[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.

[V__]

Absolutely, there are lines and some are blurry and worthy of discussion. I'm not trying to deny that. I just wanted to exaggerate an example to get my point across. I could have said "forced sex of a one-year-old by a sane adult" but that's not what I tried to convey.

I try to state that some positions are so out-there (I'm sorry for a lack of a better term) that they are extreme and not part of sane or normal (for a lack of a better term) political discourse. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to talk with these people or shun them. Just that pretending they are normal is dangerous. Politicians insisting 1+1 equals 3 is extreme but maybe not harmful, someone insisting Jews are not people got 6 million killed. That's why I can't agree that it's just politics, if such a position can have real dangerous and harmful implications. I hope I could make my point more clear.

[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.