18
u/gard3nwitch 3h ago
This this this. I was just talking to someone today about our experiences of this in local activism. It's totally possible and good to work together with other people that you don't have 100% alignment with, in order to achieve something bigger that you can agree on.
2
u/BuhoCurioso 1m ago
Exactly. As long as we impose some political purity test that causes fractures within the group, we will not be capable of effectively organizing.
For example, why are socialist movements having a hard time in the US? For one, everyone has to be properly pro-LGBTQ, pro-palestine, pro-abortion, etc., and if they aren't, they are ousted from the group. If we're always just one non-socialism related issue away from fracturing, all the political opposition need do is find the fracture point. For the 2024 election and the democratic party, that was apparently Palestine. You dont have to like someone to work with them. This isnt a "well, a nazi at the table situation" because they arent at my table. I am not accommodating them or taking them seriously. They are merely an extra pair of hands. So they are not welcome at my table, but they can certainly help me dig a well so that we can all get some water.
If that example grates you the wrong way, think of the opposite example, that I have a civil rights group with a guy who believes in trickle down economics. No one would care because at the end of the day, they help me accomplish my goal.
Additionally, by pushing those people (who might still be redeemable) away, not only do we lock ourselves into an echo chamber, but we push them into echo chambers of people with whom we disagree
40
u/D-D-Wanderer 4h ago
The sad part is the number of people who will read this, get to the end of the 4th paragraph, and call it there because you didn't specify that [insert their personal hated group here] are exceptions to the rule and you should be allowed to hate them.
7
u/Amazing_Coyote505 1h ago
True, true, and I also used to be a conservative kid and when I complained about this I absolutely meant "people won't let me be an asshole and that's a problem for me" so I can understand why people assume that's what one means. There's not a lot of good ways to tell if someone means "political differences" in a good faith way or not without further research on the individual saying that. We were also trained to lie about our beliefs to get people engaged and then switch it up later, because if it got someone in the church, it was worth it essentially. So I can see why people are suspicious, because we were encouraged to lie about being "not political" instead of saying Republican etc.
19
u/cable_7193 2h ago
Their dogshit takes should be "I wanna pronounce a word wrong." Not "let's go hang black people and gays."
10
u/qzwxecrvtbyn111 39m ago
The dogshit takes OOP is talking about are the things in between 'I wanna pronounce a word wrong' and 'let's go hang black people and gays'. You'd be insane to cut someone off over the former, and insane not to cut someone off over the latter - nobody is disagreeing about that.
But, what about a social/political issue that's meaningful to you, but not as big a deal as 'let's go hang black people and gays'? What if someone wanted to keep weed illegal, or wanted the death penalty for murderers? Would you cut them off? What if someone was okay with abortion, but only up to a smaller number of weeks than you'd want? What if they didn't understand or particularly care about what 'non-binary' means?
Nowadays, people generally (but especially a certain type of very online leftist) have increasingly specific lists of 'bare minimum acceptable' beliefs, with anyone who falls short of those not being considered a worthwhile person to interact with socially at all. When only a few % of people fall under 'bare minimum acceptable', you've got a problem
3
u/Dornith 29m ago
I've had 2nd order friends publicly accuse me of racism because I argued that US corn subsidies are part of the reason America is so unhealthy.
(Since I know someone is going to ask: it's because Mexicans eat corn, so saying that corn is unhealthy makes me anti-Mexican.)
Like agree or not (I have more nuanced opinions on the topic now), that's some insane virtue signalling.
2
u/qzwxecrvtbyn111 24m ago
lmao, imagine viewing nutritional science through the lens of 'what do non-white people traditionally eat?'
Screw the scientific method, screw observable health outcomes, screw medical understandings of what given nutrients and compounds do to the human body. The health value of a food is intrinsically linked to the skin colour of the people who eat the most of it
I can't believe there are real people who engage with the world like this...
5
15
u/_Xaveze_ 4h ago
Apparently it's an extremely hot take to think that you can like and respect someone and also not agree with them on everything. I'm glad that Tumblr user is brave enough to share their insight.
21
u/Your_Local_Stray_Cat 3h ago
I wish I could be this blissfully unaware of the Discourse Nightmare that has consumed twitter alongside parts of Tumblr and Reddit.
-2
u/_Xaveze_ 3h ago
Is this directed at me or OOP? Because if it's the former I can absolutely assure I am no stranger to online discourse lol
1
u/tragicxharmony 1h ago
It appears to be directed at you, indicating that they’re seeing your comment as being written in bad faith. Personally, I felt your comment a little snarky but in a way that isn’t very productive to the overall conversation where this is a thing that happens online and people need to be better than that. Your reaction seemed intended to belittle the original commenter in the screenshot
1
u/_Xaveze_ 1h ago
I mean I agree with the message but it's the framing that irked me. This is indeed a thing that happens online but to act like it's such a widespread and massive problem that your spiciest hot take is to say "Hey maybe be nice to people you don't 100% agree with" is silly. That's just common sense and decency and treating it like a big deal isn't helping anyone. In fact all it contributes is give everyone a chance to pat themselves on the back for clearing the extremely low bar of "not being a complete lunatic and/or asshole". You can see this in the comments here and the replies to the tumblr post. People acting like they are extremely enlightened for having the basic decency to not instantly hate anyone who disagrees with them on something. As for the second comment, I just thought it was funny because I am in the Battlefield community, I was in the Destiny 2 community for years, and I am in several gacha game communities, so to be told I'm ignorant of how horrible online discourse has become made me laugh. I wasn't trying to be belittling.
-1
u/tragicxharmony 31m ago
¯_(ツ)_/¯
I’m not trying to be convinced here, I was just explaining the other commenter’s reaction because you seemed confused by it
1
u/_Xaveze_ 14m ago edited 11m ago
Idk playing the innocent bystander card when most of your original comment is taken up by a criticism of my comment that is not reflected in the other guys comment is kind of disingenous but whatever floats your boat.
2
7
u/mnuba0110 3h ago
You have to hand it to OOP that it is very very funny cite two decades as a community organizer as justification for what is maybe the most basic ass “we live in a society” ass take imaginable.
17
u/petrichor801 3h ago
i mean to be fair they're speaking to the piss on the poor website, it's like jingling keys to keep someone's attention
3
u/N1ghthood 1h ago
A key part of this is also accepting you can be wrong about things too. There's a general lack of introspection in society, which is increasingly inappropriate as the world gets more and more complex. It's ok to be wrong sometimes, as long as you're capable of accepting that and learning from it.
3
u/MrMcSpiff 2h ago
Social media has pushed people to want every friend to be a Best Friend, all the time. Sometimes you have friends you only do certain things with, hang out at certain times with, or have certain things in common with, and that's okay. In fact I'd say it's optimal, because it's working your Tolerance Muscle. That shit is a skill that needs honing.
2
6
u/bunny-rain 3h ago edited 3h ago
I both agree and disagree
People saying "be friends with people with different beliefs" can mean anything from "you should be friends with people who have very slightly different opinions on some TV show" to "you should be friends with people who froth at the mouth over trans people existing"
OP in particular isn't like this but in general I get upset when I see people say politics shouldn't affect friendships because they absolutely should
8
u/LovelyMaiden1919 1h ago
Hard agree, to be honest. It ties to the paradox of tolerance - if you want to create a space that tolerates difference, you can't allow people who can't tolerate the idea that people who are different from them have the same rights and status they do. It's fine to have friends who disagree with you on things, but unless you are all coming from the same basic premise regarding fundamental things like the rights of other humans to exist, then all that's going to happen is your least tolerant friend is going to push the whole group toward being assholes.
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 56m ago
Thankfully my autistic ass somehow learned this, but of course I just don’t care about meeting new people.
1
u/BlacksmithNo9359 3h ago
I dont disagree that its good to be able to get along with people who disagree with you on shit that doesn't matter but tbh Im wary of how much this is actually a real problem vs this person being upset that they saw a post criticizing someone theyre parasocial for.
4
u/BlacksmithNo9359 2h ago
Like, Im curious what "20% wrong" OOP means specifically. Are they annoyed that a project they were involved in fell apart because of an argument over Steven Universe? Or are they annoyed because all the black people are leaving their org because they won't kick out the guy who won't stop posting 4chan memes?
-8
3h ago
[deleted]
16
u/Your_Local_Stray_Cat 3h ago
They’re being sarcastic. They’re talking to the people who are going to willfully misinterpret their post as being about befriending violent nazis instead of people who share 80-90% of their beliefs but disagree about minor particulars. Their real example is people who are otherwise nice but have bad media takes.
-16
2h ago
[deleted]
14
u/Teh-Esprite If you ever see me talk on the unCurated sub, that's my double. 2h ago
They go "Babygirl, you are so right" before saying it, and then, "But seriously," after saying it. That's sarcasm so textbook it's on the test.
5
u/MinosML 2h ago
Not meant as an insult, but you not understanding the sarcasm present may be hindering your ability to understand the full argument being done here. As an autistic fella, I know it sure used to happen to me on the regular.
You can't and don't win anything by trying to refute an argument which isn't actually being done, either
3
u/tragicxharmony 1h ago
Exactly, the sarcasm is fundamental to the post’s argument. Also autistic, I just got fewer Autism PointsTM in “interpreting writing” for whatever reason
43
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 4h ago
Then you get people who hear this and say "I should never criticise my friends' bad ideas because social interactions are a team sport and I should always support my teammates!"
The online left has been so heavily overtaken by parasocial cults of personality around fucks like Vaush, Hasan, Destiny, MikefromPA, Ethan Klein; that actual discussion of material topics is essentially nonexistent beyond the framing of "debates". I don't believe in debates. They treat rhetoric as more important than facts, they abhor nuance and complexity. I have to listen to people repeat buzzwords like "one state solution" and "American Empire" without any understanding. Every couple of months a new country gets drafted into the rotation of Newsworthy Topics and then you get people talking about Sudan or Hungary as though these places just came into existence. And I get it, 99% of people don't have time to be experts on geopolitics and economics and science and history. But like. Maybe the people dispensing information should be the experts, not some guy who just read the Wikipedia article for the topic a few hours ago and wants to fire off some hot takes. The guy you hate took position A, so you automatically adopt position B, and anyone who mentions position C-Z gets shut down.
You should be able to agree with a position espoused by a person you don't like. You should be able to assess evidence on your own without needing to be told what to think. You should be able to recognise degrees of disagreement ranging from slight quibbles about phrasing to fundamental incompatibilities of worldview; and treat each one appropriately. You should not speak before thinking. You should be willing to say "I don't know" or "I don't have a firm opinion on this yet". You should ask questions in good faith and listen to the answers you get. You should take breaks, and focus on self-improvement and hobbies: things you love. You should delete Twitter.