[ryan_lane]

You're acting as if people are saying "democrat good, republican bad" as the meaning for associating values with who someone voted for, but missing the part that you can easily associate that someone has poor values if they voted for Trump.

Sure, you need to go a bit deeper if someone didn't vote for Trump to know their values, but voting for someone who ran on a platform of mass deportations, retaliation against his enemies, obvious idiotic economic policy, homophobia and transphobia, and racism, makes you a kind of shit person, and it's not really necessary to go any deeper to know their values don't match yours.

[ryanackley]

So you're saying >50% of the USA population are objectively shit people? If you're a member of the other 50%, you aren't automatically shit but you still could be?

Seems bleak dude. Also, consider that conservative media has indoctrinated people to think like you do...except in the opposite direction. i.e. if you voted for Kamala or Biden, you're the enemy.

[1659447091]

Where are you getting >50% of the population from?

He did not even get 50% of the votes cast for president. More people in the USA opted out of voting for him than to vote for him.

[ryan_lane]

MAGA isn't 50% of the population. Voter turnout was 63.7% for 2024, so I'm saying that ~32% of the USA population are objectively shit people, in the same way that Germans who supported Hitler were objectively shit people.

If you can't see that disappearing people without due process is wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see that pardoning conmen, and insurrectionists is wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see the use of Venezuelan prisons and Guantanamo Bay as extralegal black sites as wrong, you don't have good values. If you can't see that a president illegally ignoring the courts and congress is wrong, you don't have good values.

You could say that some of the other stuff that's happening is just an extension of the culture war, and that it's a matter of interpretation of whether it's wrong or not (DEI hate, transgender issues, abortion rights, etc). I don't agree, but those topics are harder to give a black and white answer on whether it's wrong or right.

Clear violations of the constitution, ignoring basic human rights, and doing straight up crime are black and white issues, and in general, most Trump voters support these things, and these are things he campaigned on, so even if they disagree with them now, they voted to allow it to happen.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Even if true, the point OP was making that you are dismissing their political stance for no other reason than your disagreement with it. It does not make for a useful, productive.. or any kind of conversation that results in some sort of mutually agreeable state.

[ryan_lane]

Yeah, it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent. This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle".

I'm not tolerant of intolerance, I'm not OK with hate, and you shouldn't be either.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I truly do wish we could move a little past bumper sticker conversations, because it is HN. The guidelines of the site do expect more from all of us when we post. Still, allow me to address what you wrote.

<< This isn't the kind of situation we "meet in the middle".

Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish? What do you think happens when people stop talking? I would like you to think this through before reflexively answering. On this forum, I semi-consistently argue for at least trying to reach out to the other party before talking stops.

<< I'm not tolerant of intolerance,

In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this.

<< it's OK to disagree with people who agree with a political stance that involves depriving people of their rights, to the point of sending people to violent work camps and refusing to bring people back even when it's found that they're innocent.

Friend, it is always ok to disagree. There is no need to qualify it. Unless I am not reading your post right, let me ask you a simple question:

'When is it not ok to disagree?'

[ryan_lane]

> In very simple terms, you are just intolerant. You just gave yourself a permission to hate ( because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate ). On the off-chance sarcasm was not obvious, it is not some sort of neat trick or get out of jail card, because there is some level of social permission for this.

Yeah, I'm OK hating people who want to imprison/kill people for being born a particular way. You can change the way you think, they can't change the way they were born.

> Friend,

You're not my friend.

> Then we are out of words and are unable to communicate further. What does that accomplish?

We don't need to debate concepts like "should we send people to labor camps, without due process". Engaging people who think this way simply helps spread their ideas, and their ideas are a cancer.

Saying this community is debating these things because we believe in curiosity is just an excuse to allow fascists in our midsts without feeling guilt about it. If you have a bar and let nazis hang out, you're a nazi bar.

> 'When is it not ok to disagree?'

If your disagreement is about whether someone should be allowed to exist because of the way they were born, then it's not OK to disagree.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't exist. I'm suggesting that we, as a community, shouldn't allow you to participate in debate, because it simply helps spread your hate, and it makes the community as a whole worse to allow you to participate.

[samtheDamned]

> because your hate is so totally different from their kind of hate

I just want to suggest that there may be a difference between hating a person for something they were born with, or for an uncontrollable feature of a person, compared to hating someone for explicit choices they have made.

Not saying that hating people for any reason is necessarily okay, but I think an argument can be made that there is a difference between those two cases of hatred.

[watwut]

> Also, consider that conservative media has indoctrinated people to think like you do...except in the opposite direction.

I came to similar conclusion by reading conservative media. NOT by reading mainstream media that forever excuse, rationalize and sanitize what is going on among conservatives.

Also, note that he did not just said "they are enemy". He listed actual positions these people demonstrably have. All you have to do is to ... listen to what they say. Oh, and I also tell you some stuff they want for gender relations: they want women completely dependent on men economically, spousal abuse to be an accepted price for keeping families together.

The person you are responded to described really existing value differences. Musks "empathy is weakness" is not some kind of outlier claim, it is something conservatives were pushing on for years already. Especially in its far right circles. Likewise the Trumps "truth does not matter" philosophy.

[kernal]

You could also say that someone who voted for the illegal importation of millions of criminals and murderers, targeted conservatives, used law fare to try and imprison a former president, committed astronomical financial fraud and persons responsible for the deaths caused by these criminal aliens is a shit person who needs to serve the remainder of his pathetic life in prison.