zlacker

When your politics are bigotry, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

When your politics are anti-democracy and pro-fascism, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

Politics aren’t detached from real life, they aren’t some hypothetical. They have real consequences, and they represent real values.

Now I know where you stand. You follow every conservative talking point 100%.

You are playing the “I am taking a nuanced view, you’re just a sheep following popular opinion” card while you yourself are just doing the exact same thing on the other side with no nuance at all. You and I are at worst no different from each other in our belief systems.

Scott Adams was a Trumper, therefore you support him.

JK Rowling is anti-trans, which is the right wing party line, therefore you support her.

Good talk. You know where you stand, I know where I stand.

>>dangus+(OP)
You’re treating disagreement as evidence of moral failure, then using that to retroactively justify the label. That’s not reasoning — it’s tribal sorting. You must exist in quite a bubble, a rapidly shrinking one.

>>sanity+l3
You have the causality backwards. Your moral stance is abhorrent, therefore I disagree with you and want nothing to do with you. Not the other way around.

>>sanity+l3
You can't dismiss other people's assessment of your politics just because they are different from yours. That makes no sense.

>>amroch+j8
My moral stance is abhorrent to about 7% of the population who the other 93% want nothing to do with.

I'll get over it.

>>sanity+hb
You've been listening to too much Fox News and Trump Truth Social posts if you think 93% of the population is bigoted racists.

>>DonHop+4A1
No, 93% of the population want nothing to do with extreme left wing socialist mob politics.

>>DonHop+4A1
You're making my point for me.