[howaboutnope]

You think this is the result of how much the average person can be trusted? Trash on the streets or urine in a phone booth are one thing, but this hits a bit different:

> equipment vandalized but nothing taken from the sites

Bust just out of curiosity, how do we make it so people can be trusted, so that then "society works"?

[ars]

> Bust just out of curiosity, how do we make it so people can be trusted, so that then "society works"?

By not marginalizing people. There is a strong push to make all conservative viewpoints (and people) irredeemable and not part of society.

What happened to agree to disagree?

Democrats for the most part seem incapable of understanding Republican viewpoints, they just throw up their hands and call them "crazy" or other such words. You are not required to agree with the viewpoint, but you ARE required to understand it, and understand why a person might have a viewpoint you disagree with.

If you can't do that, you are the problem.

[gizmo385]

> What happened to agree to disagree?

I’ll agree to disagree with you about how best we spend our tax dollars. I’ll agree to disagree with you about the right strategy to tackle climate change. I’ll agree to disagree with you about what infrastructure projects we prioritize or how we distribute foreign aid.

What I won’t “agree to disagree” about is that LGBTQ people deserve not to be discriminated against. I won’t agree to disagree about whether trans people should be accepted for who they are or if we should follow the broad scientific consensus on how to help people with gender dysohoria feel comfortable as themselves.

An agreement to disagree is, ultimately, a reinforcement and protection of the status quo and when the status quo is deeply cruel to certain people in our country, I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement.

[ars]

You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have.

For example you listed certain things that you think everyone must agree with.

But another person might think those things are unimportant and climate change is the thing no one is allowed to disagree about "because it's going kill everyone", which makes it easily outweigh your things.

> I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement.

In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?

What happens when another person feels just as strongly as you, but in the other direction? Is the only possible result a never-ending fight?

You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.

[gizmo385]

> You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have.

Never said I did - just said that I’m not going to simply agree to disagree. In a disagreement between someone pushing for change and someone advocating for maintaining the status quo, “agreeing to disagree” is a win for the status quo.

> In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?

Again, not what I said. You are free to hold those positions but I’m not going to “agree to disagree” and I’m going to judge someone who holds those positions.

> You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.

I definitely can, but I don’t particularly care to examine or take seriously the arguments against “trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against”.

[notogock]

What about difficult topics like whether males who identity as women should be allowed into female-only spaces like prisons, domestic violence refuges, sports teams, changing/locker rooms, nude spas, events for lesbians, and so on?

This the crux of the matter. This is what is so controversial - should women lose their hard-won sex-based rights, just so men who want to be them can benefit?

[wyre]

Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting your post but are you implying that republicans are marginalized? A group of predominantly white cisheteronormative Christians is the marginalized group? I don’t buy that for a second.

[omniglottal]

Since valid conservative viewpoints exist outside this segment you've just reduced in your stereotype, then yeah, you are powerful at personally enacting this marginalization while demonstrating precisely that it's your own projected ignorance which does so. Do try better at buying things before selling your product.

[wyre]

Can you further your argument by pointing me to conservative viewpoints that live outside of the white Christian capitalist hegemony? I have a hard time understanding how Republicanism is an inclusive ideology considering their platform and talking points the past few years.

[p0pcult]

Agreeing to disagree with intolerance just furthers intolerance, to paraphrase Karl Popper.

[kansface]

Hating your out group is not a virtue.

[survirtual]

We feed them, house them, and give them medical care by paying them a living wage & making all these things affordable. Affordable enough so the norm is people being able to have a family.

This cannot be difficult for anyone to understand. Most people cannot afford this in the US (and many other “modernized” countries) — yet we have access to lightspeed comms, which enables mass organization.

It is only a matter of time before these injustices materialize insurgency.

Even land these days costs a fortune almost everywhere. land — undeveloped, with nothing. So legally, most people can’t even opt out in this country by buying a remote plot, building a little cabin and getting some peace and quiet. The paperwork and process is so convoluted with so many useless parties, and the asking prices for land that’s being squatted is unbelievable.

I think we are just at the end of the experience of a nation’s cycle. You cannot show people “with” what it’s like to be “without” so it simply cannot be understood. Those “with” rule because they have time to rule, and they always rule in their favor. It isn’t hard to imagine what proceeds from that.

[AbrahamParangi]

It’s not a matter of understanding. Many people just don’t believe that the statements you made match reality.

It’s not a difference of competence, it’s a difference of axioms. You believe that (almost?) all people would desist from antisocial behavior if they had food, shelter and medical care. Others do not believe this, because they have different beliefs regarding human nature.

[survirtual]

I didn’t say they would desist from antisocial behavior. Vandalizing the infrastructure for an oppressive society can be a perfectly social activity when conducted with others outcasted from said society.

I am saying there would be significantly less legitimate reason to vandalize or rebel against a social structure that was inclusive and supportive of its people. If opportunity was afforded people, with a patient kindness, you would be amazed at what’s possible.

Not seeing that is most certainly a difference of competence, the competency being compassion.