Congratulations, you're the first one to say that! Yes, also nazis. Disagree with them, condemn any illegal actions they might take, persuade them with rational explanations, but never disrespect anyone's beliefs, wrong as they might seem, for that will only make you the bad guy of that conversation and make them feel justified.
Congratulations, you're the first one to say that! Yes, also nazis. Disagree with them, condemn any
Yeah, as easy as it is to point at nazis for stuff like this. You're right. Treating something with respect doesn't always mean you're required to accept their point and let them keep doing what they're doing. when it's something clearly harmful, take them seriously.
Yeah, as easy as it is to point at nazis for stuff like this. You're right. Treating something with
yikes, that's a biiig nope. you don't owe anyone your respect. No, if someone's oppinion is that my trans friend doesnt deserve healthcare, my black friend deserves the racism, or any other bigoted shit to come out of their foul mouthhole, I owe them nothing. If you feel the 'need to respect' racist, trans/homophobic, misogynistic oppinions, fuck you. you are the problem.
And saying 'respect everyone, even nazis' reeeeeeeallly makes you seem like a nazi apologist dude. I'm out.
yikes, that's a biiig nope. you don't owe anyone your respect. No, if someone's oppinion is that my
IF ANYONE READING THIS FEELS THE NEED TO RESEPCT TRANSPHOBIC, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR MISOGYNISTC OPPINIONS, SAVE ME THE TROUBLE AND BLOCK ME RIGHT TF NOW
IF ANYONE READING THIS FEELS THE NEED TO RESEPCT TRANSPHOBIC, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR MISOGYNISTC OPP
To not hate others for their opinions. Do not like them? That is fine. You can even discuss things with the person to, dunno, maybe change their minds? Or agree to disagree and don't bring out the subject again if at all possible. Third option is to never talk with them again and assume the situation is unsalvagable of course, but that solves nothing.
Hate in general is pretty unhealty, mind.
To not hate others for their opinions. Do not like them? That is fine. You can even discuss things w
If mine or my friends existence is called into question, no, I don’t need to debate or discuss. I don’t need to respect their opinions. There can be zero tolerance
If mine or my friends existence is called into question, no, I don’t need to debate or discuss. I do
Again, that is your opinion. So long as someone thinks 'X cannot exist, for Y and Z reasons', I don't care. Think what you want. If you DO something to make that happen, we'll have problems. And yes, that means anyone and everyone. Don't like it? You don't have to. You have the luxury of being free enough to do that.
Again, that is your opinion. So long as someone thinks 'X cannot exist, for Y and Z reasons', I don'
I completely ,you could say respectfully, disagree that we should respect everyone. It doesnt mean we can't try to change opinions and have discourse with those people but there are things that cant be respected and also the mindset of respecting everyone is just wrong to me, respect is earned. Yes there is a base level of respect but that is just the minimum till that person earns the respect or lose it for that matter.
sorry for the rant and for errors i may have made english aint my first language.
I completely ,you could say respectfully, disagree that we should respect everyone. It doesnt mean w
In light of some of the comments above, here's a middling idea:
You can respect a person and still completely dis-respect their philosophies. There's a bevy of ideas that I find utterly abhorrent: racism, transphobia, authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and countless more. I and so many others have made it part of their lives to see this ideologies curtailed and ended. However, however, that doesn't mean that those practicing such ideals are unworthy of respect.
• That doesn't mean you need to admire them. • That doesn't mean you need to agree with them. • That doesn't mean you need to defer to their ideals. • That doesn't mean you need to accept their actions. • That doesn't mean you need to let their work continue or go undone. • That doesn't mean you need to show enthusiasm for anything they do. • That doesn't mean you need to treat them as an authority.
That does mean that, as a fellow sapient being, they should be afforded some measure of acknowledgement that their existence has merit in and of itself, and that everyone should be treated justly, equitably, and ethically. Yes, even if they are total and unrepentant shitbags.
To do otherwise undermines the progressive work we do, and creates a society where some people can be "other'd" or made "less than" their peers. If we wish to strive towards societal equality, we must treat others' persons and personhood with respect, even as we damn their actions, ideology, and influence.
Case in point, if a vastly overly-simplified one: Consider people who have been charged and convicted of murder. Despite their punishment, are still afforded human respect (at least on paper). While imprisoned, they are not starved, they are not beaten, they are still given their inherent legal rights. We may (and should) condemn them, make them feel recompense and pain for their action, punish them as appropriate. But we must and do understand that they are still mortal, foible, sapient beings, and their treatment must be ethical, if harsh.
The word 'respect' is a tricky one, because it is so very broad, can be used in so many contexts, and understood or read in so many ways. This post is barely a quarter-day old at the time I'm posting this -- looking at the comments thus far I clearly see this broadness (and the misunderstandings that causes) shows. I can't say I know of a more succinct precise way to express this or any other idea in less than 100 words, either. I am, at least, glad that it gets people talking and expressing themselves, even if it ends up becoming a bit of a shouting match.
In light of some of the comments above, here's a middling idea: You can respect a person and still
Thanks, Magnus, beautifully put. I do love that some people have also put in the effort to disagree politely, rather than just feeling attacked and swinging back blindly.
I believe that if anyone is too afraid to listen to an opponent's opinions, else they corrupt their righteous point of view, maybe their point of view isn't righteous enough to stand the slightest scrutiny.
Thanks, Magnus, beautifully put. I do love that some people have also put in the effort to disagree
That or the baser instincts won out. Sometimes when confronted with a reality they should know how to respond to, they balk or overcompensate. Emotions give us WAY more energy to overcome perceived threats and challenges because that served us with some measure of success (in survival if nothing else) in simpler times. I think most who engage wildly don't consider that.
On another note entirely, nice grease pen work! Pretty solid for (what appears to be) a first attempt! What do you think of it?
Here here. That or the baser instincts won out. Sometimes when confronted with a reality they shoul
Also, because almost no one is actually making note of it: This animation came out really damn good! I can see where you took the original animation and built upon it to make it your own thing. Animation is always great to see, given how much effort goes into it. I hope to see a lot more like it in the future, and I think it's a good bit of practice. Like so many others, I got too wrapped up in philosophical / political discourse, and failed to recognize the art for its own sake.
Also, because almost no one is actually making note of it: This animation came out really damn good!
Once again I'm seeing a lot of comments mistake one meaning of the word "respect" for another. It's like the old injustice of an authority figure saying "If you won't respect me [as an authority], then I won't respect you [as a person]." In this case though, people are mistaking respect as in respecting one's rights as a person, for respect as in not opposing one's opinion.
You can respect a person without having respect for their opinion. Actually, I think that's the point you were trying to make here, and it went over some people's heads...
Once again I'm seeing a lot of comments mistake one meaning of the word "respect" for another. It's
You owe everyone the benefit of the doubt, thus you own them basic respect until they do things that call respect into doubt, such as violence against people simply because of the color of their skin or because they happen to practice a different lifestyle or sexuality.
Tolerance and respect of the intolerant by deed is right out.
You owe everyone the benefit of the doubt, thus you own them basic respect until they do things that
"We can all coexist and hash out our differences in the marketplace of ideas" is a dead regime. It's gone, and it's not coming back. I understand the impetus, but more and more people have been exposed now to the fact that tolerance of awful ideas has translated into actual, real world suffering. It's not a hypothetical, not some high-minded ideological modeling completely isolated from consequences- it's people bleeding and starving and dying, and finally more than just the worst off now have to face it.
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just explaining why your worldview's going extinct.
"We can all coexist and hash out our differences in the marketplace of ideas" is a dead regime. It's
And while I substantially agree with the sentiment since the political system in America is laughably (or horrifically) dictated by financial influence and it's mostly a show to garner television viewership and ad space... I would argue "civil discourse" and the like still occurs, it's just not going to make television.
I'm often surprised how quickly 'opposing sides' will come to agreement if points of context are established, especially up front. Both sides often have some valid points. I'd love to sit between two of the most stubborn 'opposing' politicians or representatives and see if establishing specific context up front wouldn't drastically reduce the amount of time spent on a discussion.
Is the concept falling out of the public eye? Certainly. Dead? We'll I'm still here, you still know of it, and until no-one on earth acts on it (either futhering OR countering it), no idea is "dead."
At least that's how I feel about it. As an aside, huge fan of your art! Hope it (or any fun/friendly pursuit really) continues to bring you fulfillment.
Out of curiosity, why the word "regime?" And while I substantially agree with the sentiment since t
When I say 'regime,' I mean it. As in, the global neoliberal monetarist policy masquerading as a proper geopolitical doctrine. The corporate news engine that has pushed the "both sides" narrative to its toxic extreme, forcing capitalist market ideology into the very arena of thought itself. The problem is, if ideas are a marketplace, then attention is the currency- and whatever gets the most attention =/= a good, reasoned ideology.
People are now- pretty reasonably- very suspicious of calls to moderation because they've almost always been used as a way to enforce a dark, decaying Status Quo. While I naturally understand the purpose and importance in hearing ideas different from your own and digesting those differing philosophies, it falls to Moderates to reclaim that ideological space and once again make it the domain of Good Faith, instead of the tool of Fascist Normalization.
When I say 'regime,' I mean it. As in, the global neoliberal monetarist policy masquerading as a pro
>but more and more people have been exposed now to the fact that tolerance of awful ideas has translated into actual, real world suffering.
Right. Because they got upset that bad people were allowed to speak, so they doxxed and swatted and censored and assaulted them. Which, amazingly enough, made them angrier so they fought back. And so the others fought back against them. And so the others fought back against them. And so the others fought back against them. And so the others fought back against them.
>but more and more people have been exposed now to the fact that tolerance of awful ideas has transl
As a Moderate, we're disgusted by the Right, and disappointed in the Left. It's Crap and Crap Lite. If I were American, I'd be voting for anything but Dems or Reps.
As a Moderate, we're disgusted by the Right, and disappointed in the Left. It's Crap and Crap Lite.
The Left hasn't had a foothold in American power since the 1970s- its entire seat of power was taken over by moderates. So if you're disappointed... ta-daaaah.
The Left hasn't had a foothold in American power since the 1970s- its entire seat of power was taken
Eh, then we're in the same boat, then! Were I able to I'd be voting third party as well. Heck up here in Canada I vote NDP, generally speaking.
Point is, you're not using the same definition of Moderate as most people you speak to. Moderate, in the given context, means "Not quite one side, not quite the other" with the given sides being the current Democrats and Republicans. No one these days cares about what was or wasn't "the Left" from way back when. also be real careful about how far back you go there because at some point you'll be talking about the Democrats who became the Dixiecrats and in turn today's Republicans.
Eh, then we're in the same boat, then! Were I able to I'd be voting third party as well. Heck up her
I am intricately aware of the history of both major political parties in my country, yes. And the term you're looking for is 'Independent,' not 'moderate.'
I am intricately aware of the history of both major political parties in my country, yes. And the te
Most people will use the definition of the term they're most familiar with, and considering the Dems are still reffered to as The Left regardless of where on the political spectrum they actually are these days, it's understand able that people would still consider Centrist, Moderate, and Independant to be synonymous with each other.
I find these days that an awful lot of arguments and disagreements come from people using the same word as each other, but not the same definition. Things would go a lot easier if, instead of assuming the other person is an idiot for being [INSERT TERM HERE], we asked them what that term meant to them. Otherwise, like you and I, we'd assume we're opposed to each other's view points when in fact we actually agree.
Also, in case you're wondering, this is what happens when you respect people you disagree with. Sometimes you find out you were wrong about them, and you actually agree a lot more than you disagree, and no one gets upset.
Most people will use the definition of the term they're most familiar with, and considering the Dems
Violence begets violence. If a group wants attention, it will speak out. If it is not heard, then it will yell. If it is not heard then it will scream. And if it is still not heard, then it will lash out. This is true of all sides in any situation. If you push them away through anger and violence, they will push back in the same manner.
As for so many people the other side wants them dead, that's what they think of you as well. If your response is "Well then I'll give them a reason to think that!", understand that's their response as well. All people are human, and you'll find an overwhelming majority of them to be mostly reasonable. There will undoubtedly be unreasonable ones, and they should be dealt with accordingly, but they are by no means a majority on either side.
At least... outside of those who are currently in power. The Government is unfortunately filled with the loud minority. Power attracts those who would abuse it. Both parties in America right now are interested in little more than keeping power with the odd person here and there being interested in the good of the people. They refuse to play the "game" the others have set up, and are thusly shut down and ignored. Your best course of action as an American is to vote, preferrably vote out the incumbents and show them there is consequence for poor actions. I hope enough of the ants realize their power over the grasshoppers above them and follow through.
Violence begets violence. If a group wants attention, it will speak out. If it is not heard, then it
I'm sorry, but tolerating ideas that promote bigotry is antithetical to having a tolerant society. Pretending that all opinions are sacred, when there are opinions out there that devalue human beings, just gets people killed.
I can, and will, disrespect a nazi's beliefs. They do not deserve to have a platform to espouse their hatred, simply out of a misguided sense that everyone deserves to be heard. That path just leads to further radicalization and stochastic terrorism.
I'm sorry, but tolerating ideas that promote bigotry is antithetical to having a tolerant society. P
And that is why you should respect everyone, not everyone's ideas. Of course some beliefs are inarguably wrong, there is no discussing about it. All I'm saying is that we would do more to fix those by being diplomatic and trying to politely change minds rather than by lynching all who disagree with us.
And that is why you should respect everyone, not everyone's ideas. Of course some beliefs are inargu
You can respect life without respecting beliefs. There is also a big difference between respect and freedom. There is a reason Prison exists. The moment you aren't respecting life and freedom, you can still be respected, but have your freedoms revoked. This is what will prevent the "descent into madness" in my opinion. One of the most useful analogies I've found is comparing information to a fish in a river. If you're no longer taking information that is in front of you, acknowledging it, using it, adapting to it, etc. then you're not putting it behind you and you'll float downstream. Typically only dead things float downstream.
I will never condone a person hurting or advocating hurt of others, but these ideas often come from places of pain or past mistakes(in teaching or parenting) and provide them a sense of identity.I just know if it were me, I would hope someone stops me from doing harm to someone, and providing me the perspective I was missing. Otherwise, put me away with tools and give me a chance to figure it out. Typically no one WANTS to be wrong and it's a misunderstanding in what's been presented to them. Life has been unfair (true or not it's how they view it) and they want to be unfair back. Blind anger.
Almost every idea has some merit when dissected into separate parts and viewed objectively. The difficulty is separating the human emotion.
Problem is respect is often tied to ego/importance and as such, me tying someone up to put them in prison because I respect their life, but not their mission for... killing babies or whatever... am I honestly considered an accomplice even though I'm the one that neutralized them before harm came? I only feel sorry for those with these ideas because unchanging ideas act as dead/predictable things and that is sad. A loss of potential and good from an otherwise equal human being, who needed their freedoms removed so they wouldn't harm others, like some mad dog. Their ideas are only cancerous once they're being broadcast in secret, without discourse and reality-checks to stabilize a conversation, and nothing pushes communication to secrecy faster than raw oppression. Platform abuse exists, but just as respect for free speech involves meaningful back and forth discussion, blind advocacy for polarization and harm is already being muted and often. The difference is exceedingly difficult to spot if one starts to ascribe meaning to "sides" like Demo/Repub lib/con etc. since emotion often demands your ego be sated in its' sense of respect and presence in the conversation, rather than maintaining perspective regardless of the other's position.
I'll quit yammering.
TLDR : "Bad" ideas are just ideas that willfully ignore aspects of the reality they intend to influence. Check if you're willing to view and analyze information, even if it conflicts with some of your current thoughts. Once you are, then you've got a chance bring them back to reality. Sometimes, someone just isn't ready.
You can respect life without respecting beliefs. There is also a big difference between respect and
In the U.S., the 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, however sane or tinfoil hat the speech may be. Also...That same freedom of speech also grants us the right to challenge, debunk and discredit those philosophies in which our society deems to be rogue and offensive... ...It's called debate. Without freedom of speech, we'd all have to be walking eggshells every time we have something to say.
As much disdain as I have for white supremacy groups, I take solace in knowing the same 1st Amendment that allows them to spew their rogue ideas also allows others and myself to speak out against the things they believe in.
This also needs to always be remembered; If groups who are promoting rogue and offensive bigotry begin to circulate petitions, and begin rallying for political change, ignoring them and walking away is never enough...Not if it gets to that point. When such movements begin the process of pushing to have laws changed to fit their philosophies, it is important to get involved and lobby and petition against them. Just like such a groups have the freedom to go to Washington once they have signatures on a petition, those who oppose their ideas also have the freedom to go to Washington and challenge against it.
There is a saying, the squeakiest wheel gets the oil...Recently, a federal law was enacted which denied healthcare assistance to transsexual folks...Question is, how many folks who were hurt by that law, or know someone who has, ever showed up in Washington to challenge it to stand in the way of it being passed?
Remember...Just like folks who believe in rogue ideas have the freedom to express them, we also have the freedom to challenge, debunk and discredit those ideas. And we certainly have the freedom to refuse to except those ideas.
And by the way...Remember to vote this November.
In the U.S., the 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, however sane or tinfoil hat the speec
I should have also mentioned that resorting to violence and property destruction is never an answer to anything. It only discredits you and those who stand with you, and glorifies those who you oppose.
I should have also mentioned that resorting to violence and property destruction is never an answer
Katie Hopkins got banned from Twitter yesterday (IIRC) and Imgur was celebrating it. I pushed back on the idea that it's a good thing. Pointed out how selective Twitter has been in enforcing their rules, almost as if they only apply to certain groups. Got a fair amount of displeased responses.
One person said, "Even of you disagree with that, take my advice and pick a different hill to die on than Katie Hopkins"
I replied, "People were calling this out when it was Alex Jones. He sure as shit deserved it, but it was still wrong."
Someone else said, of tolerating hate speech, " At some point, you need to turn it off."
I replied, "Who do you trust enough to decide when to shut you off?"
Katie Hopkins got banned from Twitter yesterday (IIRC) and Imgur was celebrating it. I pushed back o
I think a lot of people here are confusing "opinions" (what you said) with "actions" (what they think their opinions MIGHT lead to).
Bad opinions are one thing and you don't have to agree with someone based on something they think openly to you. You *can* still respect them as a human being regardless.
It's when their opinions turn to actions that respecting them should probably not be so simple. Because someone with a terrible opinion of another race may be a jerk, but someone who acts on that opinion and kills another person for it is a murderer.
Just an example.
Judge actions, actual things that have been done. Don't just judge opinions.
I think a lot of people here are confusing "opinions" (what you said) with "actions" (what they thin
I agree, but I think opinions should still be judged and discussed, although always from a position of respect. Disagreeing is good and helps us grow and put our ideas in perspective.
I agree, but I think opinions should still be judged and discussed, although always from a position
Then you have your heart and your mind in the right place. c:
The world needs more people like you. I've seen labels being thrown around and people sneering at you for being too nice or too moderate or such and such.
Bullshit. We have to *hear* each other, actively listen. Actions always speak louder than words, but the words can be informative nonetheless.
Then you have your heart and your mind in the right place. c: The world needs more people like you
Rule #1: There Is Always An Exception To The Rule (No Exceptions).
There are different kinds of respect. Generally speaking, we should treat all people as humans. Demonizing them as [INSERT TERM HERE] does nothing useful. If a person has gone above and beyond what you believe to be a person's "Call of Duty" to be, then they should be respected as someone who has done significant good and helped the world become a better place. If someone more knowledgeable than you gives proof and reasoning as to why you are wrong, you should respect their authority, consider their input, and use it to better your worldviews.
On that note, ideas and opinions are not people. Ideas and opinions should not innately be respected, especially if they are hateful, or ignorant. These should ideally be argued against or bettered through facts and learning. But, as there are some people who will refuse, it's best to know when to back off and recognize the uselessness of your efforts. These people should be ignored until and unless they act out physically on someone else in a harmful manner, in which case they should be fought back against, punished necessary, and encouraged to better themselves. If they do not, then repeat the previous steps until it is no longer needed.
You'll find more reasonable people than unreasonable people in this world if you give them the chance, but I don't think everyone deserves every type of respect.
Rule #1: There Is Always An Exception To The Rule (No Exceptions). There are different kinds of res
While I agree with the sentiment, I can't say I want nazis to even be alive, let alone respect their opinions. The basis of their belief IS disrespecting others, and their rights to be alive. But I suppose the idea that you can respect a person but not their opinion is an acceptable takeaway.
As a side note, this is wonderfully animated.
While I agree with the sentiment, I can't say I want nazis to even be alive, let alone respect their
Thank you. :) I agree that all extremist ideas are despicable and should not be respected, but I believe that extremists, such as nazis, could potentially be shown the error of their ways through diplomacy, so that they may give up their beliefs and adopt a more tolerant and rational behavior. But punching them just leads to them punching back.
Either way, thanks a lot for your polite comment. :)
Thank you. :) I agree that all extremist ideas are despicable and should not be respected, but I bel
Well, to be perfectly honest, I am not opposed to punching nazis. I think I made myself sound more polite than I actually am towards the existence of right-wingers. Nazis in WW2 were not fought with diplomacy. And while I think it is *possible* to change a person's political alliance I think that's a broad cultural issue that can't be solved through the change of every single person's belief one by one. It also mandates the aggressive attack on the structural institutions that propagate hatred and oppression as well - which surely don't deserve respect at all, as those are not people.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I am not opposed to punching nazis. I think I made myself sound more p
Hmm, I see your point. While I think we should have hope in people, institutions are often built on ideology rather than reason. Some can and will cause harm as their main goal.
Hmm, I see your point. While I think we should have hope in people, institutions are often built on
While everyone else is going on about something other than the art:
Good job, I can hear this meme. It's not as aggressive as the scene from Leon/The Professional (it has two names, don't ask why), but I can still hear it being fervently yelled.
While everyone else is going on about something other than the art: Good job, I can hear this meme.
Wow... This really blew up. Anyway... May I just say that if the alligator snapping turtle hadn't really entrenched itself into that position, this post would have made you my spirit animal.
Wow... This really blew up. Anyway... May I just say that if the alligator snapping turtle hadn't re
naw man, fuck this respectability politics bullshit. if someones "opinion" literally ends in the mass killing or deportation of people, then they dont deserve your respect. thats not an opinion, thats fascism and nobody should suck up to a fascist.
this shit isn't a argument about video games or best girl or some shit.
naw man, fuck this respectability politics bullshit. if someones "opinion" literally ends in the mas
Yes, all criminal behavior should be punished and some opinions can be unquestionably evil, but opinions can sometimes be changed through respectful debate. I'm just saying that, while diplomacy may or may not help making others see the error in their ways, violence will never change anyone's mind.
Yes, all criminal behavior should be punished and some opinions can be unquestionably evil, but opin
while i do think that its possible for people to be reformed, i dont think that anyone has to talk sensitively to people with who have clearly harmful ideas. no one is entitled to the kiddy gloves.
while i do think that its possible for people to be reformed, i dont think that anyone has to talk s
Harmful ideas don't come from nothing. They come from fear, brainwashing, scapegoating, and all manor of manipulations that those in power have perfected over millennia to distract from their greed. Being sensitive to why someone may hold those opinions might not always work, but hate only leads to more hate.
On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to have respect for those doing the scapegoating, brainwashing, and manipulating to begin with.
Harmful ideas don't come from nothing. They come from fear, brainwashing, scapegoating, and all mano
Having principles and sticking to them is hard in these trying times. Having a bit of double standards and hypocrisy is so much more healthy for follower count, 'friends' and income. Not going with the stream can be dangerous in our cancel culture.
Having principles and sticking to them is hard in these trying times. Having a bit of double standar
The funny thing is how this solves all problems. Hence why problem makers sneer at this more than anything. Pretty much every discussion i've ever had with people over my views has ended in me being accused of a belief I don't have, me clarifying that's inaccurate, and explaining what I do believe instead, and being told "nuh-uh!" and getting reported or blocked or etc. People want to be able to wrap up opposing views into strawmen exclusively, and this has only gotten more extreme. If I propose something positive for my group, I get told that means I want to kill everyone elses group. If I say I want the same positive action I want for my group for everyone elses group, I get told that also means I want to kill everyone elses group. More and more people are beyond that though, and actively wish to kill me for it, hell even in this thread. But I can tell that life is magnetic, if one side wants a fight, they will get it eventually, and that will be a sad day compared to how actually listening to each other could have solved things.
The funny thing is how this solves all problems. Hence why problem makers sneer at this more than an
That's true. For some reason, society has evolved into such extremisms that all the problems we should have fixed by now have only gotten much worse. Some people don't want a solution, they want a victory, and they can't win unless there's a fight. If a problem gets solved, they no longer can be the heroes.
That's true. For some reason, society has evolved into such extremisms that all the problems we shou
I agree there. It's quite scary, and isolating for someone like me who doesn't fit into any mold. I feel like each aspect of myself is considered so controversial now by each side that I can't associate anywhere without getting hunted down for one thing or the other. But yeah, I didn't consider putting it into words like you did about problem solving preventing people from feeling like "heroes". It feels like it's another reason that my ideal of peaceful separation, letting everyone choose their path rather than trying to conquer the other side, feels unlikely... But I still hope for it. Thanks for being reasonable
I agree there. It's quite scary, and isolating for someone like me who doesn't fit into any mold. I
perspective is important, winners write history and all it takes is for one group to have the power more than another and suddenly you can be the "good" or "bad" guy from the ruling groups perspective.
even obama and joe biden was once voting against gay marriage and only changed their mind on it when the supreme court made a ruling, after all. Things are rarely as black and white as our own hatred make us see things and we should not let that hate, righteous or not, allow us to do things we cannot reverse.
reading all the comments was a fun trip. perspective is important, winners write history and all it
perspective is important, winners write history and all it takes is for one group to have the power more than another and suddenly you can be the "good" or "bad" guy from the ruling groups perspective.
Yes! I have been insulted out of many debates for saying just that.
~~~ Quote by sjs: perspective is important, winners write history and all it takes is for one g
sadly a lot of people think its okay to kill people and throw them in camps under the "right conditions", even though we all think the nazis were disgusting for doing that. Oh well, tribalism be wierd like that.
sadly a lot of people think its okay to kill people and throw them in camps under the "right conditi
