Don't judge people by their political views

I think you're probably right. I read once that it's our life experiences that shape our political views. I use to be highly conservative but now I'm left centred. I think the struggles I've had with addictions have had a great influence on my political views nowadays.

When I was conservative I was very judgemental - I laughed at people who were addicted. I remember hearing about someone who was addicted to porn and thought to myself that they were stupid. I thought it would impossible for me to be like that. I was was so full of my self-righteousness, but pride becomes before a fall. About 4 years after thinking that I became addicted to it.

I struggle with conservatives because I automatically think they're like how I was. But I shouldn't think like that, everyone is different.

 

Politics... bullshit

 

I agree Waldo.

 

Yes and yes. I am guilty of judging people based on politics, but it is something that I try not to do.

I appreciate many of the perspectives you share. You are a person who has their head screwed on, and I wish people with screwed on heads were not such a tiny minority.

 

Mines a locking nut

 

The disguise ain't working dude!

 

I've renounced politics after this election. I think political allegiance is more inhibitive to critical thought than we may realize. especially with a bi party system, it seems like people are more or less on a team? and once you commit to a side you sort of assume all of the baggage involved with that platform, and people will begin to assume they know everything about your principles based on that affiliation. what's worse is that they'll probably be right about most of those assumptions because of group conformity. the whole thing is a fallacy

 

Yeh, fallacy! You stated the right word. Realizing fallacy in argument is not less important. I think it makes us more objective and comfortable (for us and our opponent).

 

Sorry, but how can I find Nazis good? Their deep hatred against other people (Jews, Muslims, Leftists) cannot be accepted, can it?

 

'Leftists'...? Are you familiar with the left, centre and right sides of the political spectrum, what determines left wing, and the activities of the Nazi party in general leading into and during WWII?

Rather than single out Jews and Muslims, you could have also added gypsies, the infirm, the disabled, homosexuals, black people...

 

Sillies. The Holocaust never happened!

 

@LoyalKnight, I won't fault you for making an exception for Nazis. If we're talking about parties in a democracy, a lot of people feel like they have to support one of them, so maybe it's best not to judge them by which one. As an anarchist, I don't support any parties of the government. They're not equally bad; I do think one is worse, but that doesn't make the other good.

 

start with this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
John Heinrich Detlev Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman and Nazi Party member who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and his work to protect and help the Chinese civilians during the event...

Then start examining your premises.

You're aware that communists killed 120+ million people, and that there were muslims that killed and enslaved millions in the name Islam, and plenty of Jews that have killed in the name of Zionism?

BTW the 'nazis' had Indian (as in India) SS regiments.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion

And no I am not a 'nazi' but I find this sort distorted one sided view of history, frankly the root cause of many problems. It is also a term being thrown around more and more broadly to just describe someone with different political views that the progressive left hates.

In short, when you can demonize someone with a word, then you start to be part of the problem you claim to hate.

 

I sort of understand the sentiment of this thread, and to some degree think it's true about projecting thoughts about people based on 'political parties'. I try to focus on the fact that there is never perfect solution where by someone won't be given grief no matter the best intent, but to try to help people requires action, and only experience will tell us the outcome. I also try to judge someone more by their actions, instead of what they say.

That being said, if someone declared openly and frequently that if they had a chance that they were going to kill you, take away your money, break up your families, control what you do in your bedroom, jail you, or attempt to control what you believe, then politics isn't just a theoretical discussion anymore. It's a situational awareness exercise, where you have to fight to participate in making sure that that person isn't given the chance, no matter how charming they are, or how likely they are to be successful.

I was reading an article today that said that this very discussion we are having is evidence that we don't feel threatened. That lack of threat to our lives is a privilege, and means we are the least qualified to make such decisions. This is because we are blind in our non-threat, as to how many are impacted. For many politics is in fact a fight to live or die, or live without suffering deeply personal punishments.

Here is a thought experiment (and I apologize in that it may stir some extreme emotion):
There are many here that would love to outlaw and push for methods to destroy access to porn. Their is intent is good, in that they want to protect other people from the complications they have suffered, and raise the sexual respect for all people. However, many of us also only got this far in life from having porn available to us (good or bad), and the addicts out there trying to reboot while having issues wouldn't be suddenly more healthy if access is limited. Instead, this would create an underground for porn, because people want it so bad. Now, your personal weakness would be giving money to true criminals, and possibly landing jail time. So while the intent is to help people, and some would be by never having easy access, the reality is that it would also destroy others lives, and cause them to placed in jail for pictures of something that it's perfectly reasonable to do in your bedroom with a partner. Is this just politics? Can you look across the isle and respect the likeable well speaking people that have those opposing ideas? Maybe you don't feel that extreme about it, but that would only be because you don't feel your life was destroyed by porn, or because you don't feel that you life would be destroyed if porn was suddenly a jail-able offense.

(By the way, this is a total reality, I cite USA prohibition as the example). Others are living similar fights.

 

That's what the rioters at Berkley are claiming to justify shutting down Milo Yannopolis...and openly attacking Trump supporters.

and there also seems to be an emerging belief on the left - If you can cite a similar thing on the right i'd be happy to entertain it - that it's 'ok' to punch a nazi...

well it's amazing who becomes a nazi when it's ok to punch them for their beliefs. I've heard Trump compared to Hitler by allegedly serious mainstream media pundits.

 

I'm seriously conflicted on the punching nazis things. I started off a bit naive purely believing in freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. I thought taking action against people for their thoughts and words goes squarely against that. I thought we should only seek to punish once actions are taken by Nazis, and that anything else was persecution and playing into justifying their needs to fortify or pursue action in the name of 'self defense'.

However, I read a well written argument that Nazis beliefs aren't an ideology, but a proven plan of attack against freedom. That they are already taking actions and causing harm, had been openly professing this forever, and had a legacy to prove they meant it. It was said that the right of freedom of speech was being subverted by those who are actively using it to gain power to destroy it, so they felt that was what justified a little chin music to even up the score.

My mind then goes back to our soldiers in the world wars. They didn't need to wait to see if every enemy soldier raised their weapon, before they pulled a trigger. Winning wasn't an act for them to sort out the innocent from the active, but instead destruction of those that identified as 'enemy', until they submitted and surrendered.

Now I'm stuck, conflicted in my beliefs. It does seems like a seriously dangerous justification for attacking anyone that you think is acting in a totalitarian capacity. It also seems like a dangerous precedent to use violence against anyone deemed to interfere in what you perceive as your 'rights'. I still cling to the idea that Freedom of speech has to protect that which we don't want to hear, along with the freedom for us to say what others don't want to hear. However, the words 'freedom isn't free' are also strong with me, and I know it has to be defended at times by destroying those who cannot be swayed by any other means.

I guess it comes down to 'are we really under attack, not by words, but by people actively maneuvering to control our way of life by destroying anyone they feel is less human? Does our current system protect us from this? Are there other avenues that can be explored to sway those people, or restrict their destructive intent? Are we just being manipulated by people that want us to 'do something' by scarring the hell out of us? I'm still left with the idea that we shouldn't wage war unless it's openly declared, but does that make me part of the problem, in that I'm privileged enough not to feel threatened? Am I blind to the war already here?

I don't know, feels wrong. But I've learned a lot of things in the past couple of years I thought felt wrong, didn't change it from being true.