91–100 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.
"engaged with people and the culture" is a bit revisionist considering the number of conflicts with politicians and law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn for example? (Example chosen at random, there's tons of them)
The final Democracy Institute poll ( https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-202... ) that came out Saturday predicts a Trump victory contrary to most other polls, because it found that 79% of Trump voters do not tell others that they support him, while only 21% of Biden voters are shy. USC's poll predicts a Biden victory, but when experimental questions are asked to figure out how those polled reall…
People appear to be so emotionally vested in this election at this point it’s better to stay quiet. IMO.
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.
I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society.
This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great t…
This a dog whistle. Please define "harm", and "existing".
This phrase is so often used by people who say "silence is violence" (it's literally not).
I don't think you're being honest in your argument, here. You are implying lynchings and holocaust, but is that truly the debates you're applying your litmus test on? I highly doubt that.
Are you not more likely to apply it to:
* trans women competing in sports with biological women
* abortion
* pronouns
* equality of outcome
right?
I'm not even saying I disagree with you on any of those points. But your "litmus test" allows you to point your finger where the harm is, and shut down debate, cancel the person, and "punch a nazi".
And you also consider yourself as having monopoly on defining what pros and cons fall under "harm", and "existing".
E.g. if you define misusing pronouns to be harm, someone else could define compelled speach to be to surrender the right to your own thoughts (2+2=5, from 1984). Again, I am not saying I disagree with you on the point, but both sides here have a very good case for screaming "harm!!!! I have harm here! Just for existing!!!".
Same with a trans woman competing with a biosex woman. "Harm for just existing" applies equally, actually, to both women. Now what? You're just stuck screaming "fascist!" to each other. Why? What are you actually trying to accomplish?
You will lose people with this attitude, not gain them. See Sweden and Trump.
> Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion
I don't think you know what "hate" means.
> I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me.
So you're admitting that your argument is based in threat of violence?
The final Democracy Institute poll ( https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-202... ) that came out Saturday predicts a Trump victory contrary to most other polls, because it found that 79% of Trump voters do not tell others that they support him, while only 21% of Biden voters are shy. USC's poll predicts a Biden victory, but when experimental questions are asked to figure out how those polled reall…
The fact that the rubrik for interaction is "being yelled at" or "attacked", and not just "being approached in civil discussion" of any kind is telling of how one side has lost site of the whole point of "civics"
Today the president voiced approval for his supporters literally running his opponents' supporters off the road.
I'm not surprised people are afraid. I'm in Europe,so naturally most of my connections on LinkedIn are on this side of the pond too, however there are also some Americans.None of them post anything unusual, however the feed occasionally brings up some batshit crazy stuff from related people. You could expect that kind of stuff on Facebook from some 15 years olds,but not from senior people who have been round the corn…
2020s material comfort, education systems, insane technological 'tooling' .. and yet we're still a good old mob when too much ambient stress rises.
What should we do ? have gatherings to just dissolve tension and make people go back to normal lives without trying to find weird remarks or conspiracies about what's going on ?
Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty‐ four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years old—a 20‐ point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty‐ seven percent (27%) of Americans under 3…