"Let's agree to disagree" is usual the final "argument" of someone who ran out of real arguments or didn't have any in the first place. Often in combination with "You have better rhetoric skills than me so I can't win this debate but that doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong"
Meh. Agree to disagree on this one. I do agree that a sort of “live and let live” mentality maybe doesn’t apply well to an issue like wether all humans have basic rights for example. Often disagreement comes from a difference in morality or values. That said- for the most part we live in a world of people with moral and value differences ranging from slight to extreme across a broad range of issues. So we surely can live along side those with some differences in values or morals unless one advocates a world where we force everyone to share our values or exterminate those who don’t. Even if we isolate those with different values that is a form of “live and let live” or “agree to disagree.” The American Vivian war and ensuing civil rights issues- had america said “screw you and your messy values the south. We want nothing to do with you!” I mean… that’s literally what the confederacy was fighting for. They wanted to be left alone to do their thing separate from America- so we had to…
.. smack them so hard they still whine about it a century later, or not just allow but facilitate a disgusting abuse of human rights and basic morality. Of course- morals are subjective and prone to change- the morals of Ancient Greece are not those of modern Korea or Canada at large. So there are times where the hammer needs to drop, but there are times where we do have to say: “agree to disagree” even when it comes to morals and principles. Is it the worlds right to go tell Iran and Iranian women how to live or dress? If an Iranian expat wants to wear full covering or any other woman- whose job is it to decide for them that they don’t really want that but are “conditioned” etc? It can be a sticky wicket.
I’ve known people who will not give you the time of day, may not even consider you as a human being if you say anything that they perceive as offensive or adversarial to some group they belong to or support. In the USA and other places there are people who won’t give you the time of day, might not stop to pee on your mouth to help put your teeth out if they were on fire, just because of your registered political party. I’ve also known people who have deep beliefs and morals and support certain groups or disapprove others but they have relations and even close friendships with people who are dramatically opposed to their stances.
One thing that especially I saw during the first Trump circus was a loss of empathy. A conceit by many that in a two party system, support or rejection of one candidate was a sign of extremism. I would say it was especially true for those who opposed Trump on moral grounds. I’d have to say I saw and still see a wide and deep poop of people who would automatically label someone a racist or terrible person if they voted for that “man,” but, that completely ignores the humanity of the person behind the vote. Well the “man” himself is a mouth piece of ignorance and bigotry, and he does have many who support him from those points, he also represented various economic and other policies that could appeal to people.
Look- I support trans rights, non binary, LGBTQ+, I support inclusive language and working on social issues and trying to polish out bias language and educate people on “micro aggressions” and ways that society builds disparity. I support a world that accepts and includes more types of people and where people don’t fear losing their livelihoods or their lives and family for being “different” than some idea of “the average.” That said- I wish more people understood that most people are most concerned with practical things that impact them. Most people above all want a government that is going to make sure, or make them feel sure, that they will have a job, they can have a place to live and afford groceries and to raise kids and not be afraid of foreign powers and influence.
The progressives and even the centrists face a global challenge because they tend to campaign and administer on worthy and important causes, but ones that generally are not the practical concern of most voters.
Think of it this way- if you have a country in poverty where crime and violence concern people- if you were supposed to improve that country, would you likely start by making sure to remove gendered language from all the schools and laws, or would you perhaps try to stabilize the economy or enact regulations to protect people from exploitation or create jobs or mitigate crime? The fact is the president does alot and does very little. Many things we look at a president for art largely state or local, or they are not instigated or moved along by a president, sometimes the president isn’t even involved in the decision. As a figure head though a president does influence the culture of government and moral of the people. They signal the mood of the nation and are one of the major players in our relationships with other countries.
So to be clear I am not saying progressives are making mistakes by advocating for rights and considerations and such, but that by making a flag pole out of a very passionate base at the expense of essentially engine who’s primary concern in life isn’t social issues, they are in danger of giving away the votes that allow more moderate or progressive heads to have a hand in shaping things. You can campaign on the economy and work on the economy AND still work in support of social rights. These groups and supporters can still work for social change inside and outside the political system. They can still use media and public awareness to be heard and change the way people feel so that when laws hit the ballot there are voters who support them too, and when elections come perhaps more people have positive feelings about those issues.
But there isn’t “one democrat” or “one Republican.” There isn’t “one type of trump supporter” or “one Biden supporter.” The WAY we process and express values can differ. Two people can share a high value of loyalty, they can both share a fundamental value of family first, and yet they can be on opposite sides of a vote because they see the issues and the specifics differently.
I see inclusion as a family value- supporting families of all shapes and types and sizes and em creating a culture where family love and acceptance isn’t conditional on some arbitrary conformity. Of course, some see certain types of inclusion as harmful to families. Now- on a fundamental level most of the time that boils down to essentially wishing a certain type of person didn’t exist. That’s pretty messed up.
HOWEVER- most people don’t actually understand themselves or their beliefs that deeply. I mean- when you examine things like relationships and love or marriage or sex or all sorts of social norms and practices that are common- when you look REAL closely they can get all kinds of gross and disturbing. So most of us don’t think too hard on it. Look- you know your parents or your kids have or have had or will have sex. You probably have or have or will have too. Statistically you probably like some aspect of it in some way. But like… do you want to think about or know or witness your parents turn ons? That little trick your kid does in bed to drive their partners wild or whatever else? That’s an obvious example but it goes DEEPER. I’ll stop there. Puzzle things out or don’t. Point is, most people aren’t that deeply considering things. They just are reacting on instinct or pragmatism as they see fit.
So the thing here is- you probably know a racist, a bigot, etc. you probably are friends with them. There are good odds you’re close to someone who if not legally a sex offender, has done at least one thing that could legally have made them a sex offender. You probably work with people and have clients or patrons who have done or believe things that you’d find repugnant. So there is an element of hypocrisy when people try to play that “judge them by the company they keep” card. Plenty of service men and women are murderers. Not killers- they killed someone who posed no direct threat to them, possibly no direct threat to anyone at that moment. Preemptive killing or presumptive killing or collateral damage.
A killing justified only on the grounds of assumed intent or an order to do so.
Would you be friends with a killer? A murderer? The thing about war is that all that has to happen for you to not kill someone is to not be there. Unless war erupts around you while you are minding..
.. your own business- you didn’t have to be there so wether someone may have been a future threat or a threat now or to someone else are irrelevant because all the way over there they wouldn’t have been a threat to you or one you were compelled to act on with deadly force of you just weren’t there. To be clear- I’m not condemning anyone here. Sometimes we kill people, if it needed to happen it happened. If it happened it happened. You’re alive. They’re dead. You can reconcile it any way you want.
My point is that if we take this absolutism of moral compatibility- most of us have people in our lives who probably don’t “fit” our supposed morals. We are also of course involved with lord of people that we don’t know what their morals are on certain things at all and were it never to come up, as many things seldom do unless we specifically seek to discuss some moral debate- we’d get along just fine. It’s only once we find out they hold this one view or such that suddenly we can’t be cool.
It’s tricky. I want to be clear- a line exists somewhere. The game isn’t about wether you have morals that are the same, it’s about how much you need a person to think like you in order to be a certain level of close to them. At the end of the day- these big moral battles often don’t matter. If someone tells me they think octopi are stupid lazy creatures the world would be better without- they’re obviously wrong and dumb, but if they are otherwise cool and they aren’t out there killing or hurting octopi, it isn’t really an issue. In my daily life I deal very little with octopi and usually they are cooked when I do. We can have meaningful and fulfilling interactions involving anything but octopi, and if they are at least able to tolerate octopi, then I don’t even have to avoid the ocean or aquarium around them. They’ll never convince me octopi aren’t awesome and smart and cute, or at least that they don’t deserve to exist, but maybe they’ll grow a little less ignorant of octopi..
.. but even if they don’t- it isn’t like they are going to extinct the species themselves or that they are likely to do it in some group they form, unless they literally form a group and actively try to wipe out octopi.
Talk is cheap. People say stupid sh&t and people are often stupid. It is what it is but if you just ignore bigots they don’t go away, they flourish in the dark like fungus or mold. Unless you plan to kill all the people who don’t agree with you, you gotta learn to live with them at some point.
The progressives and even the centrists face a global challenge because they tend to campaign and administer on worthy and important causes, but ones that generally are not the practical concern of most voters.
I see inclusion as a family value- supporting families of all shapes and types and sizes and em creating a culture where family love and acceptance isn’t conditional on some arbitrary conformity. Of course, some see certain types of inclusion as harmful to families. Now- on a fundamental level most of the time that boils down to essentially wishing a certain type of person didn’t exist. That’s pretty messed up.
A killing justified only on the grounds of assumed intent or an order to do so.
Would you be friends with a killer? A murderer? The thing about war is that all that has to happen for you to not kill someone is to not be there. Unless war erupts around you while you are minding..
My point is that if we take this absolutism of moral compatibility- most of us have people in our lives who probably don’t “fit” our supposed morals. We are also of course involved with lord of people that we don’t know what their morals are on certain things at all and were it never to come up, as many things seldom do unless we specifically seek to discuss some moral debate- we’d get along just fine. It’s only once we find out they hold this one view or such that suddenly we can’t be cool.
Talk is cheap. People say stupid sh&t and people are often stupid. It is what it is but if you just ignore bigots they don’t go away, they flourish in the dark like fungus or mold. Unless you plan to kill all the people who don’t agree with you, you gotta learn to live with them at some point.