I've been feeling that way too, the sense that the 'norm' seemed to have been left back in the mid 2000s early 2010s. Something happened and I don't know what. I want it to all be normal again, I wish I could sleep this away and wake up in a world that makes sense again. I'm scared, frightened. I keep myself tied to my work or my creative endeavors yet as I look out the window it seems like it won't ever be the same again. And there's no way out. It terrifies me...

I'm sorry for what you went through man. I really am. I just, wish everything could be normal again.

I wish none of this happened myself but I do what I do because its the right choice in my heart.

On one hand, I understand that it sucks to be put on that position.

But on the other, quite frankly, good riddance. If they do that kind of stuff, you're definitely better without such a person by your side. A person who can't tolerate diverging points of view is someone you don't want around you.

I've told this story a couple times this past few weeks... But to do it in as short a span as possible: one of my first major interactions with social media was as part of the "youtube atheist" community... And with that background in mind: I can say in no uncertain terms that the "intersectional social justice" or "SJW" wing of the modern left behaves VERY much like a cult. In particular; it practices what is effectively brainwashing techniques, including the declaring of ideas as "haram" to use the Islamic term or "forbidden", and that "good" adherents to the ideology must "disassociate" with those who don't agree. It's really rather disturbing; particularly considering how divorced from rality this can become. I myself have been called "alt-right"... despite the fact that I am and have been "on the left", and quite far as well since I was capable of having political opinions at all...

So well; you aren't alone.

Yeah, I had a pair of long time friends ditch me for not being MAGA.

I've seen this primarily on the other side of the divide, but it's important to note that people on both sides are doing it, and it's equally wrong no matter what leads up to it.

Funny, I had people leave me because I was with MAGA or not joining BLM.

It is getting very scary and the dark age that I regret living in is coming to pass.
These are people whom don't know the truth.

I support Conservatives and as you said,
"I am who and what I am. That includes my politics. If you want me, you get all of me."

I respect and understand you and willing to compromise but people in this day and age don't
understand and have been brainwashed having cognitive dissonance over the truth.

People don't know what they are fighting for anymore and being selfish and narcissists.
Destroying statues of private property? How does that work?

We all matter, our lives matter. So did my mother's life before and when she died.
I should apologize for being white? I should apologize knowing this country was based on freedom?

These are children that have been lied to, to perpetuate a cycle and topics that should be dead.


I looked up to a lot of good people but they blocked me and want nothing to do with me because I know the truth.
These are people who want people to agree with them and only their way, no compromises. I'm starting
to see people more clearly instead of blurry from where i'm standing.

It's all about dividing people from one another so we don't see what's being done to us by the ones pulling the strings.

I should apologize for being white? I should apologize knowing this country was based on freedom?

Who's asking you to apologise?
Maybe reflecting or recognising that red-lining and segregation happened, and the socio-economic effects of them are STILL happening in the USA, is enough to start with. You can't undo that, but acknowledging it and saying "that happened, and it's effects are still here" is a start. No one is asking you to pay reparations, or to kowtow.

I know that those happened in the past, not in my time. I was born in 1986 but I understood it and knew of it
growing up. My hero was Martin Luther King Jr.


I'm not undoing it and I know there was problems but you don't know there are people out there saying literally saying:

"White people need to pay for REPARATIONS!"

So nobody is asking you to apologise. Okay.

As for "reparations", the US government did promise reparations to former slaves. It never paid them anything (Similar to how the US promised to respect native American tribes... and mostly didn't.). And actions like red-lining and segregation did the opposite - depriving them and their descendants of prosperity. But neither of those are directly your fault or responsibility. Maybe you'd agree that the modern US government should follow through on those historic promises to correct past wrongs. Maybe you don't. But nobody is targeting you personally.

You are seeing the the effects of what the powers behind curtains have been doing for years and years. They keep us divided and fighting each other so we don't see whats being done to all of us by them. Think in the terms of the Romans saying "If you give them bread and circuses, they will never revolt." Think about it, look at all the big sports teams look at how many of them they are, they are your circus they are used to divide you from one another. The politics are used for the same thing only its a step or two up the ladder.

Tonya. To put things quite clearly, the administration you support and their actions in the last few months are capricious and villainous. It is the machinations of the narcissistic, corrupt and hateful.
You can't hide under the covers and wail and moan about how people 'don't like you for your politics'. Guess what- White nationalism is politics, Violent anarchism is politics. You are not exempt from criticism just because you say you are.
Stop supporting shitty things.
You wail on and on about how you've been 'excluded' and how you have to hide your beliefs. In any of the multitude of instances of this occurring, did it ever strike you 'hm, maybe this is a reason to re-examine myself?'
But no, you've kept trucking on, propping up vain, disgraceful bullies and the systems that surround them.
That is why we are where we are now.

If my decision hurts your feelings? I hope that the pain might give you some clarity.

as the captain in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, you have an albatross around your neck, Tonya. Donald Trump is your albatross. You must wear this albatross 'round thy neck.

Guilt by association much?

I warned of what was coming. You called me paranoid. It's been happening for over a month now. I fear for my life when I see anyone wearing a MAGA hat.

Every single thing you feared would happen under Hillary is happening under trump and you have silently approved of every single act of treason that trump has committed. When trump ordered for infants to be ripped from their mothers' arms and locked in cages, you approved by not objecting. When he teargassed peaceful protesters to do a photo-op at a church, against the wishes of the church's own pastor, you didn't object, and thus approved by being silent and letting it happen. Whenever anyone has tried to point out the escalation of violence against the citizenry, you've either called it "fake" or claimed that it was somehow justified. They. Are. Killing. People. I did warn you. You denied what I pointed out to you. Called it fake. Tried to rationalize it. It's only gotten worse since then, and you still condone the escalating violence against us. Trump has built concentration-camps on American soil, some at the same locations that were previously used as internment camps to detain Japanese-Americans in World War 2. I thought prison-camps were an axis thing? Or are you wishing that the Axis had won the war?

I rather think the previous comment makes your point for you more eloquently than you could.

(hugs) Hang in there.

NAILED IT.

I have learned over the years to care more for the person themselves then the things they believe in or side with. A person themselves can be fantastic but if you look at a flaw they can seem to others as misguided or having a poor choice and ruin a relationship. This shouldn't happen yet it does all the time. I myself do sometimes by accident or from rage but i always apologize. If we all looked at a flaw(Religious, political, or from their past) and attacked the person for it we would all be going after each other.

I have my cutoff point at someone voting hard right over here in germany, but we have more than two choices here. I think that makes for a less us vs them mentality and more nuance. That makes people more tolerant of each others political views. Only hard cutoff for me personally is the party that has been doing a tightrope act so far on the right over here theyre basically neonazis but eh. Voting is secret and people dont arent as open about their votes here either

In a situation like this, I simply avoid mentioning politics.

You know, it's pretty likely that the pain at the ending of your friendship is being felt on both sides. They may have made their choice for many reasons: possibly a feeling of betrayal, or because their personal moral code says that staying your friend supports your choices, or just the fact that seeing you is now linked to something that they feel very strongly about and the pain of separation is the quicker choice compared to being reminded every time they interact with you.

Also, an honest question: do your politics include supporting leaders who would deny freedoms and/or happiness to other people, especially to your friend and/or folks they care about? If so, that's probably the primary motivator, and one that I can personally empathize with.

Every leader supports policies that deny freedoms and/or happiness to other people. It is literally impossible to support a leader who will agree with you on every policy. You wind up having to pick and choose no matter what it is you support or think is more important than any other thing.

That's part of my issue with them, and theirs with me: I will never agree with them 100%, and yet that's what they demand.

Similarly, because I support a particular leader does not mean I support everything they do; again, that would simply be impossible. I have to pick the leader I think would be better overall for the country, taking the good with the bad.

This is why you can't automatically assume that supporting a particular leader means that the other person supports outcomes you disagree with, and yet that's exactly where society is going these days - and it will lead, I fear, to an actual shooting civil war.

Keep in mind that not all people are automatically assuming that you 100% support all of the decisions and opinions of the leader you picked. Rather, they're prioritizing certain things over others.

Imagine you (or some people you care about) are in a theoretical group that cannot change who they are, and being in that group historically diminishes your quality of life. Even knowing that, a friend of yours votes for someone who has 10 major campaign positions... and one of them is that your group shouldn't be allowed to vote. How would you feel if your friend voted for that person because "Well, I agree with most of what he's saying. Obviously not THAT one. I just think he's the right choice overall."

Some variant of that feeling of betrayal is something a lot of people have been feeling over the last few years about some family members and former friends. That may potentially be something similar to what your friend felt. But, I'm shooting in the dark here, so pardon me if I'm way off base.

With all that in mind, out of curiosity, if you had picked the other candidate, whose happiness and which freedoms would have been at risk?

Yes, we all proritize. That's what I did. The specific positions are not germane to this discussion, and I'm not going to get into them because that's not my point. My point is that I would think that hypothetical friend was wrong, but I respect his right to hold the opinions he does - and if he does not support that one position, then I'm not going to do the guilt by association thing aginst him.

That's the real problem. It's only in the last few years that people have accepted guilt by association into the discussion. It's wrong in other contexts. Why should it all of a sudden be acceptable here?

If this hypothetical friend says, "I voted for the guy who is going to remove your constitutional rights because I like most of his other positions," then--in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, many people--your friend is saying that holding the line on their political beliefs is more important than your happiness.

There has to be a point at which a candidate's "worst" position is so bad that you can't support them, and you feel that voting for them is legitimately wrong. That line is obviously drawn differently for different people. For your friend who broke ties with you, that line was crossed. It would have been for you, too, if one of the campaign promises had been, "Starting in 2016, all families who have a third baby will be forced to drown that baby to limit overpopulation," or like, "We will go door to door and shoot all atheists in the face to stop their spread."

Yes, these examples are more extreme than reality. But they are proof of concept: you DO have a line. Everyone does. And your friend's line was in a different place than yours. It's very possible that this was the actual problem, and not "guilt by association." It's actually... guilt by acceptance.

Sorry. That assumes that I accept the policy that the leader holds that the friend does not agree with. That inference cannot be validly drawn; it is an example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. See https://www.logicallyfallacious.com.....by-Association for a discussion.

After all, there have been candidates in the recent past who took positions I felt would strip essential freedoms from everyday Americans, including freedom of speech, but I distinguish supporting that candidate from supporting the eradication of basic freedoms - and from whether or not someone is my friend. I think that not doing so is a rejection of societal norms, and I lament its passing, because it leaves precious little room to agree to disagree. That is how civil wars start.

Yes, it assumes that you are willing to accept that policy. That is what I was saying. You literally accepted the hypothetical policy, because you felt the alternative leadership was worse, so the downsides were acceptable compared to the other choice(s) you had.

I never said that accepting the policy means you agree with it, or endorse it. Your willingness to accept it, however, does assist that policy in continuing to persevere. Voting for a person with that policy keeps them in a place of power, where they can continue to push the policy in question.

And to some people, that hypothetical policy is going to be so anathema to their way of life that a friend accepting such a candidate is disappointing and/or distressing to them.

That assumes that my acceptance, or not, of that policy makes any sort of actual difference.

Until very recently - say July 2016 - it was understood that no matter how much one disagreed with the policies of a candidate, the people who supported that candidate would not be held personally responsible for everything that candidate did. But now that's gone straight out the window and there is no getting it back, and there will be bloodshed over it before we are done. Yes, I'm personally hurt by what I see as unreasoned rejection - but more, I fear that we as a society are going to come to actual violence over it on a scale never before seen. Even the worst of the rioting in the past month will be a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Acceptance makes a difference because if no one accepted it, then the candidate with said policy would never win.

As for your second paragraph: first off, I don't agree with you that "it was understood" in some universal sense.

Secondly, more importantly, even if it was simply "understood," that doesn't mean it was right. I do not want to live in a world where someone says, "I don't _like_ public hand amputation for teenage shoplifters, but I still think I picked the right candidate" and everyone else in the world nods and smiles. Like before, this example is more extreme than our reality, but it is a proof of concept that I hope implies my sentiment.

And my point is that that sentiment flies in the face of all societal norms and is accelerating the breakdown of our society. Elevating political differences to the level you are saying people do is what totalitarian and fascist societies do. (Mussolini and Stalin would both be proud.)

We have to step back from the brink.
We have to learn once again to agree to disagree.
Or else we will wind up killing each other in job lots.

There is no middle ground.

Quick opinion: civil discourse is easier to maintain when people aren't suddenly comparing each others' points to specific totalitarian regimes.

Anyway, this is not an unprecedented situation. Why should a suffragette who was courting a man in the 1800's simply nod and smile when she heard that he voted for a candidate who vocally derided the constitutional right of women to vote? Why should a poor black woman of the Civil Rights era simply nod and smile when she heard that her boyfriend voted for a senator who said that separate but equal was a just rule of law and served all equally well?

Why would either of these examples want to "take a step back" and "once again agree to disagree" when the status quo is to treat them like lessers? Why would their allies do the same? Especially since it turns out that doing the opposite seems to be the way to make actual change: for example, as of June 17, over 2/3 of American voters say that discrimination against black Americans is a "serious problem" according to a Quinnipiac poll. 57% had a favorable view of Black Lives Matter, with only 30% unfavorable. Those numbers changed dramatically in the last couple of months.

Sitting still and accepting how things used to be done is not how the world improves.

As for "elevating political differences" being equated to fascism, let's make up a new hypothetical presidential candidate for 2024. Somehow, she's the frontrunner of a major political party, one you do not support. Her main campaign goal is, "We will lock up all men and only harvest them for their ability to reproduce. They are no longer welcome in our society. Any men who do not line up for imprisonment will be summarily executed."

Your best friend Sally is a campaign volunteer for her, and says, "Oh, I don't agree with that whole 'lock up men' thing, but otherwise she's my dream candidate!"

Do you seriously believe that you would be 100% okay with that? That, because of your perceived societal norms of the past, despite the potential realities and realizations of the present and future, you would congenially continue to be best friends with this person? When men are being lined up in the streets and taken away in buses, you'll shrug, say, "That's politics for ya!" and give Sally a hug?

I find that hard to believe, but if so strongly believe that there is no middle ground, and you honestly feel that's the case... Then, I don't think you're as typical as you might think.

How many of those 2/3 of voters will say that discrimination against black Americans is a problem a year from now? The riots and destruction will turn off people as surely as the initial horror affected them in the first place.

None of the hatred being flung by those who support the riots is going to do anything about changing hearts and minds, and tha change has to happen before the issue is truly considered settled. Otherwise, all you're doing is entrenching the poltiicall dispute into law.

And yes, I'd give Sally a hug...even as I donated to legal funds that would work hard to strike down such an unjust law, as I'm already doing for other causes.

What is your precedent for thinking that all, or even most, of the support black Americans have garnered in the last couple of months will evaporate?

In the short term: the coverage of the destruction had already peaked by June 17, when the poll I mentioned was performed. I just took a glance at the front pages of BBC, WaPo, WSJ, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Only Fox had a major headline about it, and WSJ had one at the bottom of the middle of the page with no image. It seems like the people who have mostly already formed negative opinions are the ones still being targeted with major reporting about it? I'm wondering if you're conflating "people will get bored of championing the cause and the hubbub will die down" with "people's opinions will revert back to where they were before the hubbub."

In the long term: the only major modern example I can compare this to is that acceptance for gay marriage has been higher every year since 2015 than it was when the Supreme Court ruling landed. Gallup polling shows that in 2001-2005, average "gay/lesbian relations are moral" numbers were 42%; from 2015-2019, it was 63%. Sure, there hasn't been a lot of violent protesting from LGBTQ+ people in the last 5 years to sway those numbers one way or the other, but that doesn't stop bigots from shouting their rhetoric and finding the "worst" pictures they can find from pride parades to wave around in the air lasciviously. The efficacy of that tactic seems to be dwindling with every passing decade.

As for the Sally discussion... I suppose someone has to be the most Lawful Neutral person in the room. As I said, I don't think your sentiment is as common--as much of a societal norm--as you think.

And, well, one of your stances is made very clear by your reference to "hatred being flung". I hope those sentiments are also far less common than you think. Judging by the numbers from that June 17th poll, I can try to be optimistic about that.

My example for the efficacy of the Supreme Court imposing a vision on society not changing hearts and minds is abortion. It's even more a divisive issue now than it was when Roe v. Wade was decided. (The decision is an outstanding example of terrible law, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome or not.) No hearts and minds have been changed, and while fortunately the violence surrounding the issue has subsided, it's not settled in any sense of the term in the views of the populace.

That... doesn't really address what I was talking about. It takes one aspect of something I mentioned that wasn't really part of my point and begins a new, only-partially-related discussion. Also, historical Gallup polls about support for overturning/not-overturning RvW show it has been very stable since they started asking in 1989. But, okay, I can tell you've been tired of this conversation for days, and I've reached that point, too, so I'll be the one to bow out first. Have a good one.

I am tempted to write something like "The USA: Political fundamentalism as a requirement" but instead rather hope that that person, when you like them really, comes back to their senses and stops behaving like a poo-flinging chimp, gettng back in touch with reality.
And thus, with you.

Aside of that, I must admit I agree with Glee here:
It depends on the specifics of the situation, and thus the specific aspects that are the core for the differing opinions and reactions. Lacking details, I can just say that the other person could have said "Okay, we're not gonna agree on that, but we aren't friends BECAUSE of our political convictions, but rather DESPITE them."

I was called "paranoid" for predicting, in December of 2016, things that happened within the past two weeks. I was told my fear was "overreaction." All that I shall say is this:

Cassandra of Troy forgiveth Thee, for disbelieving her warning.

So long as your political beliefs don't support treating other people as less than human, violating or removing their basic rights and dignity, or any of that other stuff, I don't see why it would be that much of a problem. It's hard to separate people from politics, because politics affect everything in at least some small way. Simply not caring about politics does not mean politicans won't care about you. If you're a minority (like almost everyone on this site), who's in charge could affect you personally in a very big way indeed. I've seen fear among my friends like never before these last few years, and unfortunately it looks increasingly justified.

The problem is that people's ideas differ on whether others are treated as less than human or stripping away basic rights and dignity. Indeed, that's the crux of the political disagreements of the last few years, and to assume that only one side treats the disadvantaged as fully human is to presume the very conclusion that's under discussion.

There is indeed a lot of fear...and there are demagogues on both sides fanning that fear. They are the true problem.

This is why I don't discuss my specific positions: because there is no changing people's minds, and so discussion is pointless.