While I agree with some of what's said here, there are some sentiments expressed that I find surprising.
I understand that it's impossible to get a true measure of someones opinion on divisive matters from a few written paragraphs, so if I'm wide of the mark here I apologise in advance - but whether my assumptions are correct or not, I'd just like to add some perspective from the centre ground. Because I feel strongly that perspective is almost entirely missing from the narrative. Not just here - but in the mainstream media, on social media and in most of the polemic discussion I hear and see almost everywhere.
free_phil_spector wrote:
You need to realise what the motivation is for most of his supporters: spite. The more he annoys people they don't like ("the liberals") the more they like him. They know he's a lunatic. But they don't care because he "owns the libs". In a nutshell Trump is revenge for Obama. Huge swathes of the USA (ie those in the boonies with shooters who are convinced to this day that "the commies are coming to get us") were seriously fucking pissed off that a black man got elected into the White House. Trump is their payback. And the more egregious his behaviour gets, the more they like him.
Really? You're prepared to express the opinion that a majority (you said 'most') of Trump voters are spiteful rednecks that fantasise about shooting people?
free_phil_spector wrote:
Look at who you're dealing with: most of them are spiteful, insular, unpleasant people who's number one concern in life is to preserve their right to own a firearm. They dont give a fuck about social injustice, universal healthcare or black people being murdered by the police.
Again. Really? A majority of Trump voters 'dont give a fuck about social injustice, universal healthcare or black people being murdered by the police.'
Do you know them all personally? Perhaps you've taken a particularly thorough poll that I don't yet know about?
There's some truth in much of what you've said here FPS but there is very little of your diatribe fits within the description of liberal that KMC presented in this same thread.
KeyMonCha wrote: ↑Sat 25th Jul 2020 10:01 am
liberal /ˈlɪb(ə)r(ə)l/
1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"liberal views towards divorce"
Perhaps your idea of respect and acceptance is different to mine. I've been a member of a couple of debate clubs and was taught that the central tenet of debate club is "Have some respect for your opponent. Otherwise you don't deserve your place at the debate table".
I should hope that's a good mantra for any successful liberal to follow, but I don't see a lot of respect in your opinions for Trump voters. Many of which (much the same as Tory voters here in the UK) I'm absolutely positive (because I know plenty personally) are good people. Good people that I just happen to disagree with.
Some of them are prejudiced arseholes sure. That's true (because humans) - but in civilised society I would have thought by now (especially given current events in the US) that we might have learned that grouping people together and evaluating their societal value, or making baseless assumptions about their character based on the behaviour of the worst people in any given group is a fundamental wrong turn.
We have a name for it: bigotry - and it's always ugly, whether you're punching up, down, left or right. It's always ugly. And it's never ok.
Part of me says that as a person striving to see difficult issues from both sides of the narrative because the current narrative seems to be happening only at the extreme edges of the debate - with divisive rhetoric being flung from both the left and right. Personally I think that's myopic at best. Idiotic is probably closer. But I'm trying not to express that. Like you - I probably fail sometimes. Especially when faced with wilful ignorance.
But I'm trying. Because it's important.
A bigger part of me knows that in the nearly 50 years I've been alive, there's never been a example of a debate being won by insulting an opponent. Never.
You say with apparent surprise that:
free_phil_spector wrote:
Insulting them won't change their minds. I've no idea what will, but calling them thick racists just makes them dig their heels in even more.
Which makes me wonder why, if you feel so strongly about the issue, you're apparently making no attempt at all to embody this notion?
I don't mean to pick unnecessarily at you in particular - I'd like to think (at least I hope) that you're not a bigot and that your opinions are more nuanced than those you've presented here. I know it's hard to express generosity when people seem so far from your own position. God knows I've said similar things myself.
But I'm trying - because it's important.
KeyMonCha you said:
KeyMonCha wrote: ↑Sat 25th Jul 2020 10:01 am
i.e. We can march on city hall with guns to demand an end to lock-down, but peaceful protests about police brutality can be met with hellfire, since one or two of them smashed glass and did some graffiti?!?!
Maybe your idea of 'one or two' and 'peaceful protests' is different to mine, but I fail to see how a bunch of kids
smashing cities up, dragging innocents from cars and murdering civilians, police officers and
children alike can possibly be labelled as peaceful? I'm terrified that someone so moderate as your good-self might consider police action in these circumstances as unacceptable. Perhaps I've misunderstood your sentiment?
Macky - you said:
macky wrote: ↑Sat 25th Jul 2020 12:22 pm
There’s a cancer in this world and it’s not this thread ...regulations on social media platforms needed ..
While I agree that social media has a major part to play in the outrage machine that drives much of the divisive rhetoric and continues to dement and stir the pot. And while I admit to exploring similar thoughts myself. Having given it a lot of thought I cannot condone or support the idea of suppression of ideas through 'big-government' regulation and censorship, no matter how egregious.
The extremists MUST have chance to voice their bigotry. Because I like my bigots where I can see them so that I can rationalise with them and keep my eye on them. Silencing their voices is the best way to drive them underground and make them more powerful - it plays directly into their narrative of being an oppressed class. It's a mistake.
In fact. I'd wager that the leftists distaste of those on the right is one of the primary driving factors behind Trump being voted to power. As others here have surmised - Trump was a big fuck you those in power and those who voted them in - but also it was a big fuck you to the snobs that believe their opinions to be better than others.
We see similar things here in the UK in the rise of organisations like the EDL being formed around the suppression of people like Tommy Robinson being media silenced for having strong views about organised Muslim rape gangs. Many people knew he was right about the rape-gangs (and now the police reports are coming out he's been proved right), but no-one on the left (or right for the most part) had anything other than insults for him (perhaps justified in some senses - the man is certainly no stranger to using his fists rather than his words) but consequently his organisation rose to meteoric levels and led to societal unrest. It's a simple formula. Silenced people get angry. And perhaps rightly so.
In summary, and related to how I feel about Macky's suggestion of regulation - I feel strongly that the single biggest mistake being made 'on the left' at the moment is the snobbish, self-centred idea that their opinion is the only valid opinion.
It's a hugely disappointing radical disease that's infected the left and rendered it deeply hypocritical. When I was growing up - those on the left were considered the fair and balanced counter to the tendency to tyranny of the corporatist right. I only see the opposite now. They act more like fascits than the far-right do - and that's terrifying.
There's no room for the centre ground, seemingly there's only the leftist opinion - anything else is labelled as fascist, evil or both. And that's more dangerous for society than anything the largely and rightly ignored far-right can muster.
The only antidote to bad communication is more and better communication. FACT.
People have to learn how to choose better words. Have some generosity towards their opponents. Learn something, build bridges. If they don't want to see the world burn - it's theirs and yours societal responsibility.
I'm trying. Because it's important.
) 
