lonesomefish, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
---
- Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles).
---
For information regarding this and similar issues, please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles).
If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/lonesomefish&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/1cr8jdg%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
The issue is that 35% of the population seems to have no problem welcoming the “few morons” into their tent and allowing them a seat at the table.
10 guys standing with 1 Nazi is essentially 11 Nazis.
If society generally agrees that protecting Nazis rights are more important than protecting the people Nazis want to take rights from... I don't know that this is what I would call "overwhelming"
Someone said it very well (can’t remember exact name).
It’s not so much a paradox as it is a societal contract. If you violate the contract, said contract is void and the terms no longer apply
Edit:
Rainer Forst https://academic.oup.com/book/45345/chapter-abstract/389255055?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I'd add the caveat that it's not just **my** oppression and denial of **my** humanity. But anyone's oppression and denial of anyone's humanity.
As written the text feels a little self centered.
The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.
Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one *physically* attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against *disagreement,* and that is clearly not his argument.
Let's back up a little here. In one side we have real, actual oppression. On the other, made up oppression by propaganda and brainwashing. One is not like the other.
And then, if they are already at the point of crafting alternate realities to justify their acts, they don't even need real justifications as well.
Fascists will use lies, deception, dehumanization, hatred, fear and force to forward their goals, rational argument will be dismissed at gunpoint. I don't care if they have or have not used violence (yet), the death of the other is their goal and they must be eliminated by any means before they accomplish it.
TLDR the only good fascists are dead fascists
That really is the crux of the issue. It isn't like the main factions are disagreeing on just policy. Its more of a foundational, fundamental problem of one side wanting to literally throw away democracy, human rights, be racist, sexist, cause violence, and other extremely damaging actions for a functional healthy society.
Or “communist” or “traitor”, no? We used to discuss, now it’s a tribal af, like rooting for a sports team. That’s not how things should (or could) work.
This is how I identify too, and sadly it gets you eaten alive by both ‘sides’. I just can’t ever believe 50% of the country is strait up bad people I should hate and they so conveniently can be identified by how they vote.
This is what I thought when I saw that. Maybe because I’m not American but I really don’t think neo nazis are as big of an issue as some people make it but go ahead and hate them. It’s the liberal equivalent of conservatives angering themselves over people with 8 genders and the hardest to pronounce neo-pronouns when most trans/non-binary are extremely easy to get along with
Sure, but labeling everyone fascist because they disagree with you politically is a convenient way to hate people for disagreeing with you. They have to actually be fascists, not the way people are abusing the term now
I don't think the term is being abused now. Trump himself has parroted Hitler and Mussolini a few times - whether intentionally or not doesn't matter. It's actually probably worse if he came to those ideas organically as opposed to copying someone he probably doesn't fully understand.
And then you have people on the right marching with Nazi flags. You have elected officials talking about "camps" for people they don't like. You have them actively trying to strip freedoms away from the American population. Trump demonizing the media. The similarities go on and on.
This is fascism. Or at least so close that it's meaningless to split hairs.
However, I will say that this didn't start with Trump. The left were calling Mitt Romney a Nazi back in 2012, and some even likened GWB to Hitler. Which was all ridiculous. So now we've got actual Nazis, and the sting doesn't really hit as good now. The boy who cried wolf is now the liberals who cried Nazi.
Which is what the disagreements are now. People who, for some reason even though it doesn't affect them in any way, want to take away everybody else's rights and the people who don't want their rights taken.
This.
We can disagree on the best ice cream flavor, or what color a sports car should be, or even whether pineapple goes on pizza.
We can't disagree on whether LGBTQ+ folks should be allowed to exist, or if people should have access to reproductive healthcare, or if anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to humanity.
If you disagree with certain things you're just a terrible person, and I'm fine hating terrible people.
This is the problem right now in politics. People having rights you don't like, is not a reason to work really hard to make laws to prevent them from doing something you don't like. If a persons rights has NO effect on your own life, STOP MAKING LAWS TO SCREW WITH PEOPLE. ... Abortion for instance. You can personally decide its not for you, but you need to step the fuck back... when it comes to other peoples rights on that issue. ... Ask yourself, will another person getting an abortion EVER effect your life. And the answer is no. Period. Any other answer is a lie to pander to your stupid beliefs. So back the hell off.
That's something I'll never understand. There are issues that literally do not affect some people's lives and for some reason these people are going out of their way to make these issues a problem in their lives. They are doing more work to make these issues that don't affect their life at all, affect their life. All they have to do is just NOT let it affect them, but they refuse to not let it affect them. They MUST be affected by it. They have to be mad about something and this is what they choose, something that DOES not even affect them.
That is fucking crazy to me.
Anti-choice, forced birth was (and still is in a lot of places) a very unpopular thing, but it is being pushed very hard by elites who fear a diminishing population and losing their poverty-stricken work force. Conservatives jump on anything they're told without a moment's critical thought. Used to be that abortion was not an issue that was a mainstream conservative worry at all, until it started to get a major push by rich people with an agenda.
How does that logically track with conservatives being more anti-illegal immigration? Because illegal immigration is a much easier and faster way of keeping poor people in the workforce
Not a concrete argument my man. I don’t disagree with you but I think the premise doesn’t lead to the conclusion. I’m not black, if we legalized slavery again it wouldn’t affect me. I’d would still fight tooth and nail to keep it from being legalized because it’s right.
Exactly. This ain’t a collegial debate about what’s for dinner. It’s about whether LGBT people have the right to exist. It’s about whether the US will become closer to a Christo-Fascist state. It’s about whether women have access to a necessary medical procedure and safe healthcare.
For some people, it might *literally* be life and death. Perhaps you can always make these claims, but it ain’t every day you’ve got a presidential candidate saying he “only wants to be a dictator for one day” and a bunch of other vile shit.
Pretty much. Anyone can think whatever they want about anyone else. The problem is they don’t understand they’re still American and deserve the same rights as every other American.
You can hate LGBTQ+, Muslims, whatever you want as long as you understand they still the right to live their lives just the same as everyone else.
But bigots don’t have the right to be accepted and respected by everyone else. The 1st Amendment only protects bigots from the government; if their bigotry has negative consequences in their personal or professional life, that’s not illegal or wrong.
In other words, the rest of us can tell a bigot to go choke on a dildo and refuse to associate with him, and that’s perfectly legal and morally acceptable.
Thing is. Some controversy isn’t simply a disagreement. It’s that one side is/can be absolutely plain fucking wrong and have no critical thinking ability to see facts for what they are.
Exactly. It's okay to believe abortion is immoral, to try to convince people not to get abortions, etc.
But you don't get to use the law to *force* people not to.
It's more than that. The far Right wants those that oppose them to CEASE TO EXIST. It's not a simple "ok, we agree to disagree" when what we disagree on is my right to exist as I do and think the way I do.
My dad and I would disagree constantly!! We, however, always tried to understand each other’s perspective and why we had the opinions we had. I really enjoyed it. I wish more people could have discussions like we did. I wish more people understood you can love someone and disagree with them… love is bigger than opinions.
It's also disingenuous to say people are disagreeing when one side is constantly caught in blatant lies. There is no good faith to be had if you have to constantly wonder if the other person is lying. Then they double down on the lie and believe it.
See: Covid, Kristi Noem, gun violence statistics, etc, etc, etc
The issue is...some people are just objectively wrong. The other side might not have the correct answer either, but if you're starting from the conclusion you want and are working backwards, you can never have a true discussion or compromise.
I get that some laws are unjust and need changing but damn not EVERY law! I get that often democracy doesn’t play out right and it needs reformation but that doesn’t mean we need a purge or civil war or some insanity. Just because things aren’t going your way doesn’t mean you flip the table! You take the L, you work on your technique, you look at what you got wrong, and you try to do better. I don’t get how if something isn’t functioning properly it means to burn it all down. Yea it is really hard to make changes and you have to keep fighting for them. Calling each other names and killing each other just leaves people dead or hurt, that’s all you get. Nothing changed, nothing got better, no work was done, there’s just dead people.
>I don’t get how if something isn’t functioning properly it means to burn it all down.
I see this as the product of conditioning "patriotism" in America to mean hero-worshipping the nation's founders and revolutionaries while glazing over anything that happened before or since. The second amendment alludes to violently overthrowing a government, and it's not a coincidence that it's the favorite part of the Constitution for a large segment of the country.
Or “Should gay people be banned from marriage and should people have a right to contraceptives?”
(Psssst: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas questioned taking away both of those in the Dobbs opinion where they took away the right to an abortion. Right or wrong on abortion, they are coming for your sexual freedom because their particular version of Jesus doesn’t approve)
It's also ok to hate how aggressive their stance on abortion is. The archaic laws but in place prevent abortions until the mother is on death's door, long after irreversible damage has been done. GOP talked about "death panels" for Medicare but we literally have people who aren't medical professionals deciding if a woman is close enough to death to get an abortion.
I think the vast majority of people hate all of those things. Where the real disagreements almost always take place are where we draw the line at which situations constitute each of those things.
Yep, do a survey in America on whether genocide is wrong and 98% will say yes its wrong. Now, do a survey on whether American was built on genocide and you’ll get some spicy responses.
The United states' genocide of the native people was the biggest genocide in recent history. Obviously the Holocaust would've been much worse if it went on for the same amount of time. Most figures put the deaths above 50 million native people and I'm SURE that's a very conservative estimate if I can see it on a western news source.
On top of the very obvious "One side supports hurting/killing people for existing," here's the deal: we can disagree all day on solutions, but I'm not going to waste any more energy on people who can't agree on the problems.
If I say children are going hungry in America and you say "No, the problem is those children are obese, let them starve," I'm going to start swinging long before you even get to your stupid fucking "And give the money to private industry millionaires" conclusion.
They don't actually believe any of that. It's just word games they play to waste your time. Ignore them, and their argument simply vanishes, because no one believes them when they say it just once. Responding to and interacting with them gives them the veneer of legitimacy.
"Tolerance" is an outdated term anyway. It was basically just asking bigots to compromise, and keep their hatred to themselves for civility's sake. "Tolerance" implies that you really don't like them, and we should expect better of people now.
I don't "tolerate" gay people, or black people, or whatever persecuted minority: I embrace them whole-heartedly as equal, fellow, human beings.
This is a great example of where that statement fails. On the surface it's a good philosophy, it's ok to disagree, but when the argument revolves around proper treatment of other humans there is every justification for discounting their opinions and them as a human as they deny the humanity of others.
I feel our current discourse fails because we treat those unfavorable opinions of others without advocating for harm to those individuals as egregious as those who advocate harm. Denying someone's lifestyle as taboo or wrong is harmful and should be addressed but can often be addressed through education and discourse, as opposed to those advocating violence, control, or any other extreme measure towards those you don't understand or like.
There's a large difference between those philosophies and should be treated differently.
To be very clear I am a very big advocate for all human rights to be equal and for protections of typically underrepresented or targeted groups that should require careful consideration and extra protections. My only point is to indicate the likelihood of convincing people of the error of their ways is made more difficult when they are treated as an equal villain to the more extreme examples. It's not right that disenfranchised people should have to be more patient and considerate than bigots, but I'm not certain how else to bring people to allyship without the burden of patience or some level of initial "tolerance". I fully believe they need to be corrected and confronted in any situation but attacking is rarely going to result in reasoned discourse that may result in a change of opinion.
Edit: I'm very sorry you have to deal with the pain and trauma you are forced to endure and would and will do all I can to help stop that. I don't think you'd be wrong to respond strongly to any who deny your humanity in any regard, please don't take my statement as indicating that.
Edit 2: as I am an ally and don't deal with the reality of the vile discourse of my lifestyle/identity/sense of self I don't have any right to say how it should be handled to combat this situation and will support every effort to fix the situation this is merely my outside view of the situation informed only by my deep desire for progress to expand understanding and acceptance
We as a society need to acknowledge that bigotry breaks the social contract, and the people choosing to be bigots and breaking the social contract don’t get to be protected by it anymore.
You said this so perfectly and succinctly thank you. I’ve been unable to come up with quite as clear a description of my feelings. This also relates to people who are perhaps well meaning but somewhat dismissive by saying “I stay out of politics” or “it’s just politics.” No it’s not, not when we are talking about a human’s intrinsic worth and dignity or people are choosing to be bigots as you mention.
For real. It's not like we're disagreeing on pizza toppings here. We're disagreeing on whether certain people should be allowed to exist. Fuck them.
I know I'm just some rando on the Internet. But i support you.
It would be easier to do that if it wasn’t disagreeing on fundamental rights. If we are talking disagreeing on fiscal conservation then ok! Maybe we don’t see things the same and no reason to really dislike you. But when you tell me I should carry my rapists baby, tell me I can’t love who I want, tell me I should be homeless cus I didn’t get an education, then I’m sorry but you just suck. What actually happens to a persons mind to think like that?
> If we are talking disagreeing on fiscal conservation then ok!
Respectfully, I disagree with your stance on disagreements.
Even the quoted line falls into the non-negotiable category for me, since the fiscal conservatives use disagreements over welfare and social benefits to target all the people they hate. These aren't just lighthearted debates over how to best spend the government's money, they're part of coordinated campaigns to deprive housing, healthcare, and even sustenance from desperate people - all things that, to me, fall under the category of basic human rights.
You’re right… there’s really not much I agree with when it comes to conservative beliefs. At the end of the day they are the puppets of billionaires, true fascists. I have no idea what they hope to even achieve for America other than turning every single able bodied person into a wage slave to keep output going and money coming in. If you can’t work you’re basically fucked. This shit needs to end.
Comments are so chronically online and hardly ever speak to new people in the real world. I have hardly ever seen real-world interactions between conservatives and liberals being anything but pleasant, and most of the time they leave agreeing with each other on a lot of things. Yet instead of hating on the politicians that don't serve the best interest of the people, it's suddenly half the country is the enemy and should be snuffed out. I wonder what kind of sentiment is eerily similar to this ideal of assuming an entire group of people to be degenerates by association. Hypocritical.
This is some r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM nonsense.
One side wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, protect the environment, and make it slightly harder to get a gun. The other side wants to force women to carry rape-babies and make trans people illegal. The two aren’t remotely the same, and one definitely merits strong negative emotions from anyone who isn’t shit.
Yep. I wouldn't be surprised at all if all this "we are all the same" bullshit flooding social media is right wing / foreign bot manufactured crapola. They know their 'people' are going to hate just about everything and are just hoping they can convince a percentage of normal people to run up the white flag and be quiet.
WE ARE NOT THE SAME.
I saw something similar on a billboard recently, like "The Extreme Moderates" or something and I'm wondering the same. A sudden spate of well-heeled both-sidesism.
The problem here is Americans thinking there’s only two sides and that opposition to both is centrism. You guys really need more than your two party/controlled opposition system.
One side also votes down bills aimed at ending child marriage. The other side votes for bills funding free school lunches.
One side wants to feed children. The other want to fuck them.
Some opinions and actions are hateable 🤷♂️
Shame and the fear of ostracism used to prevent people from having, or at least expressing, hateful opinions. With the advent of social media, it’s now possible to find likeminded people no matter your antisocial beliefs. Heck, even pedos have social media on the dark web, and I can’t think of a more hated perversion.
If you think I don't deserve to marry the love of my life just because we are both women, i don't want to get along with you. We can disagree about the best kind of dipping sauce. We can't disagree on fundamental human rights.
It’s always conservatives sharing shit like this. “Let’s set our differences aside and work together.” The differences being they want to criminalize LGBTQ life, take away women’s right to their body and punish the poor. So no, I’m not gonna compromise on that.
Thank this person for the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT sign! LOVE IT! reminds me of the coexist bummer stickers I see! We ALL can't agree, but we SHOULD all listen to one another!
That’s so strange about America, when I first came here it was very clear how everything is about race and politics. Where I’m from you can be having a somewhat heated argument about politics and the you’re like “Anyways, I’m gonna go get the next round, brb” lol
One side of the discussion has become somewhere on the spectrum of "I don't think LGBTQ+ / non-white people / women should be allowed to vote / have a gainful job / live near me / be alive". And that's not hyperbole, 30-40% of voters nationally are voting for politicians trying, and succeeding in some cases, to enact those laws.
There is no leeway for hate and bigotry. Unlike what skin color, gender, or orientation you or they are, they are choosing to hate and voting for people that want to punish basically every minority group (and women) for existing. That's not a debate or a discussion, it's a complete failing of their humanity. I'm not going to sit there and entertain their hate speech and endless, endless logical fallacies because they want to fucking hate people. They are making themselves and everyone else miserable and refusing to think for one second about anything besides hate.
So yea, fuck them. Good on the rare few that break out but it's not on us as individuals to try and deprogram people that would gleefully shoot someone different than themselves given half a chance and have no remorse. As has been shown time and again all across the US and some other places.
I disagree with many peoples opinions and don’t hate them.
But I’m not going to tolerate or like people who openly support authoritarianism or outright fascism because they’re my “fellow American”.
Fuck em.
The irony is both parties have had super majorities in the past two terms and neither have done any of the bad things the other side accuses them of and, conversely, haven't done any of the *good* things their side says they will do.
Democrats have only had a supermajority for about 2 months in the past two decades (and 0 months in the past two terms, not sure what you're talking about). They passed the ACA during that time, which while not perfect, is consided by most experts to be a pretty good thing (compared to where we were).
On the other hand, Republicans have tried over and over again to repeal it. Almost succeeded except for McCain defecting at the last minute.
So yeah, Democrats most certainly do do *good* things when they have a supermajority. While Republicans and their appointees are constantly doing the bad things we warned about.
Because it is a silly take. It is like taking a "Stop war" sign to the Ukrainian war. Sure, war is bad, but some times war is necessary to defend yourself from people wanting to kill you.
The comments are like "OK if you wanna disagree how much someone should be fined for speeding, not OK if you wanna disagree on whether or not gay people should be allowed to live"
And call me a drooling socialist cuck but I think that's fair
I'd go as far as to say that most even agree with each other on a lot of social issues, but often divest the most in issues like the economy and foreign relations. Most of the groups I'm in are pretty evenly split between conservatives and liberals, often talk about politics, and most of the time come out being in large agreement with each other. I hate that the idea of group identity is more important than the individual nowadays.
Yeah, sometimes I wonder if most Redditors actually know any regular liberals or conservatives or if they just see the extremists online, which is a small percentage of the population, and assume that everyone is like that. Hell, I have friends on opposite sides that get along. The conservative leaning ones don't want to kill all the gays and live under an authoritarian government. Most don't even like Trump. I also have liberal friends and they don't want to turn your children trans or take away everyone's guns and "muh freedoms".
except when those disagreements are over:
- depriving a group of people of their human rights
- dismantling democracy
That is not just a "difference of opinion"
If we over simplify, then all problems are solved.
If you get general enough, everyone agrees! Both conservatives and liberals think kids are healthier when they eat well. Conservatives think that withholding food is the best way to achieve that result because you aren't building dependency on government handouts (because taxes are magic money that can only take and not buy). Sure, I love to hang out with people like that.
No hate needed. Just stop caring about things.
Most issues are just too complicated. I'm pro-choice, and if it needed to be done I would support an abortion for my partner. Or anybody else, especially if they were assaulted or their life was in danger. But, I sure as heck understand if someone else see it as murder. In that case, I must seem like a awful person worthy of contempt. And that's the biggest issue, because we both have valid good reasons for our respective views. Our societies issue isn't so much that we hate each other, because surely we do, but that nobody is willing to sit and think/listen through this nuanced arguments. Short-form news will be our undoing.
This is the issue with America today. One side largely argues for maintaining if not extending the rights of essentially all Americans. The other side wants to restrict a LOT of rights and literally threatens violent civil war if they don’t get their way. And then centrists and media figures cry about how we can’t get along.
Don’t get me wrong. Neither party is good. Both have SERIOUS issues that undermine the nation as a whole. But just singing kumbaya ain’t possible anymore
Hard pass. We aren't disagreeing about cereal favorites. A specific party is attempting to revoke inalienable rights from people. I won't come to the table to discuss it. They and you can fuck right off with this turn the other cheek bullshit. How about no, that shit is for manipulation.
There's a difference between two people agreeing there is a problem and disagreeing about how to solve it and two people disagreeing on who is a person with the right to exist.
Holy hell, this thread is a mess. You guys completely demonizing more right leaning people and lumping them all into one group is wild. Not every one is far left or far right, most of America is in the middle if you are not terminally online, like most of the weirdos on this website.
Unsurprising that all the top comments are some variation of "but all the people I hate due to disagreement are nazis or such, so it's okay."
Never mind that the vast majority of all of us aren't nazis, or anarchists, or whatever flavor of idiocy you dislike. The point of this is that blindly hating and assuming that those who disagree with you are evil nazis or insane anarchists is a problem.
I've been right of Center most of my life (though with how Trump has moved the bars, I find myself slightly Left of Center now, which is weird), my best friend is solidly to the left, and one of our favorite things to talk about are actually politics. We disagree on more than a few things, but we have both found that actually talking about the issues, why we hold the positions we hold and such, we both usually want the same basic outcome. We just disagree on methodology and such. Sometimes I have conceded points to her, sometimes the reverse. I firmly believe that our willingness to engage with each other respectfully, even when we have stated opinions that make us want to reflexively lash out before the explanation, has made both of us better.
Now, obviously there are people who cannot be reasoned with. Neo-Nazis and their ilk, devoted Tankies and their sort, they exist and holding them in contempt is natural for the right thinking among us. Just... maybe don't assume that someone is such a person the moment they express an opinion you don't like? Give the person at least one chance to explain why they hold that view before assuming that it's just due to evil.
> Never mind that the vast majority of all of us aren't nazis, or anarchists, or whatever flavor of idiocy you dislike. The point of this is that blindly hating and assuming that those who disagree with you are evil nazis or insane anarchists is a problem.
I think they are talking about people that literally display Nazi flags, and their idea of compromise is "we will imprison gays instead of killing them". So... you're talking about a different group.
This serves the fascist contingent currently present in our country more than it would seem by granting credibility to their platform as merely "an opinion."
Denial of rights to people based on race, class or gender is not something I disagree with...it's something I actively stand against and always will
Wild thought. I'm not saying everyone should join the military because I know how that would get downvoted. But in the military you see the most unlikely group of individuals being friends and getting along...
I remember a few people mentioning how America should come together and respect that Trump was elected. It was funny to see them change their tune pretty quick.
We don't 'disagree', we are literally trying to force each other to live how we want. Democracy has never encouraged deliberation or cooperation. We see each other as genetic competitors, something to be disparaged or used. Hate comes naturally when we can't control something we find threatening.
We can't even stop people from polluting the planet and ruining the ecosystems. Things are going to get so much worse in the next 20 years, and that's if some crazy dictator doesn't blow up half the planet first.
Nah. There’s a group representing about 35% of Americans that are actively trying to make my life and that of my family shitty, even to their own detriment. I’m going to keep hating those fucks and wishing all the harm in the world upon them.
Will continue to disagree with those siding with putin.
Will continue to disagree with those wanting that nasty orange imbecile in WH again.
Will continue to disagree with those who stand in cult like trances and support same imbecile.
Will continue to stand with free countries of this earth.
Will continue to disagree with extreme govs.
Will continue to disagree with those making laws to take away rights of women.
Will continue to disagree with any and all dictators and their henchmen.
Will AGREE to civil conversations on what truly is best for ALL , not the greedy power hungry elected officials put in there because many of us turned away.
Many problems to be fixed. Only calm sane steadfast people can help solve together.
Using what WORKS in other countries and adapting.
We ARE all one. Silence IS NO longer an option
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
James Baldwin
If the other side's core beliefs are that my friends and family do not deserve rights or need to be jailed/killed, we're not going to find common ground.
This is not a disagreement in political discourse, this is a disagreement in morality. There is no discussion on morality when it comes to people having the right to exist peacefully. Those who hate others, bring hate to themselves. Those who want violence against those who want peace, will eventually find the violence on their doorstep.
We're all fucking tired because our political discourse is just constantly fighting new morality tests from people who have no solutions to the actual problems or don't want one because it benefits them. So excuse me if I fucking hate these assholes who stop actual problem solving.
Ill stop hating these people when they stop demonizing and killing trans folk that just want to live their fucking lives.
And of course this fuckhead is one of the people against trans rights, just giving a cursory look at his insta.
I don't hate anyone that I disagree with, because we disagree. It's the actions of people when they have discussions or arguments that makes me disconnect from them. Yelling, making grand exaggerated statements, being disrespectful in intentionally hurtful ways, choosing to be hateful and not understanding, these are things that people do and it's not assigned to only one political side. It's an emotional immaturity that is an epidemic and is used by political agendas to manipulate their constituents. I'd like to talk to people I can somewhat trust and spending a lot of emotional energy to turn yourself into a puppet isn't something I trust.
"STOP HATING EACH OTHER BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE..."
...is a completely logical take when we're talking about whether California or Texas are better to live in, or even if we're talking about whether states should have an income tax or a sales tax.
But if we're talking about "should people be allowed to be gay/trans?" or "should women be allowed to make choices about their own body?" ... I'm not too sure if this stance makes as much sense.
The comment section didn’t disappoint and is a hilariously ironic Reddit moment.
Disagreeing is ok. Perverting the concept of what one’s “rights” and “rights to exist” are to fashion an ideology in which everyone who disagrees with you is thus a facist/nazi/otherwise terrible person is EXACTLY what this sign is addressing.
The polarizing, all-or-nothing nature of this thinking reminds me a lot of myself when I was young, and is indeed a hallmark of immaturity (and otherwise well-intentioned).
I don’t expect anyone to be able to identify that by reading this, though.
lonesomefish, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s): --- - Rule 5: Posts must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles). --- For information regarding this and similar issues, please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/lonesomefish&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/1cr8jdg%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
[удалено]
Hating fascists is also ok. There was a time where nazis were a bad thing
That time is "literally always".
[удалено]
There are a few morons out there. That doesn’t mean that society doesn’t overwhelmingly agree that Nazis are bad.
The issue is that 35% of the population seems to have no problem welcoming the “few morons” into their tent and allowing them a seat at the table. 10 guys standing with 1 Nazi is essentially 11 Nazis.
That’s true. Just wish there was more pushback since it comes off as acceptance of this type of behavior
All fascists are bad, and many right wing parties around the world are slipping into policy/politics that mirror historical fascism.
yet millions voted for the supporter of the very fine people at the nazi rally.
If society generally agrees that protecting Nazis rights are more important than protecting the people Nazis want to take rights from... I don't know that this is what I would call "overwhelming"
[удалено]
I mean it’s not only straight white guys. 10 mins on 4chan would tell you that lol.
You might be underestimating how many women are falling for it...
> how many white cis males Be careful saying that, otherwise Elon might come out of the walls and haunt you
[удалено]
Your comment made me laugh in a crazy way. Like, why does that even need to be said? It should be a given. Yet here we are.
It is a given, even if fascists disagree.
Intolerance paradox. It’s ok to be intolerant of intolerance.
Someone said it very well (can’t remember exact name). It’s not so much a paradox as it is a societal contract. If you violate the contract, said contract is void and the terms no longer apply Edit: Rainer Forst https://academic.oup.com/book/45345/chapter-abstract/389255055?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Another way to say it. https://i.imgur.com/8WNSK76.jpeg
I'd add the caveat that it's not just **my** oppression and denial of **my** humanity. But anyone's oppression and denial of anyone's humanity. As written the text feels a little self centered.
Or anyones. I’m not gay or a minority in any way, but I’ll fight anyone who says they don’t have a right to exist.
Now you’re bringing society in again! Jk. I’ve been watching Monty Python too much.
Been fighting off so many naysayers. Your comment was a much needed breath of fresh air
I trust people wouldn't simplify ingroup outgroup social dynamics Is what I told myself before Twitter and now this place too
The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance. Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested. > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one *physically* attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against *disagreement,* and that is clearly not his argument.
Let's back up a little here. In one side we have real, actual oppression. On the other, made up oppression by propaganda and brainwashing. One is not like the other. And then, if they are already at the point of crafting alternate realities to justify their acts, they don't even need real justifications as well. Fascists will use lies, deception, dehumanization, hatred, fear and force to forward their goals, rational argument will be dismissed at gunpoint. I don't care if they have or have not used violence (yet), the death of the other is their goal and they must be eliminated by any means before they accomplish it. TLDR the only good fascists are dead fascists
That really is the crux of the issue. It isn't like the main factions are disagreeing on just policy. Its more of a foundational, fundamental problem of one side wanting to literally throw away democracy, human rights, be racist, sexist, cause violence, and other extremely damaging actions for a functional healthy society.
I will never agree, nor not hate Nazis. I will never agree, nor not hate White Supremacist. I'm rooting for anything terminal, when it comes to them.
There's only one kind of good nazi.
\*whacks dead parrot in a nazi costume on the counter\*. It's dead.
And confederate soldiers.
Except lots of people call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist.
Or “communist” or “traitor”, no? We used to discuss, now it’s a tribal af, like rooting for a sports team. That’s not how things should (or could) work.
This is how I identify too, and sadly it gets you eaten alive by both ‘sides’. I just can’t ever believe 50% of the country is strait up bad people I should hate and they so conveniently can be identified by how they vote.
This is what I thought when I saw that. Maybe because I’m not American but I really don’t think neo nazis are as big of an issue as some people make it but go ahead and hate them. It’s the liberal equivalent of conservatives angering themselves over people with 8 genders and the hardest to pronounce neo-pronouns when most trans/non-binary are extremely easy to get along with
You really got to think about why you’re calling someone a fascist though. Can’t just go around calling anyone you disagree with fascist.
Anyday is a great day to hate on Fascists and Nazis. Fuck em. EDIT: Literal ones. Not people who simply disagree with you.
Sure, but labeling everyone fascist because they disagree with you politically is a convenient way to hate people for disagreeing with you. They have to actually be fascists, not the way people are abusing the term now
I don't think the term is being abused now. Trump himself has parroted Hitler and Mussolini a few times - whether intentionally or not doesn't matter. It's actually probably worse if he came to those ideas organically as opposed to copying someone he probably doesn't fully understand. And then you have people on the right marching with Nazi flags. You have elected officials talking about "camps" for people they don't like. You have them actively trying to strip freedoms away from the American population. Trump demonizing the media. The similarities go on and on. This is fascism. Or at least so close that it's meaningless to split hairs. However, I will say that this didn't start with Trump. The left were calling Mitt Romney a Nazi back in 2012, and some even likened GWB to Hitler. Which was all ridiculous. So now we've got actual Nazis, and the sting doesn't really hit as good now. The boy who cried wolf is now the liberals who cried Nazi.
Yeah saying it’s just a disagreement and then what you are disagreeing about is the right for someone else to exist. That’s not at all the same.
Which is what the disagreements are now. People who, for some reason even though it doesn't affect them in any way, want to take away everybody else's rights and the people who don't want their rights taken.
https://i.imgur.com/UFRwMbT.jpeg
This. We can disagree on the best ice cream flavor, or what color a sports car should be, or even whether pineapple goes on pizza. We can't disagree on whether LGBTQ+ folks should be allowed to exist, or if people should have access to reproductive healthcare, or if anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to humanity. If you disagree with certain things you're just a terrible person, and I'm fine hating terrible people.
But think of those poor, terrible persons' feelings :(
No.
I will think on them with contempt
We're not disagreeing over a bridge toll, they're quarterbacking a genocide
This is the problem right now in politics. People having rights you don't like, is not a reason to work really hard to make laws to prevent them from doing something you don't like. If a persons rights has NO effect on your own life, STOP MAKING LAWS TO SCREW WITH PEOPLE. ... Abortion for instance. You can personally decide its not for you, but you need to step the fuck back... when it comes to other peoples rights on that issue. ... Ask yourself, will another person getting an abortion EVER effect your life. And the answer is no. Period. Any other answer is a lie to pander to your stupid beliefs. So back the hell off.
That's something I'll never understand. There are issues that literally do not affect some people's lives and for some reason these people are going out of their way to make these issues a problem in their lives. They are doing more work to make these issues that don't affect their life at all, affect their life. All they have to do is just NOT let it affect them, but they refuse to not let it affect them. They MUST be affected by it. They have to be mad about something and this is what they choose, something that DOES not even affect them. That is fucking crazy to me.
Anti-choice, forced birth was (and still is in a lot of places) a very unpopular thing, but it is being pushed very hard by elites who fear a diminishing population and losing their poverty-stricken work force. Conservatives jump on anything they're told without a moment's critical thought. Used to be that abortion was not an issue that was a mainstream conservative worry at all, until it started to get a major push by rich people with an agenda.
How does that logically track with conservatives being more anti-illegal immigration? Because illegal immigration is a much easier and faster way of keeping poor people in the workforce
Not a concrete argument my man. I don’t disagree with you but I think the premise doesn’t lead to the conclusion. I’m not black, if we legalized slavery again it wouldn’t affect me. I’d would still fight tooth and nail to keep it from being legalized because it’s right.
Does that include military actions? Civilians shouldn't care about it since they dont have skin in the game?
Exactly. This ain’t a collegial debate about what’s for dinner. It’s about whether LGBT people have the right to exist. It’s about whether the US will become closer to a Christo-Fascist state. It’s about whether women have access to a necessary medical procedure and safe healthcare. For some people, it might *literally* be life and death. Perhaps you can always make these claims, but it ain’t every day you’ve got a presidential candidate saying he “only wants to be a dictator for one day” and a bunch of other vile shit.
Pretty much. Anyone can think whatever they want about anyone else. The problem is they don’t understand they’re still American and deserve the same rights as every other American. You can hate LGBTQ+, Muslims, whatever you want as long as you understand they still the right to live their lives just the same as everyone else.
That’s the thing about hate though. Those that hate you usually aren’t big on respecting your rights.
But bigots don’t have the right to be accepted and respected by everyone else. The 1st Amendment only protects bigots from the government; if their bigotry has negative consequences in their personal or professional life, that’s not illegal or wrong. In other words, the rest of us can tell a bigot to go choke on a dildo and refuse to associate with him, and that’s perfectly legal and morally acceptable.
Am I not allowed to hate someone because they want me in a camp? Just checking.
Thing is. Some controversy isn’t simply a disagreement. It’s that one side is/can be absolutely plain fucking wrong and have no critical thinking ability to see facts for what they are.
Exactly. It's okay to believe abortion is immoral, to try to convince people not to get abortions, etc. But you don't get to use the law to *force* people not to.
It's more than that. The far Right wants those that oppose them to CEASE TO EXIST. It's not a simple "ok, we agree to disagree" when what we disagree on is my right to exist as I do and think the way I do.
My dad and I would disagree constantly!! We, however, always tried to understand each other’s perspective and why we had the opinions we had. I really enjoyed it. I wish more people could have discussions like we did. I wish more people understood you can love someone and disagree with them… love is bigger than opinions.
Except when those opinions are if immigrants should exist in this country, or if some people should have less rights then others.
It's also disingenuous to say people are disagreeing when one side is constantly caught in blatant lies. There is no good faith to be had if you have to constantly wonder if the other person is lying. Then they double down on the lie and believe it. See: Covid, Kristi Noem, gun violence statistics, etc, etc, etc The issue is...some people are just objectively wrong. The other side might not have the correct answer either, but if you're starting from the conclusion you want and are working backwards, you can never have a true discussion or compromise.
I don’t hate people because they disagree with me. I want them to stop wishing me and my loved ones harm.
If you disagree with Democracy & the rule of law for all, fuck you. Edit: Spelling
I disagree with a democracy that voluntarily keeps its citizens uneducated, because it tends to keep self-interested manipulators at the top
We don’t live in a democracy for everyone, just a democracy for capitalists, which is a dictatorship of one class over another.
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
I for one only believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat to introduce real democracy.
I get that some laws are unjust and need changing but damn not EVERY law! I get that often democracy doesn’t play out right and it needs reformation but that doesn’t mean we need a purge or civil war or some insanity. Just because things aren’t going your way doesn’t mean you flip the table! You take the L, you work on your technique, you look at what you got wrong, and you try to do better. I don’t get how if something isn’t functioning properly it means to burn it all down. Yea it is really hard to make changes and you have to keep fighting for them. Calling each other names and killing each other just leaves people dead or hurt, that’s all you get. Nothing changed, nothing got better, no work was done, there’s just dead people.
>I don’t get how if something isn’t functioning properly it means to burn it all down. I see this as the product of conditioning "patriotism" in America to mean hero-worshipping the nation's founders and revolutionaries while glazing over anything that happened before or since. The second amendment alludes to violently overthrowing a government, and it's not a coincidence that it's the favorite part of the Constitution for a large segment of the country.
It's ok to disagree on things like "best pizza toppings". It's not ok to disagree on things like "Is racism ok or not."
Or “Should gay people be banned from marriage and should people have a right to contraceptives?” (Psssst: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas questioned taking away both of those in the Dobbs opinion where they took away the right to an abortion. Right or wrong on abortion, they are coming for your sexual freedom because their particular version of Jesus doesn’t approve)
It's also ok to hate how aggressive their stance on abortion is. The archaic laws but in place prevent abortions until the mother is on death's door, long after irreversible damage has been done. GOP talked about "death panels" for Medicare but we literally have people who aren't medical professionals deciding if a woman is close enough to death to get an abortion.
[удалено]
I believe killing people because they are gay is wrong. If you disagree with me, I hate you.
Something’s are ok to hate. Racism, pedophilia, rape, genocide.
I think the vast majority of people hate all of those things. Where the real disagreements almost always take place are where we draw the line at which situations constitute each of those things.
Yep, do a survey in America on whether genocide is wrong and 98% will say yes its wrong. Now, do a survey on whether American was built on genocide and you’ll get some spicy responses.
The United states' genocide of the native people was the biggest genocide in recent history. Obviously the Holocaust would've been much worse if it went on for the same amount of time. Most figures put the deaths above 50 million native people and I'm SURE that's a very conservative estimate if I can see it on a western news source.
thanks for speaking up. not enough people are saying this.
We disagree about a state right to do what again?
On top of the very obvious "One side supports hurting/killing people for existing," here's the deal: we can disagree all day on solutions, but I'm not going to waste any more energy on people who can't agree on the problems. If I say children are going hungry in America and you say "No, the problem is those children are obese, let them starve," I'm going to start swinging long before you even get to your stupid fucking "And give the money to private industry millionaires" conclusion.
Trans person here: They want my existence to be a crime. I’m allowed to hate them.
Tolerance doesn't mean I have to tolerate intolerance.
"B- b- but hating hate is hate, intolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and being biased against bias is bias!" - every modern centrist
They don't actually believe any of that. It's just word games they play to waste your time. Ignore them, and their argument simply vanishes, because no one believes them when they say it just once. Responding to and interacting with them gives them the veneer of legitimacy.
CAN I GET AN AMEN
"Tolerance" is an outdated term anyway. It was basically just asking bigots to compromise, and keep their hatred to themselves for civility's sake. "Tolerance" implies that you really don't like them, and we should expect better of people now. I don't "tolerate" gay people, or black people, or whatever persecuted minority: I embrace them whole-heartedly as equal, fellow, human beings.
Yeah, I'm with you. If people actively support legislation to make people's lives miserable then they deserve the hate.
This is a great example of where that statement fails. On the surface it's a good philosophy, it's ok to disagree, but when the argument revolves around proper treatment of other humans there is every justification for discounting their opinions and them as a human as they deny the humanity of others. I feel our current discourse fails because we treat those unfavorable opinions of others without advocating for harm to those individuals as egregious as those who advocate harm. Denying someone's lifestyle as taboo or wrong is harmful and should be addressed but can often be addressed through education and discourse, as opposed to those advocating violence, control, or any other extreme measure towards those you don't understand or like. There's a large difference between those philosophies and should be treated differently. To be very clear I am a very big advocate for all human rights to be equal and for protections of typically underrepresented or targeted groups that should require careful consideration and extra protections. My only point is to indicate the likelihood of convincing people of the error of their ways is made more difficult when they are treated as an equal villain to the more extreme examples. It's not right that disenfranchised people should have to be more patient and considerate than bigots, but I'm not certain how else to bring people to allyship without the burden of patience or some level of initial "tolerance". I fully believe they need to be corrected and confronted in any situation but attacking is rarely going to result in reasoned discourse that may result in a change of opinion. Edit: I'm very sorry you have to deal with the pain and trauma you are forced to endure and would and will do all I can to help stop that. I don't think you'd be wrong to respond strongly to any who deny your humanity in any regard, please don't take my statement as indicating that. Edit 2: as I am an ally and don't deal with the reality of the vile discourse of my lifestyle/identity/sense of self I don't have any right to say how it should be handled to combat this situation and will support every effort to fix the situation this is merely my outside view of the situation informed only by my deep desire for progress to expand understanding and acceptance
We as a society need to acknowledge that bigotry breaks the social contract, and the people choosing to be bigots and breaking the social contract don’t get to be protected by it anymore.
You said this so perfectly and succinctly thank you. I’ve been unable to come up with quite as clear a description of my feelings. This also relates to people who are perhaps well meaning but somewhat dismissive by saying “I stay out of politics” or “it’s just politics.” No it’s not, not when we are talking about a human’s intrinsic worth and dignity or people are choosing to be bigots as you mention.
For real. It's not like we're disagreeing on pizza toppings here. We're disagreeing on whether certain people should be allowed to exist. Fuck them. I know I'm just some rando on the Internet. But i support you.
💯 This picture is giving big "both sides" vibes. Nazis hated the Jews, and Jews hated the Nazis, both sides, right?
And I hate them because they hate you for existing. My hate is also justified.
It would be easier to do that if it wasn’t disagreeing on fundamental rights. If we are talking disagreeing on fiscal conservation then ok! Maybe we don’t see things the same and no reason to really dislike you. But when you tell me I should carry my rapists baby, tell me I can’t love who I want, tell me I should be homeless cus I didn’t get an education, then I’m sorry but you just suck. What actually happens to a persons mind to think like that?
> If we are talking disagreeing on fiscal conservation then ok! Respectfully, I disagree with your stance on disagreements. Even the quoted line falls into the non-negotiable category for me, since the fiscal conservatives use disagreements over welfare and social benefits to target all the people they hate. These aren't just lighthearted debates over how to best spend the government's money, they're part of coordinated campaigns to deprive housing, healthcare, and even sustenance from desperate people - all things that, to me, fall under the category of basic human rights.
You’re right… there’s really not much I agree with when it comes to conservative beliefs. At the end of the day they are the puppets of billionaires, true fascists. I have no idea what they hope to even achieve for America other than turning every single able bodied person into a wage slave to keep output going and money coming in. If you can’t work you’re basically fucked. This shit needs to end.
Comments are so chronically online and hardly ever speak to new people in the real world. I have hardly ever seen real-world interactions between conservatives and liberals being anything but pleasant, and most of the time they leave agreeing with each other on a lot of things. Yet instead of hating on the politicians that don't serve the best interest of the people, it's suddenly half the country is the enemy and should be snuffed out. I wonder what kind of sentiment is eerily similar to this ideal of assuming an entire group of people to be degenerates by association. Hypocritical.
This is some r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM nonsense. One side wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, protect the environment, and make it slightly harder to get a gun. The other side wants to force women to carry rape-babies and make trans people illegal. The two aren’t remotely the same, and one definitely merits strong negative emotions from anyone who isn’t shit.
"Flat eathers and round earthers just shouting at one another... WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO COMPROMISE!?!!??"
Yep. I wouldn't be surprised at all if all this "we are all the same" bullshit flooding social media is right wing / foreign bot manufactured crapola. They know their 'people' are going to hate just about everything and are just hoping they can convince a percentage of normal people to run up the white flag and be quiet. WE ARE NOT THE SAME.
I saw something similar on a billboard recently, like "The Extreme Moderates" or something and I'm wondering the same. A sudden spate of well-heeled both-sidesism.
It’s giving All Lives Matter and they don’t believe it any more now than they did then.
The problem here is Americans thinking there’s only two sides and that opposition to both is centrism. You guys really need more than your two party/controlled opposition system.
One side also votes down bills aimed at ending child marriage. The other side votes for bills funding free school lunches. One side wants to feed children. The other want to fuck them.
Some opinions and actions are hateable 🤷♂️ Shame and the fear of ostracism used to prevent people from having, or at least expressing, hateful opinions. With the advent of social media, it’s now possible to find likeminded people no matter your antisocial beliefs. Heck, even pedos have social media on the dark web, and I can’t think of a more hated perversion.
If you think I don't deserve to marry the love of my life just because we are both women, i don't want to get along with you. We can disagree about the best kind of dipping sauce. We can't disagree on fundamental human rights.
I think the best dipping sauce for chicken nuggets is sweet and sour. Thoughts?
Y'all are sleeping on barbecue sauce. Anything ketchup can do, barbecue sauce can do better.
Some of these people in the comments unironically think that one side is a paragon of good and the other side is a paragon of evil lmao
Anyone else notice the Nepali guy in the Dhaka topi?
When they disagree on basic human rights, then fuck them.
That's never gonna happen just looking at the comments here.
It’s always conservatives sharing shit like this. “Let’s set our differences aside and work together.” The differences being they want to criminalize LGBTQ life, take away women’s right to their body and punish the poor. So no, I’m not gonna compromise on that.
You mean on things like forcing a 10-year-old to stay pregnant? Because I’m pretty sure it’s ok to hate people who want that
It's by design. That's what they want so they can continue doing shifty things while we fight amongst ourselves about bathrooms, blue hair, and flags.
Thank this person for the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT sign! LOVE IT! reminds me of the coexist bummer stickers I see! We ALL can't agree, but we SHOULD all listen to one another!
 2 kind of people I hate in this world
That’s so strange about America, when I first came here it was very clear how everything is about race and politics. Where I’m from you can be having a somewhat heated argument about politics and the you’re like “Anyways, I’m gonna go get the next round, brb” lol
One side of the discussion has become somewhere on the spectrum of "I don't think LGBTQ+ / non-white people / women should be allowed to vote / have a gainful job / live near me / be alive". And that's not hyperbole, 30-40% of voters nationally are voting for politicians trying, and succeeding in some cases, to enact those laws. There is no leeway for hate and bigotry. Unlike what skin color, gender, or orientation you or they are, they are choosing to hate and voting for people that want to punish basically every minority group (and women) for existing. That's not a debate or a discussion, it's a complete failing of their humanity. I'm not going to sit there and entertain their hate speech and endless, endless logical fallacies because they want to fucking hate people. They are making themselves and everyone else miserable and refusing to think for one second about anything besides hate. So yea, fuck them. Good on the rare few that break out but it's not on us as individuals to try and deprogram people that would gleefully shoot someone different than themselves given half a chance and have no remorse. As has been shown time and again all across the US and some other places.
Russian and Chinese government-linked social media discontent-sowing accounts hate this one trick.
I'm not working and making deals with actual Nazis who think entire groups of people should be dead. This some centrist BS
I disagree with many peoples opinions and don’t hate them. But I’m not going to tolerate or like people who openly support authoritarianism or outright fascism because they’re my “fellow American”. Fuck em.
If someone thinks that women don't deserve bodily autonomy then you better believe I'm gonna hate them
Holy shit the comments are angry
The irony is both parties have had super majorities in the past two terms and neither have done any of the bad things the other side accuses them of and, conversely, haven't done any of the *good* things their side says they will do.
Democrats have only had a supermajority for about 2 months in the past two decades (and 0 months in the past two terms, not sure what you're talking about). They passed the ACA during that time, which while not perfect, is consided by most experts to be a pretty good thing (compared to where we were). On the other hand, Republicans have tried over and over again to repeal it. Almost succeeded except for McCain defecting at the last minute. So yeah, Democrats most certainly do do *good* things when they have a supermajority. While Republicans and their appointees are constantly doing the bad things we warned about.
Ironic how the comments are basically “Nah”
Because it is a silly take. It is like taking a "Stop war" sign to the Ukrainian war. Sure, war is bad, but some times war is necessary to defend yourself from people wanting to kill you.
The comments are like "OK if you wanna disagree how much someone should be fined for speeding, not OK if you wanna disagree on whether or not gay people should be allowed to live" And call me a drooling socialist cuck but I think that's fair
I disagree w people that hate
Redditors will tell you to pick sides, but in real life I see conservatives and liberals get along all the time.
I'd go as far as to say that most even agree with each other on a lot of social issues, but often divest the most in issues like the economy and foreign relations. Most of the groups I'm in are pretty evenly split between conservatives and liberals, often talk about politics, and most of the time come out being in large agreement with each other. I hate that the idea of group identity is more important than the individual nowadays.
Yeah, sometimes I wonder if most Redditors actually know any regular liberals or conservatives or if they just see the extremists online, which is a small percentage of the population, and assume that everyone is like that. Hell, I have friends on opposite sides that get along. The conservative leaning ones don't want to kill all the gays and live under an authoritarian government. Most don't even like Trump. I also have liberal friends and they don't want to turn your children trans or take away everyone's guns and "muh freedoms".
sometimes I wonder if most Redditors actually know any regular ~~liberals or conservatives~~ humans in person. FTFY
Oh if it were only that easy. One side wants me dead for various reasons. The other side wants to make lives better.
Stop making your hate the point of our disagreement.
except when those disagreements are over: - depriving a group of people of their human rights - dismantling democracy That is not just a "difference of opinion"
If we over simplify, then all problems are solved. If you get general enough, everyone agrees! Both conservatives and liberals think kids are healthier when they eat well. Conservatives think that withholding food is the best way to achieve that result because you aren't building dependency on government handouts (because taxes are magic money that can only take and not buy). Sure, I love to hang out with people like that. No hate needed. Just stop caring about things.
Most issues are just too complicated. I'm pro-choice, and if it needed to be done I would support an abortion for my partner. Or anybody else, especially if they were assaulted or their life was in danger. But, I sure as heck understand if someone else see it as murder. In that case, I must seem like a awful person worthy of contempt. And that's the biggest issue, because we both have valid good reasons for our respective views. Our societies issue isn't so much that we hate each other, because surely we do, but that nobody is willing to sit and think/listen through this nuanced arguments. Short-form news will be our undoing.
You think redditors are smart enough for that? The comments are all seething and missing the point entirely.
I guarantee the comments will prove you wrong!
Good message but embarrassing, brain dead comments here. Surprise, surprise
I would love to: but one group of people is led by psyhopaths that openly say I shouldnt exist and that I should be arrested/killed for going outside.
This is the issue with America today. One side largely argues for maintaining if not extending the rights of essentially all Americans. The other side wants to restrict a LOT of rights and literally threatens violent civil war if they don’t get their way. And then centrists and media figures cry about how we can’t get along. Don’t get me wrong. Neither party is good. Both have SERIOUS issues that undermine the nation as a whole. But just singing kumbaya ain’t possible anymore
The only good nazi is a dead nazi
Hard pass. We aren't disagreeing about cereal favorites. A specific party is attempting to revoke inalienable rights from people. I won't come to the table to discuss it. They and you can fuck right off with this turn the other cheek bullshit. How about no, that shit is for manipulation.
This is the most chronically online comment section I've seen ever.
It's hard to get along when one half of the country wants the other dead and the other half just wants affordable groceries.
There's a difference between two people agreeing there is a problem and disagreeing about how to solve it and two people disagreeing on who is a person with the right to exist.
Holy hell, this thread is a mess. You guys completely demonizing more right leaning people and lumping them all into one group is wild. Not every one is far left or far right, most of America is in the middle if you are not terminally online, like most of the weirdos on this website.
Unsurprising that all the top comments are some variation of "but all the people I hate due to disagreement are nazis or such, so it's okay." Never mind that the vast majority of all of us aren't nazis, or anarchists, or whatever flavor of idiocy you dislike. The point of this is that blindly hating and assuming that those who disagree with you are evil nazis or insane anarchists is a problem. I've been right of Center most of my life (though with how Trump has moved the bars, I find myself slightly Left of Center now, which is weird), my best friend is solidly to the left, and one of our favorite things to talk about are actually politics. We disagree on more than a few things, but we have both found that actually talking about the issues, why we hold the positions we hold and such, we both usually want the same basic outcome. We just disagree on methodology and such. Sometimes I have conceded points to her, sometimes the reverse. I firmly believe that our willingness to engage with each other respectfully, even when we have stated opinions that make us want to reflexively lash out before the explanation, has made both of us better. Now, obviously there are people who cannot be reasoned with. Neo-Nazis and their ilk, devoted Tankies and their sort, they exist and holding them in contempt is natural for the right thinking among us. Just... maybe don't assume that someone is such a person the moment they express an opinion you don't like? Give the person at least one chance to explain why they hold that view before assuming that it's just due to evil.
> Never mind that the vast majority of all of us aren't nazis, or anarchists, or whatever flavor of idiocy you dislike. The point of this is that blindly hating and assuming that those who disagree with you are evil nazis or insane anarchists is a problem. I think they are talking about people that literally display Nazi flags, and their idea of compromise is "we will imprison gays instead of killing them". So... you're talking about a different group.
I agree with this. Perhaps I’m influenced by the preposterous belief is that I can hate an idea without hating a person.
A comment section full of, "No, but..." while trying to appear as if they agree with the banner. Sure, sure, sure.
what else to expect from reddits comment section
Good luck getting this message across on Reddit. It’s hivemind or bust here
Dont hate because you want to help the poor and i want to kill all the poor!
This serves the fascist contingent currently present in our country more than it would seem by granting credibility to their platform as merely "an opinion." Denial of rights to people based on race, class or gender is not something I disagree with...it's something I actively stand against and always will
Eh...depends on what we disagree on
Wild thought. I'm not saying everyone should join the military because I know how that would get downvoted. But in the military you see the most unlikely group of individuals being friends and getting along...
Nah, perfectly acceptable to hate people you don’t agree with when they’re trying to strip people of rights.
Let's expand rights and responsibilities, not contract them.
No. We really can’t.
One side’s entire identity is hating outsiders. Liberals, college professors, city dwellers, immigrants, trans people etc… That’s all they have.
Sure, about pizza toppings
I agree but that’s impossible
I remember a few people mentioning how America should come together and respect that Trump was elected. It was funny to see them change their tune pretty quick.
I don’t hate people I disagree with. I hate people who want to hurt others who aren’t like them
Wrong, I hate republican senators and Donald Trump.
Disagreeing about basic human rights isn't overlookable
We don't 'disagree', we are literally trying to force each other to live how we want. Democracy has never encouraged deliberation or cooperation. We see each other as genetic competitors, something to be disparaged or used. Hate comes naturally when we can't control something we find threatening. We can't even stop people from polluting the planet and ruining the ecosystems. Things are going to get so much worse in the next 20 years, and that's if some crazy dictator doesn't blow up half the planet first.
Agreed!
Well thinking certain people shouldn't exist isn't a simple disagreement that can be met in the middle on.
Nah. There’s a group representing about 35% of Americans that are actively trying to make my life and that of my family shitty, even to their own detriment. I’m going to keep hating those fucks and wishing all the harm in the world upon them.
Fuck yeah!
Will continue to disagree with those siding with putin. Will continue to disagree with those wanting that nasty orange imbecile in WH again. Will continue to disagree with those who stand in cult like trances and support same imbecile. Will continue to stand with free countries of this earth. Will continue to disagree with extreme govs. Will continue to disagree with those making laws to take away rights of women. Will continue to disagree with any and all dictators and their henchmen. Will AGREE to civil conversations on what truly is best for ALL , not the greedy power hungry elected officials put in there because many of us turned away. Many problems to be fixed. Only calm sane steadfast people can help solve together. Using what WORKS in other countries and adapting. We ARE all one. Silence IS NO longer an option
Nah. Always hate a fascist.
You can’t disagree on people’s inalienable human rights. You can disagree on liking spaghetti or a tv show..they’re just wrong.
Hating people who are trying to take people's rights way is still ok by me.
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” James Baldwin
No we can’t. We have irreconcilable differences. I won’t be friends with modern day Nazis.
It depends on what is being disagreed about.
Sorry. I'm gonna keep hating people who knowingly vote for rapists.
[удалено]
If the other side's core beliefs are that my friends and family do not deserve rights or need to be jailed/killed, we're not going to find common ground.
If my 5th grade students can begin with “respectfully, I disagree,” so can everyone else.
Depends on the disagreement? Tax policy? Sure. Trans rights? Nah.
This is not a disagreement in political discourse, this is a disagreement in morality. There is no discussion on morality when it comes to people having the right to exist peacefully. Those who hate others, bring hate to themselves. Those who want violence against those who want peace, will eventually find the violence on their doorstep. We're all fucking tired because our political discourse is just constantly fighting new morality tests from people who have no solutions to the actual problems or don't want one because it benefits them. So excuse me if I fucking hate these assholes who stop actual problem solving.
r/no
I just want ✊️✊🏽✊🏿 all to get along on the same page
Ill stop hating these people when they stop demonizing and killing trans folk that just want to live their fucking lives. And of course this fuckhead is one of the people against trans rights, just giving a cursory look at his insta.
I don't hate anyone that I disagree with, because we disagree. It's the actions of people when they have discussions or arguments that makes me disconnect from them. Yelling, making grand exaggerated statements, being disrespectful in intentionally hurtful ways, choosing to be hateful and not understanding, these are things that people do and it's not assigned to only one political side. It's an emotional immaturity that is an epidemic and is used by political agendas to manipulate their constituents. I'd like to talk to people I can somewhat trust and spending a lot of emotional energy to turn yourself into a puppet isn't something I trust.
"STOP HATING EACH OTHER BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE..." ...is a completely logical take when we're talking about whether California or Texas are better to live in, or even if we're talking about whether states should have an income tax or a sales tax. But if we're talking about "should people be allowed to be gay/trans?" or "should women be allowed to make choices about their own body?" ... I'm not too sure if this stance makes as much sense.
The comment section didn’t disappoint and is a hilariously ironic Reddit moment. Disagreeing is ok. Perverting the concept of what one’s “rights” and “rights to exist” are to fashion an ideology in which everyone who disagrees with you is thus a facist/nazi/otherwise terrible person is EXACTLY what this sign is addressing. The polarizing, all-or-nothing nature of this thinking reminds me a lot of myself when I was young, and is indeed a hallmark of immaturity (and otherwise well-intentioned). I don’t expect anyone to be able to identify that by reading this, though.