[bsder]

> You seem to be suggesting that it's expected and maybe even okay to be mean to people in social situations face to face, based on one's dogmatic beliefs.

Expected? Absolutely. These people are not exactly secret about their hangups. If you hit their button they're going to squawk at you.

Is this a productive way of convincing people to join his views? Interesting question, but probably not.

Am I ok or right with this?

Prior to the election of Trump, I would have said "No, it is not right to zap people like this."

Now? I'm more of the opinion "Your affiliation reflects who you really are and if you present that affiliation in public you should bear consequences in public for those choices."

If you wave something I consider distasteful in front of me, I'm gonna zap you. In fact, I would go further in that it's actually IMPERATIVE for me to zap you so that the people around don't assume that I condone what you represent.

[dahart]

> Now? I'm more of the opinion "Your affiliation reflects who you really are and if you present that affiliation in public you should bear consequences in public for those choices."

I hope you change your mind back someday. It's not Trump's fault if you choose to be judgmental or uncivil to strangers, that's your own choice, and you should own it. His bad example doesn't give us permission, nor does this political climate, nor do the consequences of the election.

> In fact, I would go further in that it's actually IMPERATIVE for me to zap you

I'm more of the opinion that we should all treat each other with more respect, give each other the benefit of the doubt when we don't know, and support each other since we all are, in fact, on the same team.

Trump's behavior is all the more reason to bring as much reason and civility and understanding as we can to our lives and interactions with others.

> so that the people around don't assume that I condone what you represent.

What exactly would happen if someone around you assumed something about you that was wrong?

There's a double irony in what you said. You just encouraged making bad assumptions about people. And this endorses precisely the one action that makes it more likely that you will have to face the situation you're afraid of. If everybody is prejudicial, then we all get meaner and we all lose. If instead we assume that an individual does not represent the exact interests of one of the many organizations they're associated with, then we can avoid unnecessary fights, and maybe even have a meaningful conversation and learn from each other.

[infectoid]

With you on this one. I have had a similar experience with a semi-famous scientist that I used to looked up to and admired. They made some completely incorrect personal assumptions about me and I was left feeling upset and depressed about it. It's just not something you expect.

It was like finding out one of your friends only kept you around to make jokes about you behind your back.

Unfortunately they have now retrospectively tarnished everything I used to look up to them about. It still leaves me feeling bitter but I deal with that by recognising their contributions to science without recognising them as a person.

Like you, I think we all need to do better maintaining the civility in 'civilisation'. It wasn't easy to get where we are and it won't be easy to get where we are going.

edit: grammar

[serpentstar]

Please rethink this bad attitude. The election has not changed the basic equation of human good character and decency. To think it has, displays an alarmingly fickle understanding of what a decent person should do. Don't be like a rock on a slope, that, having no mind of its own, will respond to a small perturbation of the ground, by loosening its position, and wreaking harm all of its own.