that our black friends are blowing everything out of proportion.

But apparently I'm supposed to keep this friendship going because someday she might change her mind...

Our Right-wing neighbor is constantly sending me emails and texts, some written by him and others just copied and pasted, which casually say things like, "I HATE liberals, now, more than ever!," "Nancy Pelosi should crawl under a rock and die." "It would be great if Meghan McCain got the Corona and died." etc. Since our neighbor has told me he considers me a liberal, I've asked him why he keeps talking with me if he hates me so much. To which he said, "Oh, no, I don't hate any individual personally. I just hate liberals in general." I pointed out to him that he regularly singles out individuals for hatred and gave him examples: "Meghan McCain, Whoopi Goldberg, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren." (interestingly, it's usually women he singles out for hate). To which he said, "Oh, I didn't really mean that I want them to actually die. I just hate liberals so much!" He also regularly espouses hate for "Godless atheists," "communists," and anyone who is willing to tolerate not locking women who get abortions up. Then he'll change the subject and mention that he just made some chili or soup or bread and ask if we want to try some...

OTOH, I know "liberals" who believe strongly that people on the Right, who hold beliefs they consider to be reprehensible, should be arrested and put into "re-education camps," where they would stay, until they agreed with all the Left-wing talking points. The same liberals believe strongly the US should enact hate speech laws that would make it illegal to misgender someone or to say other mean or racist things to people. One of them's FB profile shows him wearing a t-shirt that says, "Make Racists Afraid Again."

Again? When were they ever afraid before?

Probably back when things were great?

[HBFIRE]

It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.

Mob is a funny word.

Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" --   Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon.


Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left.  It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening.  The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.

I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities.  This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community.  Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.

[Wrenchturner]

It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.

Mob is a funny word.

Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" --   Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon.


Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left.  It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening.

I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities.  This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community.  Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.

That is a very interesting article, thanks.

[HBFIRE]

That is a very interesting article, thanks.

Sure, this is a good listen as well.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.

[bacchi]

I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.

What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,

"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."

Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.

[Travis]

It's a virtual mob. In this case, because of the youthful nature of the internet, it's a "liberal" mob of trendsters. It's not much different from past mobs made up of conformist conservatives. Mobs are dangerous because one misstep can make the mob turn against you, even if you're on the same side.

Mob is a funny word.

Yes, it's basically becoming a "purity spiral" --   Here is a fascinating article on this phenomenon.


Interestingly, as you pointed out, this phenomenon has traditionally been rooted in conservative religious/cult atmospheres but now we're seeing it manifest from the left.  It would be an interesting study to look into the modern demise of religion being replaced with other forms of group think entities -- this is what I think is happening.  The book "Sapiens" gets into this subject.

I've seen all sorts of examples of this in a wide range of online communities.  This is why having a good mix and range of opinions/views/backgrounds is so important for a healthy community.  Echo chambers with mob mentality are dangerous.

I enjoy a healthy debate - when the other side wants to have an actual discussion.  When I was in college a writer for the campus newspaper went on regular rants about the military and ROTC with blatant lies and arguments that might have held water 40 or 50 years ago.  Any attempt to debate her was met with silence - and a new article with fresh bullshit accusations.  Right after I graduated, a group of students crashed several guest lectures by walking right up to the podium chanting and shouting. And some of these were events people paid to attend.  They weren't interested in debate, just drowning out any contrary opinions.

There are people in my workplace and personal life who I am engaging with on these issues.  We don't agree on every point.  The people I described when I resurrected this thread are like the liberal students mentioned above. They're shouting at the world and have no desire to hear from anybody else.  Their positions range from "there is no racism, stop complaining" to "I'm the one being terrorized! Why hasn't Trump had them all shot yet?!"  I had what I thought was a meaningful discussion with one of them the other day.  I brought up how I thought the police violence against the protesters was illegal and he said "there should be reform." The next day he made ten separate posts screaming that the police are the victims and they're doing nothing wrong.  This morning it was the claim that he's the victim of terrorism because protesters are getting laws changed.  How long am I supposed to keep debating a brick wall? 

Maybe I'm taking this issue more personally than I would in other circumstances. Some of these people I served with. We took oaths to defend the entire Constitution, but they seem to think the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters. We fought actual terrorists together, but they think peaceful Americans should be shot in the streets by the Army.  They're retired. I'm still serving in this Army. I'm having a tough time figuring out how long I'm supposed to keep this line of communication open with someone who has his fingers stuck in his ears and advocates for me murdering his neighbors because he doesn't think they have a right to be upset about something that should have been fixed 40 years ago.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.

What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,

"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."

Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.

I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.

[Plina]

I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.

What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,

"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."

Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.

I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.

The last sentence pretty much summarize my thinking. I have relatives with opinions I don’t support but we rarely talk about these issues so no ranting.

Most of the so called ”friends” on FB I don’t really consider being friends rather acquiantances so I have no problems to unfollowing them or taking of the feed. But politics is not so polarisen here as it seems to be in US so I don’t see that much of the crap.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I have a friend that I've known for nearly 20 years who is flat-out skinhead style racist. What allows me to be friends with him is the fact that he does not put his beliefs on other people, including those he is racist against. I have never seen or heard of him being anything other than courteous to people of other ethnicities. Yes, he wholeheartedly believes that races should not mix and the rest of that shit, but he also wholeheartedly believes that manners make the man. It's a bizarre combination. Since he keeps it to himself, I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.....as misguided as I think he is. We used to talk about his/my beliefs more, but actually he's never going to change and neither am I, so now we just let that bit lie.

What if you were in the minority group, though? As in, the skinhead goes on a rant about black people and thugs, etc., etc., and then ends it with,

"Well, not you. You're one of the few good ones."

Sure, you can make a good faith effort to change their mind and cure their hate but, after a few years of them calling out n* thugs, surely you can be excused from being "intolerant" if you drop that person from your life.

I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on rants like that or used that kind of terminology. My friend is racist ... but he's not rude. He will happily chat with people other racists would refuse to talk to or be exceptionally rude to. He simply has his own beliefs. I have another friend who is a very committed Catholic, who undoubtedly things I'm sinful and going to hell, but manages not to tell me that! It's her private belief. People are entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't inflict them on others.

The last sentence pretty much summarize my thinking. I have relatives with opinions I don’t support but we rarely talk about these issues so no ranting.

Most of the so called ”friends” on FB I don’t really consider being friends rather acquiantances so I have no problems to unfollowing them or taking of the feed. But politics is not so polarisen here as it seems to be in US so I don’t see that much of the crap.

I remember a guy I knew trying to explain to me (in a room full of people of various ethnicities) why black people couldn't concentrate for long periods of time (?!). I had no trouble telling that guy where to fuck off to. And how often.

[js82]

I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.

I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.

Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.

Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people.  Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.

You do realize that this is the kind of attitude that will invariably undermine what you're trying to accomplish, right?

You are using some tremendously broad brush strokes here.  I have some relatives in the deep south who are quite religious and hold more conservative views on certain issues (abortion) in association with that.  They're also very aware of racial injustices and have been vocally on the side of the protesters and the need for police reform.  When you try to force-fit everyone into two categories you're mischaracterizing most of the world.  And that's one of the things that's wrong with our partisan environment - the "conform or be cast out" attitude of both the modern Republican Party, as well as a growing segment of the Democratic Party.

In the context of certain issues, it's important to differentiate whether someone is coming from a place of malevolence, or simply ignorance.  In my experience it's usually the latter - and that's a condition that's curable, *if* people choose to engage.  The racism discussion is a prime example - I know relatively few people who are overtly racist, but I know huge numbers of people who are in the "Racism doesn't exist in this country"/"America doesn't have race issues" camp, and are largely unaware of their unconscious biases.  These are generally not terrible people; they're usually coming from the perspective of a white person who lives in an overwhelmingly white area, and hasn't had the kinds of experiences/discussions with people of other races to understand that what is "normal" for one person may be vastly different from "normal" for another.  THOSE are the people that you need to engage with if you're looking to make progress - people who aren't jerks, but who are unaware of certain aspects of a particular issue, but are open to hearing new perspectives.

[Dancin'Dog]

I don't see how it is possible to support Trump and be a decent human being. It just isn't. I'm done having anything other than the most superficial contact with even my own sister.

I don't see how it's possible to be a decent human being and cut off contact with close family.

Note: in all these stories of conservatives and progressives disagreeing, it's always the progressive who cuts off contact. You're not treating it as a political party, then, but a cult. That's not healthy, and it's also a really, really shitty way to effect progressive change. Social change comes from engaging with people, not cutting them off.

Progressives are decent people that don't enjoy associating with shitty people.  Conservatives are shitty people that enjoy having decent people around to shit on.

You do realize that this is the kind of attitude that will invariably undermine what you're trying to accomplish, right?

You are using some tremendously broad brush strokes here.  I have some relatives in the deep south who are quite religious and hold more conservative views on certain issues (abortion) in association with that.  They're also very aware of racial injustices and have been vocally on the side of the protesters and the need for police reform.  When you try to force-fit everyone into two categories you're mischaracterizing most of the world.  And that's one of the things that's wrong with our partisan environment - the "conform or be cast out" attitude of both the modern Republican Party, as well as a growing segment of the Democratic Party.

In the context of certain issues, it's important to differentiate whether someone is coming from a place of malevolence, or simply ignorance.  In my experience it's usually the latter - and that's a condition that's curable, *if* people choose to engage.  The racism discussion is a prime example - I know relatively few people who are overtly racist, but I know huge numbers of people who are in the "Racism doesn't exist in this country"/"America doesn't have race issues" camp, and are largely unaware of their unconscious biases.  These are generally not terrible people; they're usually coming from the perspective of a white person who lives in an overwhelmingly white area, and hasn't had the kinds of experiences/discussions with people of other races to understand that what is "normal" for one person may be vastly different from "normal" for another.  THOSE are the people that you need to engage with if you're looking to make progress - people who aren't jerks, but who are unaware of certain aspects of a particular issue, but are open to hearing new perspectives.

My reply to Kyle was broad on purpose.  His question was about progressives cutting off contact with conservatives, but not conservatives cutting off contact with progressives. 


I just meant that progressives get tired of trying to deal with closed-minded people, while conservatives enjoy insulting progressives. 


I know there are a lot of gray areas between us all.  I have plenty of conservative friends & family that I continue close relationships with, but it's not always easy knowing that we have such different political views.  Tiptoeing around topics is uncomfortable, but that's the compromise we choose to accept in order to remain friends. 

[LaineyAZ]

As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis.  I worked with many folks like this:  they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.

However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it. 
That's the part that still baffles me:  they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board.  Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter.  Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school. 

So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.

[Chris22]

As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis.  I worked with many folks like this:  they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.

However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it. 
That's the part that still baffles me:  they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board.  Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter.  Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school. 

So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.

A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

[GuitarStv]

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.

But since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US?  (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.)  It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way.  Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .

[Chris22]

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.

It’s in the first sentence...

But since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US?  (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.)  It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way.  Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .

Given that the left has moved the goalposts so many times and screamed “racist” at literally every political opponent, I don’t even have the energy to debate the point with you.  Obama was against illegal immigration too, but as soon as Trump came out against it it was al racism all the time. Etc etc etc.

[MonkeyJenga]

Conservatives can be the ones to cut off contact. I just heard about a case in my own family. A Trump couple almost stopped talking to a sibling/sibling-in-law because of an accidental negative comment about Trump. The comment was accidental because everyone knows better than to talk about politics with this couple. They refuse to accept that anyone can have different opinions.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I reckon he's entitled to his opinion.

I enjoy simpatico relationships with my  polar opposites because of my cognizance that our polarities are rooted in the exercise of our freedom to choose where we situate ourselves on the political spectrum.

The primacy of the  value I affix  to  this freedom to choose supersedes any need for like-mindedness as a prerequisite for enduring, cordial relations.

[Michael in ABQ]

I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago. 

The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.

So I think it all depends on the people involved.

[GuitarStv]

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

Race wasn't mentioned in the post at all.

It’s in the first sentence...

The first sentence where he drew a distinction between conservatives and racists?  I meant racism as it pertains to who you voted for . . . the thing you were complaining about.  Which was not mentioned in the post at all.

But since you wanted to bring it up . . . which political party has been caught multiple times in the past ten years working to prevent black people from voting in the US?  (If you're having trouble finding the answer to this, it rhymes with Depublican.)  It's the same party that put an overtly racist person into the white house and fully supported him every step of the way.  Maybe if Republicans would stop being racist, people would stop telling them they're racist . . .

Given that the left has moved the goalposts so many times and screamed “racist” at literally every political opponent, I don’t even have the energy to debate the point with you.  Obama was against illegal immigration too, but as soon as Trump came out against it it was al racism all the time. Etc etc etc.

I don't think anyone said Trump was racist for preventing illegal immigration.  It was HOW he went about doing it.  Things like changing policy to seperate people from their children who aren't old enough to talk and wasting money on a wall that is completely ineffective at preventing immigration but works great as an imaginary deterrent to the imaginary Mexican rapists swarming the borders come immediately to mind.

[John Galt incarnate!]

We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better.

Respect for my polar opposites' political opinions is a corollary of the high value I place on their freedom to choose and express them.

[renata ricotta]

There is a lot overlap on the Venn diagram of "political beliefs" and "moral values." I think there are plenty of things that reasonable people can disagree about when it comes to politics, even when their values are more or less aligned. Often they agree on bedrock principles, but differ as to strategy for implementation or priorities. Zero qualms about remaining close with those people, even if we have pretty different ideas on "politics."

When a political matter is also a moral issue, I have a hard time remaining close with someone who has shown that under the surface, they have some opinions that I cannot square with my moral code. In 2016, I and a lot of other [often white] folks had the uncomfortable realization that a lot of people in our lives with whom we didn't "talk politics" had pretty ugly assumptions or beliefs once that surface was cracked. I have cousins I will never see the same way again once I realized they were ok with statements like all Mexicans are rapists, or thought the infamous pussy grabbing tape was no big deal/sorta funny. I cannot be close with someone who is willing to accept that level of casual racism and misogyny without alarm. And for the people who are actively pressing racism and misogyny (rather than just minimizing it), it's more than not being "close," I'm not sure I could stomach being around them on even a more casual basis.

Right now, the much harder call to me socially is the pervasive and common passive racism of apathy, ignorance, and privilege that allows [mostly white] folks to brush the current moment away as not a big deal and something that doesn't concern them, or who focus more on the inconvenience or relatively minor property damage as more important than centuries of oppression and terror. I truly honestly believe that we are all living in our generation's version of slavery/the Holocaust/the Civil Rights movement, but it will only be seen that way in retrospect. As a kid, I couldn't understand the people who sat idly by during those times, going about their days without feeling like it was their job to do anything about it. I have lots and lots of those people in my life, and I think it's my job to stay close to them and do my part to activate and motivate them to see and understand what they'd prefer to ignore. It's the "white moderate" from MLK's passage from Letter from a Birmingham Jail that has been weighing heavily on my heart lately:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[Imma]

@Michael in ABQ I also have a Catholic background, but have moved to a more liberal faith and political beliefs. I can still very much understand why someone would be against abortion, and I would never break off contact with someone just for disagreeing with me on a moral issue.

But I was raised with the idea that the central message of the Gospel is love. Lately it seems that our politics have been very divided and that both sides of the spectrum lack a spirit of love and community. I think those hard attitudes are the main issue in our current political landscape.

You can't just go around and ban things (like abortion, just to use that as an example) without addressing the causes and helping out the people who are affected. I don't want to point to you specifically, but for example, if someone is a member of a church that actively opposes abortion, does that church make sure that a young girl who falls pregnant is supported by the community, mentally and practically, so she can raise the child, or would the girl be an outcast? This is something I've seen so many times in churches. And this is just one example, I could come up with dozens from both sides of the political spectrum, but it all boils down to hating is easier than loving, and we need to hate each other less and love each other more.

[John Galt incarnate!]

There is a lot overlap on the Venn diagram of "political beliefs" and "moral values." I think there are plenty of things that reasonable people can disagree about when it comes to politics, even when their values are more or less aligned. Often they agree on bedrock principles, but differ as to strategy for implementation or priorities. Zero qualms about remaining close with those people, even if we have pretty different ideas on "politics."

When a political matter is also a moral issue, I have a hard time remaining close with someone who has shown that under the surface, they have some opinions that I cannot square with my moral code. In 2016, I and a lot of other [often white] folks had the uncomfortable realization that a lot of people in our lives with whom we didn't "talk politics" had pretty ugly assumptions or beliefs once that surface was cracked. I have cousins I will never see the same way again once I realized they were ok with statements like all Mexicans are rapists, or thought the infamous pussy grabbing tape was no big deal/sorta funny. I cannot be close with someone who is willing to accept that level of casual racism and misogyny without alarm. And for the people who are actively pressing racism and misogyny (rather than just minimizing it), it's more than not being "close," I'm not sure I could stomach being around them on even a more casual basis.

Right now, the much harder call to me socially is the pervasive and common passive racism of apathy, ignorance, and privilege that allows [mostly white] folks to brush the current moment away as not a big deal and something that doesn't concern them, or who focus more on the inconvenience or relatively minor property damage as more important than centuries of oppression and terror. I truly honestly believe that we are all living in our generation's version of slavery/the Holocaust/the Civil Rights movement, but it will only be seen that way in retrospect. As a kid, I couldn't understand the people who sat idly by during those times, going about their days without feeling like it was their job to do anything about it. I have lots and lots of those people in my life, and I think it's my job to stay close to them and do my part to activate and motivate them to see and understand what they'd prefer to ignore. It's the "white moderate" from MLK's passage from Letter from a Birmingham Jail that has been weighing heavily on my heart lately:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

It's been a while since I read Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

 It is  rhetorical brilliance, a matchlessly persuasive   tour de force.

[LaineyAZ]

As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis.  I worked with many folks like this:  they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.

However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it. 
That's the part that still baffles me:  they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board.  Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter.  Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school. 

So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.

A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

I would believe A) and B) if that principle was ever applied to our gargantuan military.  Alas, it's only ever mentioned for any program that's part of our societal safety net.  How many times have we all heard, "I'm tired of throwing money at [social or medical benefit]", while that same phrase is never used for corporate bailouts?
Not buying it.

And my first sentence in my original post did have the word "or" in there.

[Travis]

As many have said here, their friends or acquaintances who have hard conservative or even racist beliefs can actually be very polite and helpful on an individual basis.  I worked with many folks like this:  they would gladly do things like donate blood, or volunteer at a food bank, or give money to a local individual in need.

However, if I proposed that many of these things could be handled at a policy level, e.g., increase the minimum wage, or use some tax money to provide affordable housing, or change Medicare to be available for all, they would absolutely be against it. 
That's the part that still baffles me:  they would rather contribute individually forever than strengthen the social safety net for everyone across the board.  Which means they would never vote for any politician who supports the latter.  Which means in effect they are telling that school-age kid that they'll chip in to buy her a new backpack when school starts, but will never increase their taxes to make sure those same kids have access to a school nurse, or counselor, or even functional heat or air conditioning in that same school. 

So yes, the political is personal no matter how "nice" these people are to your face.

A lot of conservatives feel that A) government tends to have a ton of waste so if you pay an extra $1 in taxes you only get $0.XX in benefit, B) that these things are the best dealt with in the private sector because government should only be so big or C) both.

Also, your post is essentially saying “some people contribute individually but because they won’t vote the way I demand I think they are racists.”  And then people wonder why they are pushing people away.

I would believe A) and B) if that principle was ever applied to our gargantuan military.  Alas, it's only ever mentioned for any program that's part of our societal safety net.  How many times have we all heard, "I'm tired of throwing money at [social or medical benefit]", while that same phrase is never used for corporate bailouts?
Not buying it.

And my first sentence in my original post did have the word "or" in there.

My holier than thou aunt posted this morning that she supports defunding the police, but only if every program that benefits poor people goes too.  Aside from her "Christian" credentials, I get a laugh whenever she complains about taxes and government spending. She's never worked a day in her life. She's been a corporate executive's wife from the start.

[MudPuppy]

Do you believe that the only “contribution” to society is in the form of wage labor? Because that’s how I’m reading your post.

[rocketpj]

It's a mixed bag.  One of my favourite relatives is a hardline conservative, founding member of what used to be the 'Reform' Party here in Canada.  We get along really well.  He is strong in his beliefs but very much a model of the 'rational conservative' and open to healthy discussion of almost any topic (we've learned not to discuss LGBTQ issues as we will never agree). 

One of my closest high school friends has also become a hardcore conservative, but not in the 'thinking, discussing' sense but more just sharing racist memes and wishing death on those of our countrymen who are treasonous enough to vote for other parties.  I've tried engaging with him but he or one of his friends just calls me a liberal fucktard (or whatever).  So we're done.

I currently have a good friend that is very much politically polar to my point of view.  We both coach baseball teams (in normal years) and have had a health competition going for a long time.  We're both also quite involved in the community (we organize the ball league and have both been heavily involved in the minor hockey leagues).  We play sports together, and hang out for a couple of beers together quite often.  We often discuss politics and rarely agree - but we are both open to discussion and also open to not necessarily winning the other one over.  He despises our current Prime Minister as a softie liberal, I think he isn't left enough.   We disagree and get on with things.  This I can handle and I'm always happy to engage in a political discussion that involves actual facts and events (and not just randomly spun up hatred memes).

[Travis]

Do you believe that the only “contribution” to society is in the form of wage labor? Because that’s how I’m reading your post.

She's led a very privileged life and spent my entire life reminding us about her moral and religious superiority.  Taken separately, no I'm not complaining about her lack of wage labor history. I see the two combined as a level of hypocrisy from her.

[MudPuppy]

That’s fair. The original statement gives me not great vibes.

[Travis]

That’s fair. The original statement gives me not great vibes.

Since the day I was born she's been under the impression my 1/8 Lakota bloodline makes me a heathen who needs to be "saved." My mother wasn't welcome at church, but she thought us kids needed to be there. Christmas and family reunions were always very trying times around her.

[MudPuppy]

You can join my church? We’re catholic but most of us aren’t the kind that set your house on for abortions

[Travis]

I had what I thought was a meaningful discussion with one of them the other day.  I brought up how I thought the police violence against the protesters was illegal and he said "there should be reform." The next day he made ten separate posts screaming that the police are the victims and they're doing nothing wrong.  This morning it was the claim that he's the victim of terrorism because protesters are getting laws changed. 

So this guy again...
Yesterday he announced "Why should police be perfect? Society isn't."
Someone other than me started the debate going back and forth with him. He claimed there's never been a case where a guilty cop got away with murder. He also claimed every police shooting was justified. He backpedaled a bit saying "Okay, not everyone is a criminal. And not every situation calls for deadly force." When confronted with data that 7% of police shootings involve unarmed suspects and that our military rules of engagement are stricter than the police, he simply "liked" the post and stopped talking.  Just when you think he might have acknowledged that reality isn't as absolute as his opinion on this, he went on another multi-post rant today that the police are never at fault and they're the only ones hurt by recent events.  It's like we never even had that conversation.

[Travis]

You can join my church? We’re catholic but most of us aren’t the kind that set your house on for abortions

Thanks for the offer, but I'm atheist who attends a bible study, my wife's conservative family is Methodist, but she attends Catholic mass and a Protestant 'not specifically denominational' service back to back and has liberal views on most subjects.

[Bloop Bloop]

As someone who's socially very progressive (yay for abortion, gay marriage, income-based affirmative action,  etc) and economically quite neoliberal (I believe in a safety net to ensure no one starves or lacks shelter, and I believe in free education and healthcare, but I would want a government that otherwise does not redistribute at all), I very rarely come across anyone whose beliefs align with mine. And that's fine. A diversity of views is good for discussion and it keeps you honest.

I wish that more forums could be like this one, where diversity is mostly encouraged (although I feel even here, there is strong groupthink around frugality, and I wish we could be more self-reflective about that - it's fine to endorse something without thinking it's the only acceptable view). A lot of other communities are just complete circle jerks that I can't tolerate because the people there become blind to other views and quite self-righteous.

[Travis]

As someone who's socially very progressive (yay for abortion, gay marriage, income-based affirmative action,  etc) and economically quite neoliberal (I believe in a safety net to ensure no one starves or lacks shelter, and I believe in free education and healthcare, but I would want a government that otherwise does not redistribute at all), I very rarely come across anyone whose beliefs align with mine. And that's fine. A diversity of views is good for discussion and it keeps you honest.

I wish that more forums could be like this one, where diversity is mostly encouraged (although I feel even here, there is strong groupthink around frugality, and I wish we could be more self-reflective about that - it's fine to endorse something without thinking it's the only acceptable view). A lot of other communities are just complete circle jerks that I can't tolerate because the people there become blind to other views and quite self-righteous.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/our-mustachian-sacred-cows/

Let the self reflection begin!

[sherr]

I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago. 

The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.

So I think it all depends on the people involved.

I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.

I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.

The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.

Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.

It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.

I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.

[DadJokes]

I've found over time that most of my friends from high school and college as well as most of my immediate and extended family are way to the left of me politically. I've considered myself libertarian most of my life but I definitely don't agree with big L libertarians on a lot of issues. A big part of that is the influence of my wife. It took close to a decade, but she finally brought me back to the Catholic faith I had nominally been raised in - even though I considered myself an atheist for many years. That was a case where we had very different beliefs, hers being much more conservative, but we still loved each other. I changed my mind from callously thinking that abortion is a great way to get rid of all the worthless people in the world to recognizing that it is inherently wrong and an evil act. That's probably not a topic I'm going to discuss with that random cousin on Facebook who posts nothing but left-wing political talking points. Although I have been able to have some of those discussions with old friends and family because they can't easily dismiss me as some random person on the internet. But we're not going to have the same friendship we did 15-20 years ago. 

The person I would still consider my best friend, even though we've only seen each other in person maybe 2-3 times in the last decade, has very different political beliefs from me. But we can still talk about plenty of other things without arguing about our political beliefs. We respect each others opinions and don't waste our infrequent conversations on trying to prove the other person wrong of convince them that our beliefs are better. He's the socially conscious urban liberal and I've become the conservative religious family man. But, we can still laugh at how the rent for his 1-bedroom apartment is three times the rent for my 5-bedroom house or how he can't imagine having six young kids.

So I think it all depends on the people involved.

I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.

I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.

The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.

Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.

It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.

I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.

Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).

No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).

So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.

[ctuser1]

Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).

No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).

So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.

It seems no clear, scientific evidence is going to rescue the "real issue" as you say. Is the fetus a "person"? Is the sperm a person? The Ova? Certain extreme interpretation of this would categorize almost all males as mass murderers.

So - no "clear scientific interpretation" is possible!!

Shouldn't you, then, leave it up to the women whose body you are debating over? Or are you of the opinion that the religious wing-nuts have jurisdiction to legislate over other people's body?

[MudPuppy]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

[ctuser1]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.

[GuitarStv]

You can join my church? We’re catholic but most of us aren’t the kind that set your house on for abortions

Thanks for the offer, but I'm atheist who attends a bible study, my wife's conservative family is Methodist, but she attends Catholic mass and a Protestant 'not specifically denominational' service back to back and has liberal views on most subjects.

You would fit right in at Canada's United Church.  There are some atheist ministers, and they're pretty chill on the dogma.  :P

[sherr]

I think this is accidentally a very good example of why it's sometimes hard for liberals to be friends with conservatives.

I have no problem with you believing that abortion is a sin. None at all. I don't agree, but that's fully within your right to believe, and to order your life around that belief. As you correctly note, that's a religious belief (not a scientific fact), and you have your freedom of religion written into the foundation of the constitution.

The problem comes when conservatives support banning abortion for other people who need them. That is them, taking their religious belief, and trying to force everyone else to abide by them. That is them taking away other people's freedom of religion. See also gay marriage, or any host of other social issues.

Would you still be friends with your liberal buddy if he was trying to get the government to force you to abort your 6th child? Probably not. That would be the opposite of abortion bans though.

It seems to me that generally "liberals" take the side of liberty, and "conservatives" take the side of illiberal "you have to do what I say and you don't have any rights only my rights matter". The one obvious exception is gun rights, where sure, conservatives are definitely more on the side of liberty.

I have no problem being friends with people that disagree with me as long as we agree on the core tenet of liberty, and their actions (including who they vote for) reflects that. And no I'm not some "taxation is theft" libertarian nut either. But if someone is actively trying to remove the constitutional freedoms from people not like them, that's something I would struggle to look past.

Rather than thinking that abortion is a sin, it's a case where people believe that abortion is murder (and murder is a sin).

No one wants to actually debate the real issue, which is when life begins. I'm generalizing here, but people on the right believe that it begins at conception, while people on the left believe that it begins at some point after that (I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the particular time).

So someone on the left saying that banning abortion infringes upon their liberties sounds no different than saying that banning the murder of children infringes upon liberties.

I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on the issue (though I could never conceive aborting a fetus), but I can see why some conservatives would refuse to be friends with someone that they believe supports legalized murder.

Right, but again, regardless of which way you lean that's a religious opinion. And you cannot make laws purely based on religious opinion in a society that holds freedom of religion as a core value. The government must enable freedom of religion, and allow conservatives to believe what they want and to order their lives around their beliefs, and allow other people to disagree.

[DadJokes]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.

I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

[ctuser1]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.

I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

The most important point that needs to be understood is whether the "opponent" is trying to impost their religious beliefs on others or not. If they are, they are against the constitution and the basis on which America is founded.

It is a constitutional question, not an "abortion" question.

Can we agree on this much?

As long as the "opponent" is not trying to impost their religious beliefs on other people via legislation, I'm sure a reasoned discussion should be possible.

[sherr]

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).

If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.

There simply is no equivalent "from the left". The closest you can come is saying that restrictions on guns are similar, but that just seems not convincing to me.

[Bloop Bloop]

I don’t think dad jokes was taking that position personally, just that he was trying to illustrate

Hmmmm... When you are casually flinging accusations of "murder" - I'd think certain manner of illustration should be considered very ill-mannered and deserve proportionate response.

I'm stating what people on the right think. Some might call it playing devil's advocate. It helps to actually understand your opponent's thought process.

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

Some people believe that their religious beliefs are simply inviolable. That either because god tells them it's wrong, or because abortion involves killing of a "living human" and that is wrong, that the ethical equation stops there.

Call that a rule-based moral code. There's a hard and fast rule and that's just how it applies.

Others believe that life doesn't start till X time (say, third trimester) and therefore their application of the rule is different. But it's still a rule-based code.

Others (like me) look at certain decisions in a more utilitarian sense. For example, I don't think life starts at any given point. It's a sliding scale. In my ideal world a parent would be able to kill an infant of a few months' age if there were really good grounds. But a parent without any good grounds would not be able to do that, but would be able to abort an early-term foetus for no reason at all because I consider the foetus has no sentience. But you could argue the facts and you could also argue whether the ends justify the means.

Point is, people approach issues from different mindsets. Some are heavily "rule based" and some are heavily "outcome based" and it can be hard to align the two, though there are good arguments for both approaches.

What really shits me is when one camp fails to acknowledge the internal validity and consistency of the other.

This especially annoys me when it comes to politics. There are very few political positions (outside of, I guess, outright racist/fascist ideologies) that cannot be justified. I wish people would be better able to argue a point which is contrary to their own.

Before you try to argue your own point, make sure that you can argue the opposing point just as fervently. If you can't, you have no business putting forth either point.

[Bloop Bloop]

There are debate points against what you and @sherr have said, but this isn't a thread about abortion, so I'll drop it.

That's fine and I don't mean to be picking a fight, but I think my main point got dropped in the mean time. It's not a matter of abortion in particular being right or wrong. It's a general trend of liberty vs illiberalism. No one is trying to force anyone else to have an abortion, for example. No one is trying to force people to marry someone of the same sex, or even pastors to officiate gay weddings (although yes I know that was a common talking point / lie from the right a few years ago).

If we can agree on the core tenet of liberty then I have no problem with being friends with people who disagree with me. You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, you probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Oh you're trying to force everyone else in the country to comply with your religious beliefs? Now we have a problem.

Not really. Many people on the "left" would not be comfortable with:
- Exploitative market conditions
- Paying your way into a school or job
- Nepotism

Yet those are things which do not require any breaking of anyone's consent.

You argue against the use of "religious beliefs", which I understand because I take religion to be an essentially irrational and dogmatic construct, but to someone who's religious, (and even in a larger sense), there's not much difference between religious dogma and a philosophical tenet (like the importance of liberty or the notion that all men are created equal). In a way, they all boil down to first principles that are not supported by anything else, but are mere dogma.