[PKop]

Often times groups that don't like each other have existential differences that can never be bridged. Negotiating in good faith with true enemies that aren't interested in compromise never works, except perhaps if there is power, threats or some sort of shared interest associated with the negotiation. I'm only pointing out that explaining your point to people that don't care and hate you and your beliefs will never achieve anything; they won't be persuaded if they don't want to be.

[wikitopian]

Dehumanizing and othering the opponent as beyond reason and justice in wartime is deeply immoral.

Doing it over peacetime class and partisan differences is deeply immoral and really stupid.

[PKop]

There is nothing inhuman about my descriptions; it is in fact all too human.

[SllX]

Well we’re talking about our fellow citizens. Are our differences really so extreme as to be existential?

[PKop]

Which way is it trending? The definition of intractable, existential differences is "war", in this case civil war. Certainly we're not there yet

[SllX]

Correct.

So what’s your answer?

[PKop]

I think you have to look to history for the repeated, seemingly inevitable recurrence of eventual conflict after decline or degradation of internal, or external political relations/interests/material conditions whatever. And what does game theory tell you to do in an inevitable situation w/ potential defectors/non-cooperators?

My answer is only an appreciation for "realism" or "realpolitik" in these matters, that people should not delude themselves at the point when enemies distinguish themselves to you by pattern of action and behavior over time. But you should always work for cooperation where possible of course. "Make friends" (where you can).

I'm mostly responding the point that seems to imply political differences can always be overcome, that everyone is always willingly persuadable, and that science and tech or any institutions for that matter can exist in a vacuum outside of politics. People just don't notice or think about political conflict when they are operating amongst political allies or issues don't rise to level of existential disagreement.

[SllX]

I know you’re doing that.

And I’m asking you personally.

[wyre]

When one side is in favor/fantasize of killing trans people, it is existential.

[wikitopian]

Some anonymous trolls gaslighting you online do not grant you a license to hate, dehumanize, and harm everybody who disagrees with your politics.

[Jensson]

Most people who disagree with you doesn't hate you, and you wont know the difference until you have made an honest try to convince them.

[PKop]

That's true. I think people should put the idea in the back of their mind and consider it, that's all I'm saying. There are times when negation is occurring with someone that does not care at all what you are saying. And it will be seen by a pattern of behavior and action over time, after plenty of opportunity to show they don't want to be convinced.

[RockingGoodNite]

"existential" The F-bomb of the current admins. Oh but let's raise the bar with "true enemies" and top it off with "people that don't care and hate you and your beliefs".