There is no such thing as a moral equivalency between them and even your worst-nightmare-liberal snob, just like there was no moral equivalency between Hitler’s ideas and those of his opponents.
So all people who voted for Trump in 2016 are equivalent to Hitler, then? Who the hell are you to cast judgement against so many millions you’ve never met? And how is this kind of statement any different from the blanket stereotyping which has led humans to things like the Holocaust?
There are plenty in the Trump camp who would say the exactly same about Hillary Clinton, citing legitimate concerns that liberals have turned their backs to for decades — like Bill’s three allegations of rape that were quickly brushed aside as “right wing conspiracy nut” drivel.
No. No one holds moral superiority by group association. That, again, is arrogance. And also some lazy, entitled bullshit.
Mine is not a judgment on them per se.
Yes, your words fit the literal definition of moral judgement. You don’t get to do the thing where you say what you want carte blanche, then say you’re not saying what you just said, and get absolution. I see you. You are employing the very same discriminatory tactics you’re criticizing.
But it does matter that a group of very wealthy individuals is using technology…to manipulate them as a group. That’s why I advocated political neutering.
What a convenient way to brush off the ideas and experiences of an entire group of people which inconveniently conflict with the established narrative.
Are there Trump voters who are racists, and war mongerers, and white supremacists in that group? Of course there are! There are also Clinton voters who are hateful, racist, war mongering people.
No; you don’t get to claim moral superiority then deny the mental agency of entire groups of people because you’ve decided they’re not “smart”. That mentality disrespects our most fundamental freedom of thought, information, and speech, as well as the belief that we are indeed all created equal.
No; liberals are not better than convservatives. Good neighbors are better than warmongering, power-seeking assholes. Period.
So yes, dialogue would be wonderful. But how can we make it happen, especially if Net Neutrality protections are rolled back?
Yes, it is wonderful, and it’s happening all around us. But dialogue is a two-way street. If you want to engage in it, you need to open yourself up to receiving. Think about the superlatives you use, the way you apply stereotypes, and analyze your conversation for traces of civil discourse. Try listening more, and acknowledging the validity of other people’s experiences before drawing a judgement.
That, I think, is the billion dollar question — pun intended.
Yes, men often tend to think money is the solution. I think they’re wrong.