@Hank
Sorry, I thought this was kind of different. I'll try to distance it more.

I've wonder if drawing a distinction between people and their politics is a sort of moral cowardice. Political opinion is a reflection of peoples thoughts, maybe a purer version than their everyday behavior because, presumably, they have thought about it in depth. I'm in a bit of a quandary because I do tend to make allowances for religious thought.

@Penny
I don't think it's cowardice in itself, I think it's more that they know that if they instantly present their whole spectra of beliefs they may instantly be disregarded so they instead drip-feed their ideas to the other, which is much, much more successful.

@Dynamo Frokane
My country is actually in a very awkward position. We have a president who claims to be a nationalist and is called a far-right nationalist by many people but the fact is he outsources lots of jobs to the Chinese, makes huge land leases to them and brings in boat-loads of them, so that in some areas like Mogilyow there's more of them than Belarusian. However, he is also close to his 70s and while he does possess some of the james bond villain style of vigour that Putin has he will not be able to lead for too long; I predict his death in the 2030s by the latest, though he may well be dethroned earlier.

The most likely results we are to see in the near future is 1) Caesar style coup where close officials seemingly friendly usurp him and make it a much more entrenched oligarchy or 2) we have our own style of Spanish civil war between our Nazbols and our traditional Nationalists. The most curious about both situations is that Russia and the West would be very interested in intervening, but they would be completely lost on how and what to do as well as which side they should be on. I will soon be living in... interesting times. I've already gone to Ukraine's warzone to get a taste of the stuff, but our conflict will be much more difficult to get through and understand.

@Andreyich Well its a bit awkward to just vomit forth an entire political ideology under any circumstances. I would certainly back slowly away without making eye contact if someone did that to me, regardless of the ideology.

But what I meant was: Is it morally cowardly to keep peoples political views separate from the rest of the way you view the person? Alot of this happened during the great facebook purge of 2016 when anyone and everyone was unfriending each other because they voted for Hillary or Trump or whatever third party candidate. If someone has political views which are abhorrent to me, or supports those who do, but I continue to associate with them because they are personally pleasant, am I compromising my principles?

@Andreyich Well its a bit awkward to just vomit forth an entire political ideology under any circumstances. I would certainly back slowly away without making eye contact if someone did that to me, regardless of the ideology.

But what I meant was: Is it morally cowardly to keep peoples political views separate from the rest of the way you view the person? Alot of this happened during the great facebook purge of 2016 when anyone and everyone was unfriending each other because they voted for Hillary or Trump or whatever third party candidate. If someone has political views which are abhorrent to me, or supports those who do, but I continue to associate with them because they are personally pleasant, am I compromising my principles?

If your principles involve closing your mind (IE IF UR A LIBRAL LOL) then yeah, you're compromising them by "associating" with other people.

The cowardice angle is this: if your version of the truth can't survive confrontation by the other side, it's probably not true. And if that's causing you to cut and run from whatever social circle you used to inhabit..... well..... that's pretty cowardly, innit?

Anywho. Freely associate or don't associate with whoever you want. I can't fathom what kind of principles would preclude such a thing, but whatever they are, I don't want them.

(IE IF UR A LIBRAL LOL)

I would certainly consider myself to be a liberal.

The cowardice angle is this: if your version of the truth can't survive confrontation by the other side, it's probably not true. And if that's causing you to cut and run from whatever social circle you used to inhabit..... well..... that's pretty cowardly, innit?

My principles aren't threatened by coming into contact with other view points. They aren't from a checklist. They are amalgams of my experience, research and introspection. There certainly are opinions which I consider to be pretty moronic, and dont care to legitimize by engaging with, but that isn't really what I'm talking about.

Let me pose a hypothetical.

Lets say I meet John. He seems nice enough and we get along well enough. We are associates, maybe even starting to be friends. One day John suggests that we should really restrict women's access to health and reproductive care and should vote for candidates who champion just such an agenda. I find this position to be both ridiculous and horrifying.

I now have a few options.

I can attempt to convince John that his position is wrong. This is both exhausting and usually pointless.

I can stop associating with John, judging that anyone that would hold such an opinion isn't anyone I want to count as a friend.

I can ignore John's opinion and continue our relationship. Basically the don't talk about politics or religion option.

What I am pondering is does this third option constitute moral cowardice? I know that John holds this horrible opinion and I'm artificially segregating it from the rest of our relationship. This is especially true because if I take the first option and fail to convince him, I am essentially forced to pick one of the later.

What I am pondering is does this third option constitute moral cowardice?

Not at all.

What you're describing in 1 and 2 is essentially what everybody hates about the standard hollywood kooky-christian stereotype. It's moral bullying (I mean for a great cause, just like christianity).

Option 3 isn't cowardice, option 3 is being an adult.

What you're describing in 1 and 2 is essentially what everybody hates about the standard hollywood kooky-christian stereotype. It's moral bullying (I mean for a great cause, just like christianity).

Im not super familiar with this, what do you mean by the standard Hollywood stereotype?

Option 3 isn't cowardice, option 3 is being an adult.

Is it? If someone says that steak is best severed well done, I can know they are wrong but be content to live and let live. But lets up the stakes? Lets say someone thinks slavery is a good idea. Clearly we have a fundamental difference in what we consider to be moral behavior, should you just say well that is just his politics and continue as normal?

I'm not sure that the dont discuss religion and politics argument holds water, as it does inform me of basic fundamental tenets of someones life. I'm not thinking in hyper broad terms here, certainly I'm not suggesting that all christians/republicans/whatever ought be shunned. But there are opinions in the political realm that I personally find reprehensible, often put forward by people I don't otherwise find personally objectionable. Maybe I'm answering my own question here.

Im not super familiar with this, what do you mean by the standard Hollywood stereotype?

Constantly trying to convert other people, acting like friends and constantly trying to manipulate them into converting, and if the person doesn't go along with it, shun all contact and judge them. Doesn't sound cool, because it's not cool.

Is it?

Yes.

Look. You are not the boss of what other people think. Part of being an adult is being able to be around people you hate doing things you hate and shutting up long enough to collect a paycheck. Yeah sometimes you gotta put your foot down, but for the most part, you must learn how to exist alongside other people. The people who put their foot down all the time are immature. The people who can put up with intellectual diversity are mature, and usually turn out smarter/wiser/richer for the effort. Adulting. Hooray.

Look. You are not the boss of what other people think. Part of being an adult is being able to be around people you hate doing things you hate and shutting up long enough to collect a paycheck. Yeah sometimes you gotta put your foot down, but for the most part, you must learn how to exist alongside other people. The people who put their foot down all the time are immature. The people who can put up with intellectual diversity are mature, and usually turn out smarter/wiser/richer for the effort. Adulting. Hooray.

Sure and in my professional life I deal with all manner of people who I am obligated to treat a professional manner. That is basic ethics.

However, In my personal life or in the personal capacity of my professional life, I dont see that it is so clear cut. I get to choose who I associate with in my personal life and it seems cowardly to just pretend that we can draw up a politics and religion curtain and pretend those opinions don't exist. It is utilitarian to do so and it certainly is the option most people choose, but I don't know that it is the moral option.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Sure and in my professional life I deal with all manner of people who I am obligated to treat a professional manner. That is basic ethics.

However, In my personal life or in the personal capacity of my professional life, I dont see that it is so clear cut. I get to choose who I associate with in my personal life and it seems cowardly to just pretend that we can draw up a politics and religion curtain and pretend those opinions don't exist. It is utilitarian to do so and it certainly is the option most people choose, but I don't know that it is the moral option.

You get to make that call for yourself. Do, please, make up your own mind on it. My recommendation though is..... like..... on a purely numbers game, the average person is not better than everybody else they meet, and thus the average person should probably think twice about playing the arbiter of civilizational morality. You don't have to ignore anything. A grown person should be able to have friends they don't see eye to eye with on everything -- even big things.

WHAT I'M DRIVING AT IS -- you're talking as though tolerating a difference of opinion is morally wrong. To me this is literal insanity, or at least a very quick pathway to it. Mental Apartheid? Political segregation? Pick your label. It's icky.

Mental Apartheid? Political segregation?

Sure, except me choosing not to spend time with someone, or to pursue a personal connection with someone, is hardly a systemic system of oppression. I certainly have plenty of friends and acquaintances with whom I don't see exactly eye to eye. It is certainly possible to agree to disagree, but there are position which I would consider not just wrong but immoral. Racism springs to mind as do things like sexism and homophobia. If someone expresses such an opinion, it doesn't seem like tolerating that person in my life is morally acceptable or at least not morally consistent.

the average person is not better than everybody else they meet, and thus the average person should probably think twice about playing the arbiter of civilizational morality.

I'm not arbitrating for civilization, I'm arbitrating for my own life. It is entirely possible that the shoe could be on the other foot and people might make the same judgment about me. That is entirely their choice.

hot damn, this thread didn't get locked

@Vilageidiotx

You cultural marxist authoritarian,
ever heard of something called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?!

ever heard of something called FREEDOM OF SPEECH?!

Isn't that the thing in the constitution that says you can't get kicked out of McDonalds for yelling at jewy looking kids?

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Sure, except me choosing not to spend time with someone, or to pursue a personal connection with someone, is hardly a systemic system of oppression. I certainly have plenty of friends and acquaintances with whom I don't see exactly eye to eye. It is certainly possible to agree to disagree, but there are position which I would consider not just wrong but immoral. Racism springs to mind as do things like sexism and homophobia. If someone expresses such an opinion, it doesn't seem like tolerating that person in my life is morally acceptable or at least not morally consistent.

Certainly there are positions bad enough that cutting ties is justified. We could think of those on a case-by-case basis. Using those extremes to justify things like "Well, you voted for Trump though, I'm unfriending you" is where it becomes childish. There's a lot of childish people in today's America, largely because schools (especially universities) have been growing into liberal echo chambers for generations, and we're not teaching our children how to handle other POVs (case in point, that woman who stabbed a police horse in the neck with a bladed flagpole because people nearby were supporting the president).

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/14/scalise-shooting-details-ron-desantis-says-man-asked-whether-republicans-or-dems-field

Breaking.

Ah, it seems I misunderstood. Still, you're not compromising your views or a coward for associating with those who think differently, especially since once more it is easier to get them to switch to your views if you keep up association.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/14/scalise-shooting-details-ron-desantis-says-man-asked-whether-republicans-or-dems-field

Breaking.

Ah, shooter is from the St Louis area. No surprise then, that's how they shake hands on the other side of the state.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Ah, shooter is from the St Louis area. No surprise then, that's how they shake hands on the other side of the state.

The happening... Begins?