Naw, I’ll judge people based on a person to person basis and not just use generalized lazy ass blanket judgement on anyone whom isnt in my social/political/religious group. Stop adding to the problem.
I’d agree that your reasoning makes sense but is reductionist when talking about America’s two party system.
I grew up in a conservative town and I personally knew lots of people that were truly, deeply compassionate people. Christian in the truly radical, hippy sense of the word. Except they had one issue, abortion made them sad.
It wasn’t any ignorance of the issue or believing in satanic baby eating, but a philosophy arbitrarily picked by their community. They didn’t hate anyone getting an abortion, they just had some utopian vision of a world where they didn’t happen.
Since abortions were framed as murder and one party promised to ban abortions and the other party expand access, they were told there was only one ethical choice.
So their one line of thought trapped them. I could argue up and down the ballot on issues they agreed with, how the economy should be handled, prison reform, etc… but that one stupid idea held them back.
They’re still good people, and voted 3rd party a few times when the mood struck them. But I don’t think wanting one bad policy (with the best intentions) makes them bad people.
So I’d say yes. In that instance, with those people, it’s generalizing to say they were on board with any of the hateful policies. They were held hostage by their single issue, and the right’s rhetoric made damn sure they could never wriggle out.
Naw, I’ll judge people based on a person to person basis and not just use generalized lazy ass blanket judgement on anyone whom isnt in my social/political/religious group. Stop adding to the problem.
On a person-to-person basis, I judge every person who voted for Trump because they voted for a fascist.
Just repeating a narrative does not make it true.
What narrative do you believe I’m repeating?
Sure, but Trump voters aren’t a lazy generalization.
“I want X bad thing to happen”
“Hey, this guy wants X to happen. That’s bad.”
“STOP GENERALIZING!!1!”
I’d agree that your reasoning makes sense but is reductionist when talking about America’s two party system.
I grew up in a conservative town and I personally knew lots of people that were truly, deeply compassionate people. Christian in the truly radical, hippy sense of the word. Except they had one issue, abortion made them sad.
It wasn’t any ignorance of the issue or believing in satanic baby eating, but a philosophy arbitrarily picked by their community. They didn’t hate anyone getting an abortion, they just had some utopian vision of a world where they didn’t happen.
Since abortions were framed as murder and one party promised to ban abortions and the other party expand access, they were told there was only one ethical choice.
So their one line of thought trapped them. I could argue up and down the ballot on issues they agreed with, how the economy should be handled, prison reform, etc… but that one stupid idea held them back.
They’re still good people, and voted 3rd party a few times when the mood struck them. But I don’t think wanting one bad policy (with the best intentions) makes them bad people.
So I’d say yes. In that instance, with those people, it’s generalizing to say they were on board with any of the hateful policies. They were held hostage by their single issue, and the right’s rhetoric made damn sure they could never wriggle out.
You’re doing it again brother. Its best to try and relax.
Pretending everything is fine is not a good strategy.
You want people to relax while we’re in the beginning of a fascist takeover of our country?