/townhall/ - Townhall

>>12151
> Some Christians prefer to not be part of the LGBT+ agenda, and the left might say that's transphobic or homophobic, but perhaps we should just accept that excluding these kinds of gender or sexual expressions is what some need to practice their religion.
>And in the same way some people have negative opinions about races and/or ethnicities, and rather than attacking, we should just let people have opinions.

I myself would go for nonviolence if it was consistent, if everybody was going to be nonviolent all the time. I'd say, okay, let's get with it, we'll all be nonviolent. But I don't go along with any kind of nonviolence unless everybody's going to be nonviolent. If they make the Ku Klux Klan nonviolent, I'll be nonviolent. If they make the White Citizens Council nonviolent, I'll be nonviolent. But as long as you've got somebody else not being nonviolent, I don't want anybody coming to me talking any nonviolent talk. I don't think it is fair to tell our people to be nonviolent unless someone is out there making the Klan and the Citizens Council and these other groups also be nonviolent....

>>12152
An individual who is a member of the KKK needn't use violence, I don't think.  The KKK is a political organization, not a terrorist organization.  The challenge, I think, is not to overgeneralize.

>>12153
>The KKK is a political organization, not a terrorist organization.

No, they're pretty literally a terrorist organization.  Like a prime definition of one, even.  Their primary public facing activities are causing terror.

>>12151

I think that the issues are not too simple. Each person is coming from a different place... For example, the "left" includes a wide variety of political opinions, and each person has their own unique reasons for holding them. Some were born into "left" families and never questioned their beliefs, others did question them and found they agreed with them, others questioned them and left, and others left due to deeper psychological reasons... same for the right. The concept of left/right is far too limiting. I think that the human mind has a tendency for thinking in terms of dichotomies, even when there are better models of thinking available.

In general, however, the left does tend to portray the right as more racist and extremist than they actually are. The effect of this is that the right tends to embrace the depiction of themselves as racist, etc. as a childish way of resisting perceived authority.

On the other hand, the right does the same to the left. The difference in response is subtle, but whereas the right's response to the left's exagerrations tends to be sardonic, the left's response to the right's exaggerations tends to be more openly emotional...

So, the right tends to portray the left as being either hedonists or misguided, to which they respond with greater expressions of self...

The right accuses the left of being childish, idealistic, lost... and the left accuses the right of being heartless, cruel... By the time the argument reaches this level, discussion becomes impossible, as neither side is being honest with themselves at this point... There is probably some deeper personal psychological stuff going on here that nobody wants to acknowledge because it seems, in the moment, to just be easier and more convenient to argue about it.

I think that it might be possible to hold and discuss political opinions as a rational human being, but that there is maybe a lot of unresolved conflict going on in the minds of most people (that they may not be too aware of) that then comes out in the form of politically-directed anger. Political discussion need not be divisive. But everyone needs to make sure their tails are washed, conditioned, and brushed before engagement.

>>12154
There is distinction between causing terror and engaging in terrorism.
People can be afraid of unreasonable things, after all.
Not every fear equates inherently to terrorism.

As far as I am aware, the KKK does not engage in terroristic actions any more.
They might've in the past. But at this stage, they're rather routinely hounded by law enforcement, so they seem to take extensive steps to keep their nose clean that way.

>>12152
Personally, I struggle to care much about those claiming to be 'nonviolent' while still pushing political movements.

Violence is the supreme authority by which all other authority is derived.
Irrespective of outward claims, any group attempting to create law cannot claim to be nonviolent.
The nature of law necessitates violence.

End of the day, 'live and let live' falls through the moment you're dealing with any enforcement.

>>12155
From my experience at least, and I'll grant it's not as though I've studied every 'left' and 'right' philosophy or movement... "Left" and "Right" are largely split by action vs outcome.

The right seems to consistently argue what is right or wrong, in terms of specific behavior and actions, with a large variety of beliefs behind it.
The left seems to argue right and wrong in terms of outcome, again with a large variety of different desired outcomes.

Someone on the right, for example, will say descrimination of any kind is bad, and should be illegal.
Whereas the left seems to focus on the numbers and percentages, presuming an issue that must be corrected, even if it requires discrimination to do so.

>>12154
I guess I just did a Google search.  Maybe a better response is to say if you are in contact with actual terrorists, I don't have expertise or specific things to say.

Or, are people on the right side of the political spectrum generally terrorists, that's we'd look for this kind of expertise?

>>12155
I think that is all true.  And in mischaracterizing the other, there's an attention bias.  "Fascist militias spread across America" and "Drag queens pervert children in public libraries" get the clicks more reasonable articles won't.

>politically-directed anger
Sometimes politics does seem to be the tropes people use to express vague anger.  Which is perhaps why political arguments are sometimes ridiculous conspiracy theories, and everyone knows it at some level, but the point is to say "I'm angry!"  Although then you ask, why can't people say more clearly what is actually angering them?

>>12157
Individual freedoms exist only after obedience to the state and acceptance of any and all state violence is satisfied.  It is almost absurd to think of someone pushing for anything in regard to state violence they will have no control over.  But people may do this, yes -- where the state finds the action appropriate.

>>12158
Economically, this seems true on the surface.  Although maybe the difference is the left is more keen to accept systemic forces exist even when not explicitly placed in policy, or that a significant difference in outcome can only come from a significant difference in action.

>>12160
>Individual freedoms exist only after obedience to the state and acceptance of any and all state violence is satisfied
Or at the state's destruction at the hands of its people, following an attempt to impose on those freedoms.
Thus why we have systems where the people have significant influence, through voting, on the state.
Helps alleviate that risk.

>they will have no control over
People vote for politicians, who are made up of the people.
They'd have direct control as a result of making both the constituency which keeps their politician in power, as well as said politician coming from that group.

>Economically, this seems true on the surface.
I wasn't really thinking at all of economics. I guess you might be right, though. The economic models do rather operate on a similar idea, with one prioritizing consent of transactions and the other prioritizing growth through planning.

>>12161
>Or at the state's destruction at the hands of its people, following an attempt to impose on those freedoms
Authoritarianism solves the problem of this anarchy.  People simply don't oppose state force or view force as ever having been problematic.  There are no freedoms that could exist except those the state allows.

>>12157
>>12162

I think that the best society might make laws and provide good reasons and incentives for following them but not enforce them. Perhaps, if a law is truly just and explained well, then people will follow it willingly. (I think this is how it is supposed to work... and why we have juries (and jury nullification).)

Maybe, Glamorous Snake, you are saying that we should just accept whatever state happens to exist, accepting the limitations placed on us, and accepting the consequences of choosing to obey or not obey the state's laws (as well as anything that happens as a consequence of living within such a system), without getting emotional about it?

>>12162
No amount of authoritarianism will result in a state that cannot be overturned by the people, if they so choose.
It's a numbers game. At the end of the day, a state cannot sustain having more enforcers than citizens. It would collapse. And so, inevitably, the arm of the state that would use force to control its populace will be outnumbered.
States cannot exist on force alone. Just rule is required, as that gives moral onus to obey. That is the only way a state can exist. "The consent of the governed", as it's known in English spheres.

>>12159
>Or, are people on the right side of the political spectrum generally terrorists, that's we'd look for this kind of expertise?

People on the right are not generally terrorists.  But also generally speaking, there isn't a "live and let live" vibe coming from that side of the aisle.

The quote from Malcolm X comes from a time when the KKK was still burning crosses in people's yards.  They may be less active today, thankfully, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sizable voting base whose primary concern is interfering in what other people are doing.  Remember that any decrees from the state are themselves a form of violence, so even if the KKK is purely a voting bloc that only meets to hang out and listen to some speeches, ultimately the things they vote for are violently impacting other citizens.  To say nothing of the direct violence still coming from people, even if those people don't have any larger affiliations.

If the extent of hate for racial minorities or the queer community was just opinions locked in people's heads, I don't think there would be any retaliation coming from the left.  But if anyone's going to request that the left be more tolerant without ensuring that same tolerance from the right, then there's no point in even having the discussion.

>>12163
>we should just accept whatever state happens to exist

Yes.  Any freedom to justly resist the state invalidates the state, as it would put the state in the position of punishing just action or implies the state has the purpose of punishing just action.

>>12164
I'm not sure I follow the beginning of your post, but I think you prefer I say, "Subjects consent to their states and because of their consent, they must obey."?

>>12166
Not quite;
What I am saying is rather simply, states must abide by the morals of the people, else the people will simply remove that state.

>>12167
Hmm...I guess I disagree.  Not that it doesn't happen that states are overthrown, but that it's generally an outlier -- few who would find the state morally questionable will have the opportunity to overthrow the state.  People presumably generally do what they consider to be moral, and states are designed to use force to maintain their [state] authority irrespective of the preferences of subjects, moral or otherwise.

But maybe this is not something we can resolve, since we are interpreting the objective truth that states are sometimes overthrown differently.

>>12165
>decrees from the state are themselves a form of violence

Well, yes, but an imminently acceptable violence, as I am never to oppose the state.  Terrorism is violence for political reasons that the state doesn't care for.

>If the extent of hate for racial minorities or the queer community was just opinions locked in people's heads, I don't think there would be any retaliation coming from the left.

I had a discussion, or something like that, with ChatGPT on the question of whether fascism is rising in the USA.  I feel that it might be.  I think this might be generally what you are thinking about, too.  Fascism probably isn't terrorism, in that the violence is generally informally or formally in alignment with the state.  But fascism seems to go badly for some people, if bad can be defined as torture and death.

>But if anyone's going to request that the left be more tolerant without ensuring that same tolerance from the right, then there's no point in even having the discussion.

That is fair.  My thought is that someone has to do the unfair thing to make things better -- the right does not seem keen to turn down the heat.  Suppose I'm calling for a sacrifice -- maybe I'm asking for too much.

>>12155
>I think that it might be possible to hold and discuss political opinions as a rational human being, but that there is maybe a lot of unresolved conflict going on in the minds of most people (that they may not be too aware of) that then comes out in the form of politically-directed anger. Political discussion need not be divisive. But everyone needs to make sure their tails are washed, conditioned, and brushed before engagement.

100% agree. Unfortunately it's difficult for a lot of people even when they are really trying. And if you add in the grey area of some people having been literally traumatized by another group (think getting literal death threats if you try to be openly lgbt in public), and it adds on an extra strong layer being able to remain respectful in any given conversation towards the group or belief that may have caused harm in the past...

The right has been going hard on violence and intolerance and I would hardly think it's the responsibility of 'the left' to be more tolerant to 'the right' so long as 'the right' refuses to vet itself of extremists.

>>12177
Have they?
It seems the moment they echoed even a microscopic fraction of the typical left wing political action, they were universally condemned, subject to extreme crackdown, and effectively blacklisted for anyone with so much as a tangential relation.

It's rather hard to take such statements seriously in the wake of the response to January 6th.
Hell, you had an unarmed woman shot dead by He'll, yards away, and rather than get a mile of media coverage condemning the act and calling for immediate charges, the reaction was to either ignore it, or praise the action.
Meanwhile, when a left-wing type literally sits in ambush waiting for a Trump supporter to walk by, and subsequently murders them in cold blood, we get an uncritical interview where the murderer's narrative is taken at nothing but face value and treated like absolute truth, without so much as a glance at the literal video evidence of the encounter.

You'll forgive me if I can't help but find such statements as exceptionally irresponsible tribalism.

>>12180
I have not heard that on the news yet. Link the story?

>>12177
Instead of "intolerance" we can say "has some preferences" and instead of extremists we might say
"opinionated."

State violence probably should be called something like peacekeeping or maintaining law and order.  Some individual violence the state may approve of as being aligned with their goals.

So we've only to worry about individual violence that goes against the state or is considered crime.  And some people who do this may have a right-wing political identity, I can't deny that.

>>12181
It's a rather old one at this point;


https://archive.is/XN9qZ

>>12183
I've been documenting politically motivated violence since 2020 and this is, I think, the only example I routinely see in regards to attacks specifically targeting members of far-right orgs. I'd be interested if there are any other examples you could provide?

>>12185
I don't tend to collect such things. This is one merely selected from memory, with a particularly agregious response at the time.
I think it does well to demonstrate the point here, showing the distinctive split of standards dependant on the perpetrator's political leanings, and the absurdity of claiming the right is "going hard on violence" whilst the left is implied to be a bastion of tolerance.

>>12188
Well I do collect such things and there is, I would charitably say, and imbalance in the number of politically-motivated killings done by left or right. There are several right-wing hate groups in the US with a leadership structure and some means of identifying their own members of a part of whatever group they are a part of. They also tend to be specific about their goals, beliefs, and the means to achieve those goals. What I'm seeing is that there are no equivalents in the left. There are no left-wing orgs with hate as a core tenet of their members or have any interest violence beyond self-defense. I've been very interested in why that is because I'm curious why the response to right-wing violence from leftists has been relatively passive. The killing of Aaron Danielson is the only case I can think of where someone who has identified themselves as a member of antifa has killed anyone, self-defense or otherwise. When I say the right is "going hard on violence", I mean that the amount of openly hateful right-wing orgs is pretty significant. It's not hard to see that none of these orgs do value tolerance and their organization in the first place is because they see tolerance as a threat to the US. I would hardly call the left a 'bastion of tolerance' myself, but when I am faced with people joining organizations dedicated to the erasure of certain kinds of people, there is hardly a choice in where I get to stand.

>>12192
Again, I'm left rather shocked by the absurdity of the statement.
Perhaps the issue is what we regard as "organization".
Personally I find little real distinction between structured groups and ones that forego hierarchy as much as possible.
I find little care if a group has membership cards or committees, as opposed to the actions and mannerisms displayed.

I find it absurd to say there's no left wing groups with an "interest violence beyond self-defense".
We've had decades of violence to rather resoundedly demonstrate otherwise. The so-called "summer of love" was chock full of violent attacks that had absolutely nothing to do with self defense, from far left groups. And all the while, where right wing politicians will condemn and decry such acts, the left deigned it appropriate to encourage it, directing mobs to further harass dissidents in their place of work, in their daily lives, as they eat meals, and so on. I'd hardly see such a standard as not hateful, and this is to say nothing of the racist homophobic sexist and so on responses I've seen coming from the left directed to those who happen to be a different race, desire to mate with one of their own gender, or belong to the female persuasion. You'd find fewer slurs directed from a KKK rally than that towards a black conservative.

But I'm starting to delve outside the subject;
The simple fact of the matter is, these right wing groups you refer to are few, small, and lack the backing of the right as a whole.
This cannot be said for those who engage in these acts on the left. The belief is echoed commonly, without reserve, and the actions taken uncondemned. They garner the support of their party, complete with legal funds, favorable coverage, and gentle treatment.
When you say "the right goes hard into violence", and I see the right nigh universally condemning it whilst the left praises it, I find struggle to grasp credulity.
We've not seen the right burn down businesses, attack people in the streets, destroy people's livelihoods, and have it claimed to be a mere protest, after all.

>>12192
>>12195

I think both sides produce about the same amount of violence, but it just manifests in different ways. You could probably go line-by-line, quantify it, and it would turn out to be about the same. But having said that, it's more complex than that because there isn't really a "right" or "left." There are people dropping in and out of politics all the time for various reasons. There are also apolitical people. Indeed, the political dynamic must be perfectly and nearly equally opposed at its highest-visibility points or it wouldn't be a political dynamic as we know it. Therefore, trying to figure out which side is more virtuous is fundamentally futile.

>>12195
If you think this is absurd, then I'll be happy to give some examples. I'm going to start by narrowing down what an organization can be and focus on one type, hate groups. Hate groups include organizations like KKK chapters, Aryan Nations, The American Nazi Party, Atomwaffen Division, Nationalist Social Club 131, The National Socialist Movement, Patriot Front, Patriot Prayer, The Base, The League of the South, Proud Boys, Goyim Defense League, etc. They specifically target peoples based on their identities, have some kind of organizational structure, and usually have central figure who serves as a spokesperson. I would like to know, why don't you find distinction between structured groups and ones that have no hierarchy?

In terms of left-wings groups that have committed criminal acts of violence then yes, there are groups that had organized in the late 60s and remained active until the 80s. Weather Underground was one of these, but they've long since dissolved. I'm trying to focus on groups that have newly organized after 2010 (The KKK obviously goes back a very long time, but there certainly have been new KKK groups formed since 2010).

I'm interested in why you think right wing politicians condemn violence and the left encourages it and I would like to see some examples if you can think of any. I'd also like to see examples of the hateful responses coming from the left, but if you don't have any, I'd like to hear more about you've experienced regardless.

I'm glad you pointed out how these right-wing groups lack the backing of the right as a whole, because I'm seeing this slowly change over time. I think it's becoming demonstrable that some of these groups are finding support from the Republican party. If you would prefer to say that the Republican party isn't representative of the entirety of the Right, I'd agree, but in terms of the power and influence wielded by the Right the Republican party, they represent more of the Right than anything else in the US.

I want to know for certain what you're referring to when you're pointing out the left for being united in speech, engaged in violent acts, and having the support of their party.

I've got an example of the Right praising violence right here from >>12183.
After Danielson was killed by Reinoehl, Reinhoel was shot and killed just six days later. Both of these shootings saw reactions from both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Biden's response to the killing of Danielson was, "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same."

Trump did indeed respond with a tweet, "Why aren’t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “Jay” Danielson. Do your job, and do it fast. Everybody knows who this thug is. No wonder Portland is going to hell! @TheJusticeDept @FBI"
and again, after Reinhol was killed, "Congratulations to the U.S. Marshals on a job well done in Portland. LAW & ORDER!"

I think it's worth looking at protests individually, especially since not every protest sees violence. It's worth looking at where there was violence and who exactly did that violence.

>>12199
I've been paying attention to politics for a while, and the general trend seems to be that right-wing groups have been organizing around hate ideologies since the early 2010s and only recently have left-wing groups been organizing as a counter to this, if it all. It's difficult to go through documented acts of violence and quantify it, but the approach I've been taking as looking at specific hate ideologies (anti-LGBT, antisemitic, racism) and the violence committed by groups that adhere to those. I want to know what you think it means to be an apolitical person, because I don't think there was ever a point in my own life where I wasn't being influenced by politics in some way.

>>12202
> would like to know, why don't you find distinction between structured groups and ones that have no hierarchy?
Because structure changes nothing of what's done.
When I'm lynched by a mob of people, it really makes no difference to me if they claim to be lead by a committee or simply organize amongst themselves.

To me, it rather feels like a cop out. An attempt to obfuscate, by claiming no responsibility due to no organization. When you've got a black bloc protecting the guy who was smashing someone over the head with a bike lock, crying no orders or leaders just strikes me as meaningless.

Whether run by a president or just word of mouth, the net result doesn't change, nor does the moral stain, as far as I see it.

>I'm interested in why you think right wing politicians condemn violence and the left encourages it
Because that is what consistently occurs.
The violence is either ignored, excused, or outright defended the majority of the time. The very rare cases where condemnation is given, it's done exceptionally light, often with a refusal to specifically condemn and instead speak to general "I condemn all violence" type fare.

As far as examples go, I think BLM makes for the easiest. Riot after riot, numerous people dead, people's livelihoods destroyed, streets looking like a warzone, and the reaction was to call it 'mostly peaceful', talk about justified anger, or blame it on law enforcement instead.

>I'm glad you pointed out how these right-wing groups lack the backing of the right as a whole, because I'm seeing this slowly change over time.
I would agree. Unfortunately, this is what inevitably happens when the rules are not applied evenly.
Watch any sports game. If the ref is shown to not care when one side fouls up, the other will respond in kind, even if they get cards thrown.
An eye for an eye is the foundation of justice. People want that equal treatment. And when they see others treated with kids gloves while they get the full force of the FBI, it makes them spiteful.

It isn't a good thing, as it's going to make politics a far more dangerous fare. We may well see a more European style of fare, where riots are a common place means of demonstration. And seeing as America is well armed, I don't see that ending well.
I'd rather standards enforced evenly, instead of encouraging spite and vigilanteism through uneven inaction.

>Both of these shootings saw reactions from both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Which rather pushes back to what I was saying before.
Biden's response to the cold blooded murder in ambush of someone on the right is to speak in general terms towards any violence, and go even further by deigning it appropriate to use it for political leverage towards his opposition.

Trump I would say rightly calls out the inaction of Portland's police department, in dealing with the assailant. Biden doesn't bother even calling for it. He doesn't so much as suggest justice should be had for what occurred.
This is why I say it's empty.
It's all just rhetoric, without any actual principle behind it.

I truly do not believe it makes any sense to engage with people like this. There is no point.

I think that the right ought to be doing more to oust the provocateurs, or be assumed to be acting in bad faith. There is no compromise to be made when things like this become a prevalent attitude.

>>12227
People like that picture there?
I can't say I mind overly much. It's a fairly mild thing. Sure, it's not going to convince anyone, but I don't think it's supposed to.
Rather, it's saying simply "I don't care about your outrage". Which, honestly, is reasonable.

We make the error of presuming our morals are the same across the board. That everyone thinks as we do. That everyone's beholden to the same standards as we prescribe, often not to ourselves but to the world around us.
Outrage doesn't convince anyone any more than this sign would.
At the end of the day, clutching pearls and acting as though someone's made a grave sin, regardless of what side you're on, is largely useless for convincing them to change.

>>12227

There is a lot to be said about a photo like this. It is almost iconic.

...the flag shirt guy in the background, the apparent caution tape keeping everyone in line... in the foreground, the subject wearing a Trump hat and gaudy sunglasses with excessive ear piercings smiling vainly into her phone, the (presumably) husband's lackadaisical stance, crooked smile, and churlish expression...

It's hard to tell if the woman is posing for the photo or if it was taken while she was interacting with someone else.

...the subject holds the poster, her and her husband, unironically and in the moment, the living embodiment of what it says and depicts.

Her "God, Guns, and Trump" sticker stands as a testament to what her religion is about... Firstly, the shirt folds make it appear to be a sticker (rather than a pin), indicating the cheapness of the words printed on it. Secondly, the association of God with guns (firstly, a weapon created to kill) before anything else would indicate to someone who knew nothing about her or her religion that her God is angry, violent, or to the non-philosophically-minded, to be feared. The association of these two things with Trump would, to such a person, indicate Trump may be a prophet, or perhaps a saint of her religion.

We're taken back to reality when we see the ripped plastic bag the subject is holding. ...the tear indicating the idiosyncratic nature of the times. Plastic bags tear easily; they are not meant to be kept for long.

Finally, is the item in the bottom-right corner of the photo some kind of fold-up chair? Like a fold-up chair, when these two people leave this Trump rally or event, they will fold up their political escapades and go back to their ordinary, somewhat broken, non-political lives.

...

What will they have gained?

>>12228

I suppose all we can say is that people appear like this because they don't know any better.

>>12234
I would say rather simply you're reading far, far too into minor items.
Such connections are strenuous at best, and certainly well beyond any benefit of doubt.

>I suppose all we can say is that people appear like this because they don't know any better.
Only if we presume your interpretation is the correct one, which I certainly don't think practicable.
As I said, the far simpler explanation is simple spiteful defiance to a moral hegemony that'd act as though she's evil for the things listed,  'god Trump &guns'.

It's eight decades after the rise of Hitler and the Nazis with the enactment of the Holocaust, and the United States (one of the key countries that militarily fought against the Nazi Empire) is still a country in which it's considered normal to the point of being routine and even uninteresting to hate your next door neighbor due to their ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation, race, and/or gender identity. And that hatred can even cross over into government-based or private coercion in order to hurt or even kill those victims. That's just as routine and expected as the weather.

I realize that the people in this chat and elsewhere online want to view this as "'left' versus 'right'", but the genuine separation that I see is between "those who support man's inhumanity to man" and "those who pray for a world without violence". I can't pretend that there's an ethical difference between firing somebody from their job for being Catholic versus for being Jewish versus for being bisexual versus for being Greek Orthodox versus for being deaf or whatever else. Let alone burning down somebody's house for said labels or such. It's a matter of fundamental moral values.

I don't think that wanting to enact pain on your fellow man due to your perceiving them as inferior to you is a matter of disagreement. I see it as a character failing. If you're like this, then you're a bad person making bad choices. You should stop that.

I don't have the mental wiring to think like most political people on this. Evil is evil. Crime is crime. Terror is terror. It's utterly and completely meaningless whether or not I'm white, personally, as to whether or not I care about coercive hurting done to somebody just for being white. Or for being Christian. Or for being an atheist. Or for being black.

Why? Why do Republicans only care about harm done to their own, narrowly defined communities with certain labels? Why don't the lives of other communities matter? Why are Democrats often the same as well?

Why do Americans have this pathological lack of empathy for humanity that makes them act more like androids from a piece of science fiction than regular people in the normal world? I want to know. Genuinely. I don't understand what occurs in the brains of somebody who doesn't have the ability to feel the suffering of others, to be frank.

>>12256
>is still a country in which it's considered normal to the point of being routine and even uninteresting to hate your next door neighbor due to their ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation, race, and/or gender identity.
Is it, though?
Or is this a presupposition people take, without actual cause?

These were universally hated behaviors for as long as I could think of. My childhood certainly had that expectation of treating everyone the same, regardless of who, what, where, or what they believe.
Wider culture likewise seemed to hold the same view. For a long time, calling someone a 'racist', a 'sexist', and so on, had extreme social power. It was enough to get people fired.
While these have dropped in strength recently, that doesn't seem to be because of a rise of hostility towards those who are different, but rather a rise in the abuse of such items to browbeat, berate, and socially ostracize those who've not actually done anything wrong.
Nonetheless, a healthy skepticism at the accusation doesn't mean the same thing as the behavior itself being "normal".

> can't pretend that there's an ethical difference between firing somebody from their job for being Catholic versus for being Jewish versus for being bisexual versus for being Greek Orthodox versus for being deaf or whatever else.
I would agree, and likewise extend that to political views. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is morally acceptable to fire someone for what they've said in their own time online, due to their personal beliefs, only when they are not religious. Or, I suppose for that matter, not a Western religion. As Christian beliefs do not seem to have the same level of protection as, say, Islamic beliefs, these days. But I digress. The point is, the same as religion, political views are largely consequences of upbringing.
I do not see why people ought be exiled, ostracized, and shunned for society for, ultimately, any belief. Beliefs, after all, are not actions. Whether expressed aloud or not.

>Why do Americans have this pathological lack of empathy for humanity that makes them act more like androids from a piece of science fiction than regular people in the normal world?
This, I can speak on, to a limited extent.
To begin with, it isn't an inherently American aspect.
But leaving this aside, empathy is nowhere near as common as we presume. There is evolutionary cause for this. Having care for those who are outside of your immediate is not conductive to survival, in practical terms.
Empathizing outside your immediate family is difficult, as a consequence. Empathizing beyond your local community is an exercise in very underuzed logic most are not capable of in a meaningful capacity. And, ultimately, the more differences you add, the worse it gets.

People are principled, mind you. Albeit weakly, as far as thought goes in to it. They will say "we ought treat everyone the same", they will say everyone deserves specific rights, everyone deserves justice, and so on. But these are all intellectual exercises in formula, not people.
When you attach this to actual people, actual actions, it oft falls apart. It's why people will walk past injured parties, doing nothing. Or worse, gawk and record, instead of helping.

As someone with a fondness for reptiles, alongside fictions about non-human entities, this is an unfortunate, painful aspect. A consistent thing in fiction with scales is cruelty to them, uncared by authors or the characters, with them treated as nothing more than monsters.
Real-world reptiles are not much better. Snakes, especially, have absolute hatred given to them, regularly. Unjustly, as the creatures are both harmless by large, and vital to dealing with far worse pests.
Still, many will see a snake and demand it be killed, for no other qualm than that it exists.
It's an unfortunate aspect that may doom the lot should we ever meet someone beyond our world.
I've some small hope. I've met some with such strength of empathy. And though they're uncommon, it's nice to know I'm not alone, per say. But I've no illusions towards the rest of humanity, and their capacity for such things, all the same.

>>12267
Empathy is most likely a learned skill heavily analogous to that of building up physical strength through exercise, eating right, and so on.

And just as like, sadly, living a life in poor health with no excerise, consuming a lot of drugs, never eating healthy foods, et cetera leads to hospitalization and early death often, disregard for empathy causes a kind of collapse in reasonable thinking and despair. I think we can both see that it's complex. Important and difficult.

>>12267
In what astonishing alternative reality are you living in which expressions of public bigotry are widely condemned or even "universally hated"? This is a fantasy as removed from facts as the world of Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker, to be frank. Or else maybe you're weirdly super-sheltered from the United States at large since childhood.

To pick just one example, former President Donald Trump publicly declared that the Prime Minister of Israel should go "f**k" himself and declared him and his fellow Israeli Jews as well as American Jews of immoral disloyalty to his administration, acting in the most antisemitic way possible in his accusations. And the response was almost nothing. He certainly didn't lose a single political supporter in the U.S. over that. If anything, he's gone on being the second most powerful man in the country, now, after current President Joe Biden. Odds are most likely he'll be President again very, very soon.

And the third most powerful man in America, the most likely next President (if it's not Trump again) and current Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis, has predicted his entire political agenda on naked bigotry, particularly him crusading against the evil campaign by LGBT people and other minorities to supposedly "groom" children. Neither him nor any of his supporters have had any job-related issues, as far as I can see. You can talk all you want about how the evil Jewish conspiracy and the evil homosexual conspiracy in charge of the media and U.S. financial institutions are seeking to eliminate white Christian civilization all you want in America, and you become a widely beloved millionaire with legions of fans here. Lost jobs? What lost jobs? Huh?

>>12284
>In what astonishing alternative reality are you living in which expressions of public bigotry are widely condemned or even "universally hated"?
I would ask the same to you.
Did you miss the many years now where such accusations would get you ousted from your employment?
Condemned by those around you, and functionally a leper as far as society is concerned?

>To pick just one example, former President Donald Trump publicly declared that the Prime Minister of Israel should go "f**k" himself and declared him and his fellow Israeli Jews as well as American Jews of immoral disloyalty to his administration, acting in the most antisemitic way possible in his accusations.
I would require the actual citation, then, because I find the claim suspect, especially given you start with a critique of an individual, a political figure, and leader of a nation.

It shouldn't need be said, but not supporting the Prime Minister of Israel is not antisemitism.
There's plenty of cause, after all, to do so. I can certainly understand the perspective, even assuming "should go fuck himself" was an actual quote.

> particularly him crusading against the evil campaign by LGBT people and other minorities to supposedly "groom" children
That would hold more water were it not for the mountain of evidence that unfortunately gives leeway to that perspective.
I can agree that the LGBT community as a whole is not to blame for the actions of a few particularly insane radicals, especially as they ultimately seem to just use LGBT as a shield without any actual concern for the real people it harms.
Nonetheless, though, the policies do not appear to be an example of "naked bigotry", especially as they are not so wide-encompassing as you seem to suggest.

>Lost jobs? What lost jobs? Huh?
As I said, due to the repeated misuse by, to be quite frank here, people as yourself, the accusations have lost significant weight.
Nonetheless, that was indeed the case for many years prior.
Trump, in many respects, was a rebellion against the type of thing.

When you cry wolf too many times, eventually people stop believing you.

>>12294
Since you actually buy seriously into the notion of evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children, well, I guess you'd probably be operating from such an insanely biased far right worldview that I suppose you've no connection to reality in the first place, and any attempt by me and everybody else get through the extremist brainwashing putting the ideological bubble around your head is futile.

My mistake for attempting to engage with you in the first place, then. See you later.

>>12296
You've clearly not bothered to read a single thing I've said, have you?

I've said nothing to suggest I "buy" "f evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children".
You've made that dishonest and hostile presumption off of, quite frankly, fuck all.

If you've not the decency nor the intellectual honesty to engage in the absolute bear minimum of responding to what others've actually said, instead of a complete fabricated fantasy in your own mind, I would implore you, hold your tongue.
You don't convince anyone by declaring them all to be evil monsters no matter what they say.
You only reveal your own demonstrable lack of personal character.