[haswell]

There are obvious bad/evil actors in the world. When people talk about engaging with other humans respectfully, they're generally not referring to the Putins of the world.

And it's pretty rare to have so much clarity about a person to know they're in the "obviously reprehensible" bucket.

I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I often see people argue like this:

1. There are obviously bad actors in the world

2. Nobody would argue those bad actors should be given respect

3. So I won't respect people I come across who disagree with me

The fallacy is in the jump from 2 to 3, and the assumption that the existence of bad actors means the person I'm interacting with right now is one of them. The vast majority of people aren't Putin, nor can they be judged so quickly/clearly. And setting aside whether or not someone like that deserves respect, there's also a clear difference between respecting someone for who they are vs. behaving in a respectful manner out of self-preservation. The latter may ultimately keep you alive.

[gedpeck]

Herein lies the crux of the matter in my view. The jump from 2 to 3. When Bob Dole ran for President I wholeheartedly agreed with the position about being respectful to those you disagree with. Politics was still normal in the U.S. at that time. But now we in the U.S. elected a known rapist. A felon and a con man. He can’t run a charity in New York due to his misdeeds. He lusts after his own daughter. We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people.

Now obviously there are many people who disagree with the above. But this is how I see things and I act accordingly. The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs. We are well into the Paradox of Tolerance situation in the U.S.

[haswell]

To me, the issue boils down to pragmatism and utility.

It’s just human psychology; people tend not to change their minds when someone screams at them and otherwise disrespects them. If the goal is to move society in any particular direction, that requires some degree of successful communication, and throwing respect out the window directly counteracts the goal. If the goal is just to hold some moral high ground for the sake of it, that’s a pointless goal if it doesn’t lead to any underlying change.

Collectively, we don’t need to change the minds of obviously evil people, but we do need to influence the population that can vote them into or out of power. I just don’t see that ever happening if your outlook on life is this extreme:

> We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people

I know many people have convinced themselves that this is true, but this ultimately boils down to the question: so what then is the goal? To push these people deeper into their bubbles?

At some point one has to ask how much of the problem is being directly created by this “they’re all terrible people so I won’t even talk to them” mindset.

[gedpeck]

My personal view is as follows. American society has reached a point of no return. Something has to give before a new equilibrium has been found. As an extreme example look to Nazi Germany. The repugnant views that were normal in 1939 Germany weren’t normal in 1960 Germany. A similar (though far less extreme) change will happen in the U.S.

I have no desire to change anyone’s mind about their political views. Anyone who supports a known rapist and felon and who openly takes bribes can not be convinced of anything. I don’t engage in political discussions with such people. There is no consistency in their beliefs so no meaningful discusion can be had.

For me, my desire is secession. The country needs to beak up. This is an extreme view but will likely be increasingly held by people with similar political beliefs as mine.

[petsfed]

I'm going to be pedantic for a second, as a sort of dark coping mechanism:

>Anyone who supports a known rapist and felon and who openly takes bribes can not be convinced of anything

Clearly, they can be convinced of something, just not anything you or I might consider good.

In all seriousness, I think the truly disturbing thing about this whole sorry situation is just how many people don't actually hold any durable ethics or morality, just rank self-interest. Pearl clutching over the death of American dreams like economic mobility is a sideshow to the death knell of American idealism. America is not the shining city on a hill we thought it was, and honestly, it never was.

[gedpeck]

Clearly, they can be convinced of something, just not anything you or I might consider good.

Yeah. I should have been more precise.

The country deserves what is going to happen.

[KPGv2]

> For me, my desire is secession. The country needs to beak up. This is an extreme view but will likely be increasingly held by people with similar political beliefs as mine.

So, you envision an enormous red country plus about forty or so small nation-states, virtually none of whom can support themselves and would be defeated by the red state's military and agricultural output in days?

Secession is unworkable. Whoever secedes from the most militarily powerful nation in history gets wiped off the map in twelve hours.

[itsoktocry]

Why is the comparison always Nazi Germany?

By the way, the jury explicitly rejected the rape allegation. So you're just making stuff up from your high-horse:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a...

[dralley]

The colloquial definition of rape includes using your fingers, which is what he did. The fact that the specific NY law defines digital violation as a separate offense from "rape" doesn't make using the term improper for the non-NY-lawyers among us.

[metabagel]

The judge said that Trump was guilty of rape, as it is commonly defined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-car...

> “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

[gedpeck]

I didn’t compare anything to Nazi Germany. I gave Nazi Germany as an example of how what is socially acceptable can drastically change in a short period of time.

I apologize. He was found liable for sexual abuse, battery and defamation. These distinctions are extremely important. He’s not quite as bad as I made him out to be. What about him calling his daughter a nice piece of ass? The other stuff?

[hnthrowaway6543]

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people" is obviously hyperbole -- if it were true, the onus would be on you to start taking action against those terrible people. but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible, because you're still working your 9-5 for your terrible-person boss, getting paid like every other schmuck, and you're happy to let those irredeemably terrible people deliver your DoorDash, teach your children at public school, and keep your electricity and water running.

[KPGv2]

> my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible, because you're still working your 9-5 for your terrible-person boss

"You continue to labor in order to feed yourself rather than suicide-bombing your neighbors, so therefore you're lying" is a HELL of a take.

[gedpeck]

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people"

A large majority of the people did not vote for Donald Trump.

but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible,

People who support Donald Trump are, in general, terrible people. They aren’t evil people doing evil things so why would I have an obligation to take action against them?

It is a fact of life that we all must live amongst people who we think are terrible human beings. Of course I haven’t the slightest idea what a person’s views are for almost everyone I interact with. I give everyone the assumption that they deserve respect until proven otherwise.

Given the context of the thread it’s ironic that you don’t seem to understand what it means to give the assumption of respect to people. I think you edited your disparaging remarks to me. It was hilarious to read those remarks given the context of the discussion at hand. Feel free to put them back. I don’t mind them.

[signatoremo]

> People who support Donald Trump are, in general, terrible people

This is not true, and that shows your narrow mindset. To give you the benefits of the doubt, can you explain why Trump supporters are not only wrong, but generally "terrible people"?

[gedpeck]

I have no desire to change anyone’s mind about their political views. Anyone who supports a known rapist and felon and who openly takes bribes can not be convinced of anything. I don’t engage in political discussions with such people. There is no consistency in their beliefs so no meaningful discusion can be had.

[ethbr1]

> The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs.

Oof, that's a lot of assumption.

[foxglacier]

Do you not see how you're part of the problem? You're applying cherry-picked standards that just happen to match what Trump did because you'd already been brainwashed to hate him and his supporters. What if you judge presidents by how many deaths they cause in wars instead of what dirty jokes they made? Wouldn't that be more meaningful measure of badness? No because you're cherry-picking to support your pre-existing hatred that you were driven to by the news and social media.

[gedpeck]

Cherry picked facts? Ha. Being a rapist is a cherry picked fact?

The difference between me and you is that I consistently apply my morals and ethics. I don’t support rapists and bribe takers for President. I didn’t support Clinton when it became clear what he did and I don’t support Trump. Have a higher standard for yourself. Don’t support bad people.

I do judge George W. Bush for the deaths he caused. Obama too.

[foxglacier]

Fair enough, they're all bad. Maybe except Biden?

As far as I know, Trump wasn't convicted of rape, so it's maybe a bit of stretch to call him a rapist.

[snowfarthing]

Do you realize the exact same things can be said about the President we had for the last four years?

It's really hard to worry about your own guy being a scumbag, when the opposition supports a scumbag too (and then lies about it).

[gedpeck]

Biden hasn’t been convicted of felonies. He’s not an adjudicated rapist. He doesn’t refer to his daughter as a nice piece of ass. He isn’t banned from running a charity. He hasn’t bribed any porn stars. He hasn’t accepted $30 billion in bribes. He hasn’t taken secret documents to illegally keep in his bathroom. He hasn’t met with Putin alone without an interpreter or any other U.S. official present. He hasn’t made fun of a reporter’s disability. He didn’t appoint his son-in-law to be an advisor who then accepted bribes from Saudi Arabia. He hasn’t engaged in Twitter feuds with 15 year old kids from Sweden. He didn’t threaten to withhold disaster aid to states that didn’t vote for him.

Nothing I’ve said against Trump is about his politics. He, as a person, is narcissistic, self centered, selfish, boorish, infantile, incurious, lustful, and greedy. He’s a despicable person and those who support him are terrible people.

[snowfarthing]

"If you want to discuss Biden then start another thread. This one is about Donald Trump."

You cannot talk about Trump without putting him in context. The fact is, the reason why we have Trump for President again, is because the person who replaced him was so horrible, that Trump looked better in comparison.

And what's more, conisdering what I said -- and what you are responding to -- I have to bring up Biden, because my entire point is "both sides do it". If you want to bring back honor and decency to the White House, you have to do it with an honorable and decent person. Neither Biden nor Harris fit that bill.

[gedpeck]

You cannot talk about Trump without putting him in context.

I can. I did. It doesn’t need context. It’s well documented the things he did.

The fact is, the reason why we have Trump for President again…

This is not an established fact.

… Harris fit that bill.

Harris’ moral and ethical failings are nothing compared to Trump. You can do what I did and not vote and not support either candidate. Stand up for truth and righteousness and stop trying to justify your support for a person as shitty as Trump. It’s a choice to defend shitty behavior. When you do so you end up smelling like shit.

[snowfarthing]

"Harris’ moral and ethical failings are nothing compared to Trump. You can do what I did and not vote and not support either candidate. Stand up for truth and righteousness and stop trying to justify your support for a person as shitty as Trump. It’s a choice to defend shitty behavior. When you do so you end up smelling like shit."

She implicitly supported Biden. She was complicit in all the lies that were pushed about Biden, particularly those about his fitness for the position. She endorsed going after political enemies with the legal system -- and then had the gall to claim that Trump would do just that himself.

And then to go on and claim that if you supported a crappy candidate, then those people are crappy too, you have basically condemned the 95% or so who voted for one or the other -- for motivations that are well beyond either yours or my understanding -- this attitude right here is why politics is so toxic these days.

[snowfarthing]

You aren't aware of what was found on Hunter's laptop, or in Ashley's diary (she had to choose her showering times carefully to make sure her father wouldn't join her), or Tara Reed's allegations. To say Biden hasn't accepted $30 billion in bribes, in particular, is laughably funny, and he was caught having secret documents kept illegally in his garage. He is on record threatening aid from Ukraine unless they fired a particular prosecutor who was investigating his son. He has, for all intents and purposes, withheld disaster aid from North Carolina, who didn't vote for him. He has plagiarized speeches several times over the years -- indeed, this is what derailed his first attempt to run for President, back in the 1980s. And he hasn't been particularly nice to reporters, and considering what he is on record saying to constituents, I can confidentially say that the only reason he doesn't engage in Twitter feuds is because he's too senile to be allowed near Twitter.

Biden, as a person, is narcissistic, self centered, selfish, boorish, infantile, incurious, lustful, and greedy. He’s a despicable person and those who support him are terrible people.

Either that, or they are just ignorant -- because the mainstream press has worked hard to hide these kinds of things from us. It is why trust in them has plummeted over the last few years.

[gedpeck]

Great. We are in agreement that a person who engages in odious behavior is not worthy of support. As such Donald Trump is not worthy of support.

If you want to discuss Biden then start another thread. This one is about Donald Trump.

[tombert]

No, I don't really think you're right about this.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's a right I wouldn't take away form them even if I could.

They are not entitled to me being nice to them. Fuck that; if they advocate for something that I think is harmful, then I'm not going to be "respectful" to them.

My grandmother in no uncertain terms said that my wife should be deported. She doesn't have any power deport my wife, so she wouldn't fall into the "bad actor" in your definition, but she's made her opinion clear on that.

I could swallow my pride, roll my eyes, and ignore the horrible racist shit she says, but why exactly? The whole point of free speech is the ability to criticize bad ideas, and sometimes that's going to involve hurting a Republican's feelings.