I must say this is a very interesting question of 'when should I unassociate with someone based on their beliefs?' Well obviously this is something you have to think about yourself and set some guidelines but a few things come to mind about when you should get as far away as possible from that person.

1. If you disagree with someone on an issue, do they instantly just turn hostile toward you? If a person does not have the decency to stay civil even if they strongly disagree with a position you hold that person is not good to stay around.

2. Does this person hang out with people that have extreme views and are known to be violent? There are quite few of these kinds of groups on all sides of political issues and knowing about them and if your friend is very friendly with them can be quite telling. Unless they distance themselves they may fall into dangerous territory and drag you down with em.

3. Does the position they hold make you sick because you find it so morally reprehensible? This is a completely your call kind of a thing but there are certain views people find so morally objectionable that it can actually have a negative impact on your own psyche. Sometimes you do need to just take a stand against an outrageous view and tell them why you distanced yourself from them. Admittedly, this kind of reasoning though is one of the easiest to abuse and go overboard with so you have to be careful with this one.

In general though, everyone has differences of opinion so the general rule of thumb should probably be to learn to live with em, accept that there will be differences and learn to live with em. Find your breaking point and stick with it making sure those around you know what to expect. In the end, the only person you can truly control is yourself and through example you can sometimes bring a person over to your point of view.

We all make these decisions based on practical conditions in our lives. I'm trying to elucidate a general moral principle that is consistent.

In the reality of my life, if you are promoting homophobia, misogyny or whatever, you are just gone, plain and simple. I don't need to dignify these 'ideas' with my consideration. But what about second order effects. What if you vote for a candidate that advocates these positions? Even if you didn't vote for them because of their homophobia, you still bear a measure of responsibility for their actions if they are elected. Why am I giving you a pass because you expressed the opinion through the ballot rather than spouting it to me personally?

It gets even murkier if you are voting in a defensive manner. If you think Hillary is the antichrist who ate all the children of Bengazi or whatever, you might reasonably say that the homophobic candidate isn't ideal but preferable to the alternative. Do you still bear responsibility in that case? What if the logic is faulty or you weren't aware of a position. That doesn't abdicate your responsibility or complicity.

Should I as someone who is against homophobia, wall that off in some separate politics section, which is distinct from the rest of our day to day interactions?

Generally, you should be thinking in a utlitarian way or "what is objectively better," because a candidate with homophobic views can still have policy/views helpful to another minority or something general in the population that will even help the lbtgq+etc. community more than whatever they have against them.

Too much absolutes.

The assumption here is that a specific individual knows with absolute certainty that their position is correct and that the other person is incorrect.

Does said person actually endorse misogyny or homophobia or racism by the pure definition of those words?

X believes Y to be morally repugnant and racist for Z view because X believes Z view is racist.

Y believes X to be misinformed and therefore projecting T motive onto Z view that does not apply to Z view.

I suppose X could continue to believe Y is morally repugnant and refuse to associate them based on a presumed and absolute certainty of their moral beliefs. Or perhaps X could engage with Y and get down to the actual details of Z view without projecting T motive without data/evidence.

Personal Belief: Life rarely, if ever, works in absolute blacks and whites. Discussion is favorable to alienation and isolation because the individual mind does not grow without confronting an oppositional idea. X believes Y's views to be abhorrent and therefore Y is abhorrent, but without further discussion can X truly know that Y's views are abhorrent? I believe the answer is no. If X misconstrues Y's argument, X will never understand Y and will never truly know anything.

In the reality of my life, if you are promoting homophobia, misogyny or whatever, you are just gone, plain and simple. I don't need to dignify these 'ideas' with my consideration. But what about second order effects. What if you vote for a candidate that advocates these positions? Even if you didn't vote for them because of their homophobia, you still bear a measure of responsibility for their actions if they are elected. Why am I giving you a pass because you expressed the opinion through the ballot rather than spouting it to me personally?

Bear in mind: if you apply that standard, Bill Clinton raped (at least) three women, not counting his consensual womanizing, and he pulled in 99.72% of the democrat caucus for reelection. So like...... yeah....... about that whole misogyny bit, you, uh.....

The takeaway here is, you've met (I assume) loads and loads and loads of Clinton fans who are not, themselves, rapists and womanizers. Which ought to put the nail in the coffin -- this concept that you should shun people because some asshole in DC did something you don't like is ridiculously unfair.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Bear in mind: if you apply that standard, Bill Clinton raped (at least) three women, not counting his consensual womanizing, and he pulled in 99.72% of the democrat caucus for reelection. So like...... yeah....... about that whole misogyny bit, you, uh.....

The takeaway here is, you've met (I assume) loads and loads and loads of Clinton fans who are not, themselves, rapists and womanizers. Which ought to put the nail in the coffin -- this concept that you should shun people because some asshole in DC did something you don't like is ridiculously unfair.

If that is true and people voted for him after coming into possession of that information then they absolutely DO bear some of the responsibility. A principle isn't a principle if you apply it selectively.

I don't know anything about the particulars of the Clinton case as it was before I came the USA. If people genuinely believe he is a rapist and still voted for him then that is morally wrong.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

If that is true and people voted for him after coming into possession of that information then they absolutely DO bear some of the responsibility. A principle isn't a principle if you apply it selectively.

I don't know anything about the particulars of the Clinton case as it was before I came the USA. If people genuinely believe he is a rapist and still voted for him then that is morally wrong.

And then to prove how much they changed, the DNC rigged their own primary in an effort to put him back in the white house 16 years later.

also, this is happening right now.

MFW democrats are trying to murder their political enemies again.

@mdk

Ok? Even if we accept that at face value it isn't particularly relevant to my point. Its easy enough to find terrible people making terrible statements in any ideological camp. I've certainly met people who suggested violence against the previous president was appropriate. Those people are gone from my life now. Any one suggesting that murdering people is obviously reprehensible. Just like anyone voting for a candidate who assault members of the press I suppose.

Who you associate with is up to you of course. We all have a line (I'd be curious how many people here would happily associate with an active pedophile), so if bigotry is too disgusting for you to associate with then that is your line. Shouldn't force yourself to be friends with people that disgust you.

But if we are bringing up moral honesty, I can't help but have the image of a person painfully cutting ties out of a sense of intellectual duty rather than emotional revulsion, or else "I don't want to cut this person out but because of X Y and Z it is my moral obligation to do so." That reasoning I have a problem, because it is too symbolic. If you cut somebody off, they are not going to change their minds. If anything it'll isolate them from the ideological soap necessary to clean their bullshit. Soo... what has happened? What was achieved? To me, the only reason for this would make sense would be A: if you somehow are enabling the immorality by knowing them. B: If you think there is a risk that you'll be too weak to avoid participation in the immorality. Anything else seems to be symbolic and therefore just a pointless exercise.

Any one suggesting that murdering people is obviously reprehensible. Just like anyone voting for a candidate who assault members of the press I suppose.

Totally equivalent.

Anyway that was an aside. The part relevant to our conversation is that the mainstream left voted en masse for a personally reprehensible candidate, and I for one don't think that makes them bad people, but if you're arguing that anybody who votes for any reason for a bad person is a bad person, you're going to find America's political scene extremely hostile. And a very lonely scene it will be, if you start cutting all those folks out of your life entirely.

you're going to find America's political scene extremely hostile.

Well that is already true. At the end of this contract I'm going to make a move to a bluer state, where people spend less time beseeching God to smite the gays, liberals and Mexicans.

mainstream left voted en masse for a personally reprehensible candidate

If that is true, then don't they bear the moral responsibility for that choice? I certainly believe they . There are utilitarian reasons for voting for people you find personally distasteful, lesser of the two evils stuff, but it hardly absolves you of your moral responsibility.

In the reality of my life, if you are promoting homophobia, misogyny or whatever, you are just gone, plain and simple.

Preaching moral superiority and putting oneself on a pedestal is healthy and all well and good in all. Think about the children, save the trees and all those meaningless platitudes that mean I don't actually have to make an effort to do anything in life. I haven't even remotely been watching your conversation back and forth. Doesn't look like it's gone anywhere. But let me ask you this.

What exactly IS homophobia or misogynistic, and how does one "promote" it...

I mean nearly all hate crimes reported turn out to be nothing but scams.

breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/02/hate-cr…

But do you consider that saying that, without further qualification, since you seem fairly absolute about the consequences. The vagueness of those word that have become labels, mean absolutely nothing.



Isn't everything already homophobic and misogynistic?

Was it misogynistic to stand for gaming ethics, when all gamer were called sexist evil pigs? And promoting that was Microsoft, showing off a game that supported the evil's of gamergate?

I could go on forever, but where do you draw the line? You don't have to answer...the problem with that is. Everyone has their own line. Spending so much time having heart attacks over people and their thoughts, shows that you don't have too many problems in this world.

Well that is already true. At the end of this contract I'm going to make a move to a bluer state, where people spend less time beseeching God to smite the gays, liberals and Mexicans.

There is no such thing, as a "blue-r" state. There just areas, usually in big bankrupt cities that have more progressives living there.

But sounds well thought out to me. Though again, your 'fear' and feeling hostility comes from nowhere. Because the only people committing crimes in mass numbers, are groups like Antifa. Most people don't give a shit about social politics. So unless that apathy is scaring you, I feel like I need some citations, before I can take this "fear and hostility" seriously.

And since you mention a "god" and smiting gays. Do you think it's Islamophobic when people don't want to have sharia law/courts in the U.S. Since their all over the U.K and Europe?

Out of curiosity, I feel the need to ask this question since it seems to have been brought up and this is the place that would best deal with it. Mind you "best" being that I might receive an actual explanation other than, "They're an 'Alt Right' group that shovels 'fake news' to push their hateful propaganda!" or some other equally limp wristed response that has no content to it.

What is so bad about Breitbart that any of the major news agencies could not be made equally guilty of in mirror? It should come as no surprise, but I would trust Breitbart to be more accurate than CNN, MSNBC, BBC and the like. I never go out of my way to read it, but the times I have, I have not been displeased with their reporting efforts or saw anything that were blatantly contradictory. For sake of timeliness, what I mean by that was how people were talking about Comey's testifying and how it somehow proved anything. It really did not, but some agencies took that as liberty to run with it.

Regardless, what is the "issue" with Breitbart?

Out of curiosity, I feel the need to ask this question since it seems to have been brought up and this is the place that would best deal with it. Mind you "best" being that I might receive an actual explanation other than, "They're an 'Alt Right' group that shovels 'fake news' to push their hateful propaganda!" or some other equally limp wristed response that has no content to it.

What is so bad about Breitbart that any of the major news agencies could not be made equally guilty of in mirror? It should come as no surprise, but I would trust Breitbart to be more accurate than CNN, MSNBC, BBC and the like. I never go out of my way to read it, but the times I have, I have not been displeased with their reporting efforts or saw anything that were blatantly contradictory. For sake of timeliness, what I mean by that was how people were talking about Comey's testifying and how it somehow proved anything. It really did not, but some agencies took that as liberty to run with it.

Regardless, what is the "issue" with Breitbart?

They just do what CNN does but have less money so they catch flak for it more.

>Linking to Breitbart

A broken clock is right twice a day?

Seriously, as long as you're intelligent and look into the sources, and go through different and multiple sources. You can get through the B.S pretty quickly. Dismissing a site that's politically different and ignoring the material inside. Is the same kind of ignorance that leads to people only watching CNN or Fox and then burning their kids harry potter books for promoting witchcraft. :/

Also not even kidding there's about fifty links of their title's point. IN THE THING...among other links...it's not a tumblr blog with a few paragraphs and no proof.

Edit: Not meant to be accusatory. :D

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Well that is already true. At the end of this contract I'm going to make a move to a bluer state, where people spend less time beseeching God to smite the gays, liberals and Mexicans.

They literally just exchange it for white people. It's 0% better and 3000% more smug. Good luck with all of that.

If that is true, then don't they bear the moral responsibility for that choice? I certainly believe they [do]. There are utilitarian reasons for voting for people you find personally distasteful, lesser of the two evils stuff, but it hardly absolves you of your moral responsibility.

There we go again, dictating the morality of society itself. No. You're responsible for yourself and Slick Willy is responsible for himself and he doesn't stop and check whether it's okay with you before he fondles an intern. You set your own rules, and if you're not comfortable voting for a guy who does that to basically every woman he meets -- GREAT! Good for you, you're a good person. If you preach all that same stuff, but then still endorse the guy -- well NOW you've got a problem, because that would be pretty intensely hypocritical. And lastly if you run around judging everybody by your own standards, essentially meting out your own moral sentences on everyday people because of what their politician did, you're acting like your own personal atheistic Spanish Inquisition and NOOOOOOOOBODY likes the Spanish Inquisition. What is the point of that? Feeling superior to others while changing precisely nothing?

In short holding yourself to the highest standard is laudable. I sincerely like the fact that you're even asking these questions. Holding others to that standard is pretty uncool/unfair/nonproductive/jerk-like, though. But it's your call. You get to be that person if you want.

I haven't even remotely been watching your conversation back and forth.

Ok, thanks for the heads up, that will be a real time saver.

[/quote]

They literally just exchange it for white people. It's 0% better and 3000% more smug. Good luck with all of that.

Thank you, I worked in Maine and New Hampshire a few years ago and I found in more congenial. I didn't notice a whole lot of down with the white man talk at the time. There was a certain amount of anti-refugee sentiment which I found distasteful but that seemed to be fairly isolated. I've heard that Oregon and Washington State are beautiful but I understand that they are extremely conservative once you get away from the big cities.

If you preach all that same stuff, but then still endorse the guy -- well NOW you've got a problem, because that would be pretty intensely hypocritical.

I completely agree.

And lastly if you run around judging everybody by your own standards, essentially meting out your own moral sentences on everyday people because of what their politician did, you're acting like your own personal atheistic Spanish Inquisition and NOOOOOOOOBODY likes the Spanish Inquisition. What is the point of that? Feeling superior to others while changing precisely nothing?

If Torquemada had been an elected official, then anyone who voted for him would by definition bear some of the responsibility for his actions. By casting a vote for him they have delegated some of their power to him and are responsible for how he uses it. No one ever has perfect information of course. You could be deceived by a candidate, they could act in a way you didn't predict. Maybe he acted in a way that nooooobody suspected.

We all make moral judgments about people. My point is that we frequently give them a pass on politics because for whatever reason we tend to segregate religious and political opinion from our everyday interactions. I do it all the time, but that persons still believes that thing that I find appalling. Why am I not considering it, and if it reaches whatever threshold I want to set, acting on it.

I sincerely like the fact that you're even asking these questions. Holding others to that standard is pretty uncool/unfair/nonproductive/jerk-like, though. But it's your call. You get to be that person if you want.

Thank you, I spend alot of time thinking about moral questions in general. Thought experiments and abstract moral principles are not always easy to translate into real life of course, nor is it always easy to overcome your own biases. That is exactly the point of discussing it with other people.

What is so bad about Breitbart that any of the major news agencies could not be made equally guilty of in mirror? It should come as no surprise, but I would trust Breitbart to be more accurate than CNN, MSNBC, BBC and the like.

Regardless, what is the "issue" with Breitbart?

@The Harbinger of Ferocity They do have their own biases, during Trump's election in particular, they were someone I actively avoided because I found them obnoxious. (though everyone discussing Trump seems to be obnoxious, but I digress.) They've have been wrong before.

I wouldn't imply they're more accurate than any other site. But that point is basically right on the money...every single site has been awful before, gotten something wrong, or misreported. There is no real differences. (and on that note...)

The only reason sites on the progressive/leftist side have gotten worse, is this delusional thinking and that they've been doubling down on, that is a continuously losing battle. Making some of the left question it and getting pushed into evil as a result. With the media's absolute laziness that showed up throughout, with sights literally copying other sites verbatim and adding nothing new. Gamergate was a time where this was so disturbingly blatant that it only proved the skepticism of media sites spinning a narrative further.

But the 'issue' to the leftist/progressive, it's "right". "Right-winger' being an insult and all that is evil when it's literally just means something with a 'right' leaning bias in anything. "Believing without researching" is the motto. You don't have to think about it. Everything should be free, violence only exist because there's not enough love. You don't need to use your brain, as long as someone in authority tells you what to do, where to live and what to eat. The other side is evil and wants you to be responsible for yourself. That takes effort. You know that kind of logic...

Labels and Magical Thinking. Like pandering without a hint of genuine desire to help, it's worked for hundreds of years. But now it's just pushed a little bit further. Because now instead of just "evil rich people", since most people weren't, it was nice to have that invisible boogeyman.

Now it's everyone on earth with different ideas or even questionings ideas, but mostly straight "cis" *cringes at even typing that* white males are to blame for everything wrong. The younger generation that has literally done nothing to influence the greater world or it's many problems is now feeling quite accused and reasonably pissed off.

But it's been clear long ago that self awareness has gone out of the window in politics, right or left. It's more blatant that people don't know what the hell they're talking about more than ever. Because the uneducated right think being an asshole is the only reason free speech exists, and being a victim (aka an attention whore) has never been easier for the left.




Sorry this turned into something more than just answering your question. ;D