Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

“Anger with its poisoned root and honeyed tip.” — the Buddha

Anger is enticing. Anger gives you excitement. It makes you feel powerful and righteous. It’s not just easier to be angry, it’s alluring.

Similar to the older and more rural generation in Russia, what they see on all the media they know is cherry picked examples of the craziest most outlandish behavior they are told is ‘the others’, and which shows things that they often had to turn down or wish they could do, but sacrificed to make something that ‘worked’ in their environment.

And because they can’t know something they are not exposed to or shown, and it is a convenient tool by politicians to stoke up anger, resentment, etc. and these areas are quite poor and have lost most of their young people but still have economic and voting power….

On the liberal side, it’s getting more strident as conservatives have been getting some of what they want, and the media and feed algorithms are more than happy to play the same outlandish examples of ‘the others’ and tell them how at risk everything is (which is not false many times!), which just goes to more extremism.

The conservative base has in been more violent in large part I think because they’ll fall back on what traditionally works instead of trying to reason with folks to get what they want. Especially if it sounds terrible.

Personally, I’m a realist and try to look beyond whatever someone claims to want or be able to deliver to the long term track record it has of success, and what the trade offs are. Because there are always trade offs.

Having babies and giving birth sucks for instance, and doing a decent job as a parent requires long term sacrifice, physical and earnings, and a huge amount of time and energy spent towards stuff that is incredibly valuable and necessary in the long term for everyone but is also often incredibly unpleasant in the short term. For instance, Thu and Fri last week I spent mopping up projectile vomit and scrubbing diarrhea out of the carpet because my youngest got sick from daycare.

Having fun instead sounds way better!

A society without children however is dead in a generation or two. And someone has to do the work.

If someone won’t do what you want because it sucks for them, what would the person trying to make it happen do? Especially someone without a lot of resources? Well, they make it so they don’t have a choice to do it, if they can.

Even if that means banning all the fun things you’d otherwise be doing.

The cities don’t understand, because the cities have too many people. The rural areas understand, because everyone who could left for the city.

Repeat for all the major hot button topics.

We seem to often portrait ourself to be in a completely irrational victims position (like the headline) which usually doesn't exist. this makes finding the common ground for a discussion challenging.

The words immediately preceding your quote are "CONGRESS shall make no ...", and so "preposterous" seems a bit too strong, doesn't it? In case anyone is curious, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... says

> Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Fun facts: "Gitlow was the first major First Amendment case that the American Civil Liberties Union argued before the Supreme Court." Also, although Freedom of speech was incorporated in this case, Gitlow's conviction was nonetheless upheld.)

You're welcome to read more about it yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... . Therein, you'll find references to fun cases like Barron v. Baltimore (1833), finding "State governments are not bound by the Bill of Rights" before the 14th amendment, and United States v. Cruikshank (1876), finding "The right of assembly under the First Amendment and the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment are only applicable to the federal government, not the states" even after the 14th amendment.

You may also find Article III of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1780) interesting:

> As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

When do you think Massachusetts stopped taxpayer funding of churches?

Lest you think there is something uniquely "evil" about Republicans, here's a bit of recent (but overlooked) history from the Washington Post: "Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it"

> 10 years ago, Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists.

Some highlights from the article:

> ­The small contingent of capitol police was quickly overwhelmed. Protesters ripped the hinges of an antique oak door at the State Street entrance and streamed inside.

> The police retreated in the face of the horde, giving up the first floor, then the second, [as protestors] began searching for the Republican senators who had dared to defy the will of the unions.”

> police sneaked them out through an underground tunnel to a government building across the street. But a Democratic representative posted on social media that the Republican senators were escaping through the tunnels, so when the senators came up into the lobby, the mob was there waiting for them. ­

> The senators hid under a stairwell, out of view, while the police ordered a city bus to pull up in front of the building. Officers then formed a human wall on the sidewalk, parting the sea of protesters and creating a pathway for the senators to reach the bus.” ­Once the senators were on board, “the mob on the street began punching the windows and shaking the vehicle. … The police told the senators and staff inside to keep their heads down in case a window shattered.”

> Thankfully, no one was killed. But during the course of the occupation, Walker received a steady stream of death threats against him and his wife, including one that promised to “gut her like a deer” and one threatening to kill his sons. Police found dozens of .22-caliber bullets scattered across the Capitol grounds. The occupiers drew chalk outlines of fake dead bodies etched with Walker’s name on the floor, and carried signs that read “Death to tyrants,” “The only good Republican is a dead Republican” and one with picture of him in crosshairs with the words, “Don’t retreat, Reload.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/14/democrats...