[blagie]

If I were running a business ethically, I'd want to mute my criticism of politics, including fairly extreme ones. Partisanship is tearing the world apart. I want people with different viewpoints to interact. That's the only way to address them. If we don't work together and we don't shop together, we'll grow more polarized as a result. Democracy isn't a battle, and you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them.

A business isn't a good venue for partisan change. It is an okay place for some types of politics (e.g. environmental sourcing), but not for explicitly partisan ones.

Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it. If I sell to everyone, and I have competitors who focus on the blue tribe and ones who focus on the red tribe, they'll have a competitive advantage over me with any given consumer, and I'll be left with the very few people who aren't on either side.

[chrisan]

The problem I find is convincing Republicans to even talk and think about the consequences of something.

Abortion for example, they just hardline "no". It's very exhausting.

[rayiner]

Have you tried engaging with a hardline democrat on abortion?

You note below that you’re from PA/OH, presumably places where democrats are used to having their beliefs challenged and republicans aren’t. The situation is quite the opposite in for example DC. (And those folks are much more educated than the folks where you’re from, and I’d expect a higher level of meta-cognition, but alas.)

[jimmygrapes]

What other examples can you think of? And how many Republicans have you tried discussing the consequences of abortion with? Recent polling[1] doesn't seem to agree with your characterization, so maybe you have just had bad luck with your delivery or respondents?

1: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/HHP...

[chrisan]

Guns

"Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc

Vaccines being good

Anything that helps another person is "socialism"

Not sure about a poll of 1300 people, have you tried changing a hardline Republican's mind?

I dunno, I grew up in PA/OH so I have a lot of republican friends. I gave up trying to show them the other side.

[jimmygrapes]

Spoiler alert: I'm probably what you'd call a hard line Republican

That said, yes, I've changed the minds of people with fixed ideals, many times, over several decades. Step one is to listen to them without trying to.

> Guns

What is the mindset that needs to be changed? Republicans, as a bloc, support the right of anybody of sound mind and character (presumptive prerequisites for being part of a potential [and hopefully unnecessary] well regulated militia) to own a gun. They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases, as long as those edge cases don't grow to be standardized restrictions. Maybe you think nobody should own a gun, I dunno, but if that's the case it seems like the kind of extreme absolutist position you're complaining about.

> "Freedom of speech" to say _whatever_ on twitter etc

Again, what's the argument here? I can guess you are dog-whistling about how Republicans just want to use racial slurs or something, but it's just a guess and if I'm right then that's a pretty strawman type assumption. Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing?

> Vaccines being good

Republicans as a whole are fine with vaccinations, and most are vaccinated many times throughout their life. Don't let the backlash to COVID-19 trick you into thinking they aren't vaccinated for other things. Also, don't confuse vaccines with vaccine mandates, c'mon, no wonder you can't change their minds if that's what you're doing.

> Anything that helps another person is "socialism"

OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences. That is a very gross mischaracterization (in both the senses of disgusting and wholesale). Maybe you mean they are against the idea of welfare payments or wealth redistribution? Those are pretty nuanced concepts even still, so you really gotta get into a proper discussion. Based on these examples you've provided, I have a hard time believing you have really attempted to have a conversation with a Republican, or maybe you have just had very bad luck as I said earlier.

If you want to change minds, you have to know where they are and where you want them to be, and have a path for them to get from A to B.

I bet you and I agree on a lot of things if you'd just be willing to listen.

[thatswrong0]

Not the OP you're replying to but: I think there's a chasm between what views Republican voters hold, and what the Republican party stands for, and not being able to distinguish between the two leads to people talking past each other.

And yet, being a Republican voter means implicitly endorsing the views of the Republican party. So maybe this chasm doesn't matter. If you vote for a person who explicitly is against climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, etc., then that says something about your own personal philosophy.

> They're pretty flexible about restricting edge cases

The RNC is most certainly not however. No matter how many kids die in school shootings, any attempt to seriously tighten up the rules is met with a chorus of "they're taking our guns!". Getting anything passed took us.. how many school shootings?

> Republicans want to not be removed from a pseudo-public forum for holding a minority opinion - surely you can empathize with that framing?

Well, that framing is pretty disingenuous. And Republicans generally support that businesses should be able to serve whoever they want. Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds with the general ethos of "don't let the government tell me what to do". On top of this, the general outrage about deplatforming often entirely ignores the series of platform rule-breaking that leads up to said deplatforming.. and yet then if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop, you'll so often hear cries of "just follow the law" coming from the right side.

In short, I consistently see Republican politicians / pundits / voters completely abandon their ideals the moment it begins to personally affect them. (Note: this until-it-affects-me probably explains the party's platform about LGBTQ+ issues, racial issues, etc.)

> OK I'm beginning to think you're not being honest with your experiences

Most of my family members, as the whole, are what I would call "reasonable republicans" who generally care about the principles of small government and not interfering too much with the economy. And yet some of them too occasionally fall into the Fox News inspired trap of labeling anything related to social welfare as "socialism". It's a real thing man.

[blagie]

> If you vote for a person who explicitly .... then that says something about your own personal philosophy.

I'd suggest 1984. Democrats do horrible things Fox News reports on. Republicans do horrible things NY Times report on. Each side votes on different information. In most cases, the information isn't even wrong (although sometimes it is). It's just that major politically-inconvenient things are simply omitted.

This isn't just the US with the red/blue split. The whole world is going with personalized they-are-the-enemy news. I see the same think happening in many countries with completely different ideological divisions.

> Labelling a private company's platform as a pseudo-public forum is also at odds

See Standard Oil and friends a century ago.

> ...if an unarmed black person gets killed by a cop...

Which happens, but not a statistically significant amount.

There is a much bigger problem with the criminal justice system (see The New Jim Crow for a good analysis), but it can't get fixed, in large part due to corruption on the side of the Democrats. The Democrats talk a good game, but are mostly against justice system reform. Law firms donate to Democrats, and anything which reduces the influence of money on justice consistently gets blocked by Democrats.

Police issues are more complex, with corruption on both sides (I'm sure you're familiar with the red side, but Democrats have strong union ties, including police unions).

> how many school shootings?

Not a statistically significant amount. If you want to save kids, improve road safety and have more COVID precautions. Seriously.

I'm not a Republican (let alone a hard-side one), but I do read both sides of the media, and both sides ignore facts, science, and reality.

Don't get me started on Democrats and charter schools. That's the biggest evolution / climate change of liberals.

[jimmygrapes]

Oh yeah, I think I might agree for the most part. The RNC and general party platform is very often not reflective of the people who vote Republican, and I can't yet figure out why that is (other than simple contrarianism). I don't think the official platform is so black and white as to be entirely disconnected from the voters, but i get it.

Your point about the cognitive dissonance in the "censorship" thing is very salient. I wasn't sure how to word it properly, so I threw "pseudo" on there to hedge it a little. I don't think I was being disingenuous, though; once you take at face value the de facto nature of social media being a (not the) primary method of information dissemination and conversation of the lesser man, the whole public/private thing becomes more academic. Yes, private companies can do what they want. No, I don't like being removed from them. Yes, I think that they should not be so heavy handed with removing opinion. No, I don't think any legislation is appropriate to remedy that concern. And so on. Nuance, you know? Which is what the original poster was saying Republicans don't have (along with ability to reason out consequences).

I dunno man, I just want to try to get "the other side" to realize we ain't all cardboard caricatures.

[bluefirebrand]

I guarantee there are a large number of people who vote Republican but who are willing to discuss abortion and maybe even are pro choice. There just might be other issues they want more that they think the Republican party will deliver on.

Those people probably don't go around identifying as Republicans publically.

In my experience, the vast majority of people don't let who they vote for define their identity.

[bell-cot]

> Ironically, if I were running a business efficiently, I'd probably want to pick one side and stick to it...

Longer-term, that's a dangerous strategy in the social media era. The side you pick may regularly twist your arm to perform expensive demonstrations of loyalty to them. And (depends on where you are) potential customers who are less than comfortable with hyper-partisan politics may be more numerous than the red or blue zealots.

[kyleblarson]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/01/coinbase-w...

[dclowd9901]

I think your initial ideas illustrate a truly naive viewpoint. This isn't about what your company wants. Your customers will create an identity for you and it's yours, whether you like it or not. You can choose to embrace it or to deny it, but even if you try to go the middle route, you're still making a call (usually it's "I'm ok with it").

Another way to look at it: There was a very popular hairstyle among alt-right youths a while back (actually, a couple now that I'm thinking about it). It didn't matter if you were alt-right: if you had that haircut, that's how people perceived you, because that's who adopted the style. It's no different with consumer products.

If alt-right nuts started buying up Jumpman products in droves, you can bet that the progressive fans of its brands would demand for the company to take a stand on their co-option or risk losing the progressives (because progressives buy sneakers too).

[mikkergp]

I think it gets the gnarliest in conversations about discrimination. We have notions of "protected classes" and "non-protected classes", and the recent discussions about caste discrimination are pretty exemplary. And sometimes you can't help but take a side. I don't know that I always think inaction is taking a side, but once you become aware of people taking actions in your company, like a higher caste firing a lower caste, it's harder to make that argument.

[feet]

Inaction is absolutely complicity. By doing and saying nothing you're stating the issue doesn't matter enough to you to not let it continue.

[bluefirebrand]

That's a huge reach. People aren't entitled to have everyone else take personal risks on their behalf. That is why it is worthy of respect when people do stick their necks out for others.

And yes, standing up against injustice is very often a personal risk.

[feet]

That's very individualistic. The reality is that we all take part in the same system whether we like it or not.

[bluefirebrand]

This doesn't address what I said at all. Yes, we're all in the same system, so what?

Is a person obligated to risk their own position in that system for the sake of someone else? Legally, no. In many ethical systems, also no.

You claimed that people who are not taking action are complicit. Often that is absolutely not the case. Often in fact those people are helpless, bound by their own situations.

Let's take the example of a mugging. You walk past an alley, and you see someone pointing a gun at another person. Are you obligated to intervene? Of course not. You might be able to save that person's life or defuse the situation but you also just might get killed and accomplish nothing.

Let's take another example. Workplace bullying. You witness a person who is being very aggressive to a coworker, giving insults and maybe even being physical. Do you intervene? Of course you do, right?

Now imagine you have kids. Your spouse recently lost their job, you can't afford to also lose yours. Surely you wouldn't be risking your job by speaking up about this bullying right? Except the bully is your boss. And he's good friends with the CEO. But that's what HR is for right? You make an anonymous tip to HR. And nothing happens because HR won't act on an anonymous tip. So you should talk to them in person right? But that's putting yourself at risk and boy you really can't lose your job.

Helpless. Not malicious.

[feet]

Why do people feel the need to rob others? Yes, sure there are some tiny percentage of people with severe mental illness who enjoy seeing others in pain but that's not the majority. The majority is due to a lack of opportunity combined with systemic oppression.

The problem of workplace bullying putting a job at risk is a problem which is a power imbalance inherent to capitalism. Forming unions, where people speak up for each other and stick together, is the best way to solve that problem without fundamentally changing the system.

[blagie]

Inaction is absolutely complicity. You're (personally) complicit in a lot of things, probably including treatment of refugees from ISIS in Turkey, the famine in Afghanistan, drug cartel in Mexico, and the Yemeni Civil War. I don't know where you live, but I could name dozens of local issues people are complicit in as well.

There are enough issues in the world that everyone's complicit on most of them.

Convince me why others being complicit in issues you care about is any worse than you being complicit in the issues I listed above.

Or consider that others might prioritize issues differently than you do.

[feet]

What makes you think I don't speak out about those things?

[sometimeshuman]

"you win by convincing people, and not by beating them down or punishing them. That means interacting with them."

This is painful and pointless unless it is a good faith discussion. But often people just use you as a sounding board to repeat rumors, gossip, and lies about whatever out-group currently in their crosshairs. Also what possible interaction can you have with someone that can compete with the slow drip of fear and hate they consumed nightly for the last decade from cable news for example.

[zorpner]

If one side is advocating genocide and you want to mute your criticism of politics (so that you can make money, to be clear), that's a choice available to you, but it's neither ethical nor respectable.

[V__]

I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case. Let's exaggerate it to: "Russians buy sneakers too" or "Taliban are religious too" or something alike. A business saying "We want the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilians to interact, share different viewpoints and prevent partisanship" would sound ridiculous.

My example is obviously exaggerated but my point is: Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S., so it doesn't come across odd that some businesses for ethical reasons and some for efficient reasons try to position themselves against it.

[geraldwhen]

Whether you understand it or not you have taken an extreme political position.

“Their politics are politics. Our politics are ethics/human rights.”

It’s all politics and refusing to see that is extremely divisive.

[V__]

If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position.

This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.

[geraldwhen]

Politics is politics.

A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently.

But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.

[V__]

I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.

[geraldwhen]

A non straw man of your first argument would be the definition of “rape.” Most people believe forced sex should be illegal.

But rape also means consent, in America, so you get “statutory” rape, and Romeo and Juliet laws, and different handling of intoxication all over the world. If two people are black out drunk, can either rape the other if they ostensibly agreed while intoxicated? Does it matter the sex of the participants?

Look no further than any Reddit post and you will see that at least some people think a 17 year old male having sex with a 25 year old female teacher should not be considered rape.

The definition of rape is unequivocally political.

[siglesias]

>> Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S.

I urge you to consider that this attitude is the very problem under discussion.

[V__]

If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, which has nothing to do with attitude.

Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not.

This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.

[bluefirebrand]

> Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not

And many Republicans "find it obvious" that the Democrats are going to destroy the USA by supporting insert whatever Republicans are angry about today. Gay Rights, or something

As Objectively Correct you think you are, they think they are equally Objectively Correct. You are being equally dismissive of them as they are of you, and therefore you are also part of the problem.

Seeing their side doesn't mean you are obligated to COMPROMISE with them, but as long as you are dismissing them outright as having "crossed a line", you're just as extreme as they are.

[V__]

Saying they crossed a line or even declaring something extreme doesn't mean I can't see or understand their side. Let's bring it back to my example: I understand and see why Russians think they are fighting a just war. If possible, I would want a peaceful diplomatic solution and being open to talks is the first step. That however doesn't mean that they aren't occupying an extremist position.

I think me, labeling one side extreme, implied they should be ignored or shunned etc. This is not the case. I only labeled them extreme.

[rayiner]

> Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not.

Republicans have just inherited a bunch of low-information voters in the Midwest that used to vote Democrat, and have kind of lost control of them. The one’s going on about Diebold machines and whatnot in 2004. I’ve had a bunch of weird ass conversations with Joe Rogan type democrats over the years. The lengths establishment republicans have to go to appease them are disconcerting. But Trump voters remind me a lot of the “common people” back in my home country of Bangladesh, not anything novel.

By contrast, the ideologies that have taken hold among progressive elite democrats are alarming precisely because of who has embraced those ideas. This happened at my law school, for example: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/northwestern-univers.... These are people with influence and power who can actually change society, and we can’t vote for them or anything! They want to run a large scale experiment on American culture, and unlike some unemployed veteran, they have the resources and positions to make those changes whether they rest of us like it or not. That’s way scarier.

[selimthegrim]

This is probably akin to the Latinos in Texas who lap up Ted Cruz calling Beto’s nickname pandering and ignore the face that Cruz’s Spanish is worse.

[rayiner]

Sure. They recognize someone who shares their values—his positions are quite typical of Cubans and Tejanos—but whose language skills are consistent with being a second generation immigrant, versus someone who speaks Spanish as window dressing for peddling white values. Cruz, moreover, is someone who has assimilated into white culture to the limited extent the GOP demands—speak English and believe in guns and capitalism—and does not hide the ball about it. Beto, by contrast, represents the strain of white culture that insists on complete assimilation while professing multiculturalism. You can have diversity, so long as it’s completely superficial and non-threatening.

My Bangla isn’t great, but I live 10 minutes away from my parents, worry what my aunties will think, and believe that my dad is right about most things. I find Trump voters quite relatable. Apart from the same skepticism of outsiders and lack of cosmopolitanism that’s nearly universal in Bangladesh, most are nice people in person. And they don’t want to teach my kids a bunch of weird things.

I came across this article today: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2022/08/18/do-not-se... (“Do not see yourselves as minorities, PM Hasina tells Hindus… Please do not undermine yourselves.”) Contrast the white guy in my link above declaring himself a “racist.” No Bangladeshi would ever do that! It’s alarming!

[blagie]

It doesn't matter whether one side is right or wrong, or whether one side is more or less extreme.

Your tactics don't work and lead to harm.

Let's work from your Taliban example. The extreme pressure placed on the Taliban does nothing to move them out of power, but it does lead to mass famine in Afghanistan, for people who don't deserve it. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver just did an episode. They're in power. They should have their accounts unfrozen. Aid organizations should be able to help people in Afghanistan.

Let's work from you Ukraine example. What change would you like to see? Sanctions on Russia have a few impacts:

1. They reduce Russia's ability to produce weapons

2. They isolate people from the West and make them more vulnerable to propaganda

3. They hurt 140 million people, most of whom didn't ask for the war

4. They support Putin's message that the West is out to get Russia

... and so on. When the war started, I pushed for much more military aid than was provided, but also for weaker and more targetted sanctions.

The point is that simply "taking a stance" and lashing out doesn't lead to change. There need to be tactics involved, and one needs to think through impact.

The impact of having "blue" and "red" businesses, communities, and schools is very, very negative. One side needs to take a stance on saving baby's lives, and another on women's rights. That's fine. One needs to take a stance on respecting the Bill of Rights, and the second on reducing gun violence. That's okay too. However, there are appropriate forums in which to take those stances so we don't all just end up hating each other, and so where possible, reasonable compromises can be found.