this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
251 points (95.3% liked)
science
19501 readers
1160 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get that people on lemmy are usually very political, and a big chunk of their lives orbit around politics.
But for most people that's not the case.
I think that's why I see so many comments of people shocked that someone would date other person who would vote for a different political party.
If politics is not a priority on your life it won't really have much an impact on their relationship.
Talking from experience, I've dated people that have voted both the right and the extreme right. And it really didn't burdened our relationship. You must understand that our conversations usually never pivot about politics, and when we talk about politics we don't get passionate about it it's just more like "you think that? Cool I think this other thing. So... what are eating today?"
I suppose in long term when you are all your life with a person overtime there can be frictions, specially if one or both become more passionate about politics.
This can ostensibly be true for stuff like what economic spending to prioritize, but once the country is deciding between fascist and non-fascist you can't really not have politics impact people's lives on a daily basis. If you live in a country where you don't have to decide whether the political party criminalizes marginalized groups that's all well and good, but it's not the reality for everyone.
I wrote another comment about this friend that votes for a political party that would make Trump look like a liberal. Still not an issue, because we are both very peaceful people and we are not very pushy, so really even if there are differences we don't try to hurt each other over those differences and we don't take it as an insult or something of extreme gravity. Because once again, not everyone is extremely political. Even if you think they should be because the current situation mandates doe more political activism or whatever, it doesn't mean that people are..
And second big reason is the reasons she has to vote for that party. She does it mostly in spite of the socialist party to bring them down because she thinks they are corrupt thieves (and as I said in the other comment sadly it has recently been proven to be right).
Also it's important to understand that your vision of an opposite political party is not the same vision that the voters of that party have of it. In this example, and I'm sure it applies to trump as well, I think vox is a fascist political party. But she does not, she doesn't think they are fascists and of course she doesn't think of herself as a fascist (neither do I). She doesn't vote it to stablish fascism. I remember saying to her that if they get elected they will cut right for women, she just doesn't believe that's going to happen, and that's it, different believes on what's going to happen if that party gets elected.
And I'm skeptical on my own knowledge of the future as well, before the current government was elected I said that the government wouldn't do some things or some other things won't happen, and those bad things ended up happening and I was wrong about those.
I think a big part of being open minded is knowing that yourself could be wrong, and being able to understand the reasons other people have to believe they are right. Not trying to make up those reasons for my own convenience. It would be easy, and politically convenient, to say that everyone who votes for vox (or trump in that case) is a fascist, but that statement would be closed minded and, probably, radicalized. People are complex, some would vote alt-right because they are fascists, but other would not. When engaging into any kind of relationship with anyone it's good to listen to the reasons they have for the things they believe in. If a person would be a fascist I wouldn't be friends of her, but that's not the same, imho, as voting for a party that I think is fascist.
Yeah, I get that not everyone has time, energy, or even intelligence to look into all the political positions of a party, but some cases are so blatant that it feels like the most extreme type of willful ignorance to discount everything. I don't know about your vox party, but like ok, the GOP has always been the party of hypocritical pieces of garbage, but maybe you never quite thought about how (for example) your single issue voting about fetus rights stopped immediately after birth, because fuck poor kids amirite? At least they've got the excuse that Faxist News paints every single person on welfare as lazy pieces of shit, and you don't look further into that because why would the news lie to you about how lazy all those welfare queens are?
Maybe the first term I could see how idiots could be hoodwinked, but anyone who voted for Dump 2 is either stupid as fuck (severe cases of cognitive dissonance can fall into this category as well), or a rich amoral piece of shit, and I don't think I'll ever be convinced otherwise. Christians ignore all his rape convictions (because dozens of women are all lying jezebel whores, right?), or the fact that he's never been seen at a church except for funerals or PR stunts (not that I think that going to church is moral, but they do). Poor people ignore the fact that he cheated countless blue collar contractors, was a slumlord, and hawked shit and sham products, all while shitting in gold toilets. Legal immigrants ignore his long and storied history of racism, and either don't know or don't care that he's never shown an ounce of support for anyone non-white.
So basically it comes down to his voters being evil or not interested in facts, and they may not be outright fascist themselves, but I don't really want either of those kinds of people in my life.
On the stupid front, for people not into politics they don't get the same amount of facts as you to judge things, because they don't care. So really there may not be that they are very stupid or willingly ignorant, os just, once again that politics does not play that big of a role in their lives.
And there is also a punishment vote. There is people who vote one party to punish other.
We tend to be more kind of the wrongs of our political option. But for some people they are unforgivable.
I suppose that some people would acknowledge that trump is bad, really bad, but for some reason they may think that Biden or the Democratic party is even worse.
Here that happens a lot and it's going to happen in the next election. It's not as much as people supporting one party, more like being really against the other party.
Once again, not American, and the places I frequent online are all left leaning. But I would really love to have calm conversations with some trump voters to really know and understand their reasoning. There's a big chance that not all of them are either blatantly stupid or blatantly evil.
I also like to do the exercise of putting myself in as much perspectives as possible. For instance for truly fascist I'm a dangerous communist that want to do a lot of nasty things. That's not true, so I always try to think if the things I think about other people may also not be true.
And how would most people on here characterise your political position?
You tell me. I can tell how I characterize myself.
I used to vote between the far left party and the moderate left party. And for the next election my plan is not vote because they disappointed me big time.
Giving more examples I have this friend, she votes for the alt-right party here (vox). But I get along with here very well. One instance of discrepancy is that while she is not homophobic (she knows I'm bi and she never said to me anything bad because of it) she is on the opinion that "gay people" is more promiscuous. Like she has some of these prejudices but she is not ill meaned, she is also Christian. But I don't think she is a bad person, and it's not like she is talking all the time about that or about politics in general. Most of the time when she talked about politics she just said that she was going to vote the alt-right because our current president is a thief. Which giving the current events in my country she might be right on that (big corruption scandal just blew up). But what I mean, is that she has some different opinions and when casting the ballot she votes for this radical party. But our relationship hasn't been hindered because of that, and she is not even a bad person, she just don't like the socialist party. And overall we don't really talk that much about politics, it's not a central theme for either of us, but even when we talk about it we have never argue, just talk differences calmly and with respect, we never insulted each other because politics.
This is a privilege you have that others do not.
If, for whatever reason, you were under the threat of violence every day, do you think you could be calm and rational? If that threatened violence against you hanging over your head was perpetuated by members of a political party, would you be calm and rational about that party? If this was because of something you couldn't change about yourself, like being queer or black or a woman, would you be calm and rational? Do you think everyone could? Do you think a child could?
I know I couldn't. I see these people breakdown over and over again. For something they did not choose. Sometimes for not being calm or rational.
It is silly to expect people to act calm and rational in the face of overwhelming prejudice, in the face of threats to your self, family, and friends, in the face of adversity--or worse, ennui--to your situation.
Let me steal an argument from a video I saw. Pretend you are having a party, and someone comes up to you and says that your friend Amanda should be kicked out of the party, that she doesn't deserve to be here, that she is drinking too much of your beer, and that if she goes, everyone can have more beer. You like Amanda because she is your friend and you know she is kind and funny. Let's say you calmly and rationally debate this guy, but he adamantly repeats these things, over and over again. Do you think Amanda feels good at this party? Should you keep debating this loser? Or would you kick him out of the party, by force if necessary, because Amanda did nothing wrong? Now imagine this person says this about ALL Amandas. Do you think this changes the situation? What if someone else told you that this guy just really hates Amandas but he's cool otherwise, even though he really harps on how Amandas are ruining this party. Do you think Amanda likes that second guy? Should Amanda be calm and rational to either of those two people?
Don't play the privilege card on my.
I'm LGBT and not only the "already accepted" letters, some of the not as widely accepted too. I can still be calm even knowing that the party I'm talking about will put me in danger. This other person doesn't want to put me in danger and she doesn't think voting for that party would put me in danger. We disagree in that and I respect her thoughts. I don't feel like cutting social connection over making assumptions that are not necessarily true.
As I said. I'm a very calm person, and in later years politics have been pivoting away from my thoughts, and I don't get as heated about them as I used to.
And, as I also said, I can be mistaken too. I do think this party will put me in danger. Imagine I cut ties with this person and that they get power (they will in two years top anyway giving current situation). And they truly do nothing that put me in danger. With which face could I look myself in the mirror after that? I prefer to be careful. I think they are dangerous, I will not vote for them. But I won't start bashing people that vote them for reasons that so not directly imply hurting me.
For instance this person doesn't even vote them for anything LGBT related. She vote for them mostly out of spite for the current socialist party (which I can see more clear that in some aspect she was right, they were stealing from us).
So giving this situation I really don't think I could hate this person. And I think many would be in similar positions.
I absolutely will. Because you are ignoring yours. Being a part of a disadvantaged group doesn't mean you don't have privilege elsewhere. In fact, sometimes, that is the reason why you might ignore your privilege.
You are able to be calm with your friend because you do not see there is a danger. People like your friend haven't hurt you. But would everyone else do the same? Your friend supports people that will hurt people like you, but do they think they can stop those people from hurting you?
I would rather lose a friend who didn't want me hurt but supported people who would hurt me because that is not a logical view, no matter how calmly it is spoken.
Once again, do not play the privilege card. Not on me, not on anyone. It's not a convincing argument, and it has not a real base. And it's somehow discriminatory towards particular groups that you do not consider "unprivileged enough".
As I say, I do think there is dangers with the party I consider fascist reach power. But my thoughts are irrelevant, I do mot judge people for my thoughts, I judge people for their thoughts. She doesn't think that, that's all that matter. And once again, it is very important that I do not think I have the absolute indiscutible truth in my power. I think that party is fascist and will hurt me. But I could be wrong. I like to act with measure. What happens if she ends up being right and in 2 years that party goes into power and do not do anything to hurt me? And I have to live my life knowing I cut a good relationship because something I was wrong about. Maybe some people can live with that, maybe some people can convince themselves that they are never wrong. I cannot. I won't vote to that party because what I think they may do, that's proportionate. I won't talk to a person that hate me because what I am, because there's no room for mistake there . But I don't think is adequa to cut a relationship because I think myself better knowing that the other person.
In this instance for instance 6 years ago I said her that I would vote socialist, she said to me that they will steal from me, I said they won't. Last week police report, big corruption case in the socialist party. I was wrong her was Right. And she didn't cut our relationship back then, and she is not cutting it right now. Why should I? We all are humans we all could be wrong, she could be right and vox may not discriminate against LGBT or she may be wrong and they will do it. The important thing to me is that she, her self, will not discriminate against LGBT (not too much at least, as I said she has some prejudices, she is conservative after all, it's not like she is super progressive and it's been voting to the alt-right by mistake, but they don't bother me that much, once again I'm very open minded, and their beliefs while conservative are more on the line of moderate conservative, a center right kind of thing).
You do you. I'm just explaining why many people, myself included, do not cut people out because their general political beliefs or the party they vote for. If you feel better doing it, be my guess, that's your decision.
That is a really weird and illogical argument.
That is a really weird and illogical hypothetical. Best answered with, "But what if they kill you instead?". We ALL have a line in the sand where if someone supports a thing, they cannot be our friend anymore. Like, if my friend started saying Nazi things, but was a "good guy" otherwise, they wouldn't be a good guy at all. I would give them a chance to not be a Nazi, and then we would either not be friends or they wouldn't be a Nazi. Everyone has that, regardless of what you say or think, and it is disgustingly easy to prove. I can prove it, if you'd like, but I feel like you have already lost this argument by ignoring the Amanda party.
The first part of my message was a reference to "Animal farm" the idea of "everyone is equal but some are more equal than others". We must be careful when trying to buil equality that we do not do it in a manner than "some are more equal that others". Disregarding people's opinions because "you are privileged " or "not unprivileged enough " is a way of doing that.
I would cut friendship with a nazi if they say nazi things. This is not the case.
If she would say "I hate homosexual I think we should chemically castrate them". I would cut ties. That's not the case. And cutting ties because you think that doing some other action is necessarily implying LGBTphobia seems faulty logic to me. Things have to be proven by themselves, and people deserve to be fairly judged by their words and their actions. She is kinds to LGBT people and doesn't seem to have hate towards us (only some lack of knowledge) so I won't label her as hateful towards LGBT.
I think there's some fundamental notions here. About different people having different realities and understanding of the world that surrounds us. And the importance of putting oneself on other people's eyes and trying to look from there. Our reality is not, the facto, the only true reality, not even the only correct reality. We may be right about some things, wrong about others. And we all see our perspective of things.
Not to say that everyone gets justified, there are bad people out there, of course. But we could not easily label good people as bad people without reason.
Specially not when it's just an action of political push. I won't be a tool in any politician hands. Because, let's get serious for a moment, we both know that this derives from the "Cut ties with anyone MAGA related" political movement that the Democratic party of the US is pushing for their own interest. I'm not only unwilling to bend to such political dogma, I do think is a bad long term strategic decision. As it will create hard to fix scars in their country, pushing towards a more violent and divided future. Because at the end it's more easy to shoot someone you hate (someone that you don't even see as a human being) that shooting a friend.
I do not think, or try, to convince anyone to my particular political wing with my friendship (same as it should not be expected that the threat of cutting ties will change anyone's political dogma). But I do think that if you are friends with some people, these people will have a harder time justifying bad actions towards you. Coming back to my example, my friends do not think the fascist party will prosecute homosexuals, but if they start doing soz I'm pretty sure she will oppose them, because she is friends with multiple homosexuals. If all homosexuals retire their friendship, she may not want to specifically hurt homosexuals, but she may lack any emotional connections to step towards defending them if she sees that they are being hurt.
You know, the Germans had a word for people that voted for Hitler for economic reasons. It was Nazi. It doesn't matter if you support people that want to forcibly de-transition people because they have a better economic policy.
In the end, if you don't support human rights, you're a bad person, and there are so many better people out there to be friends with who won't disappoint you. And the logic that stems from this thinking is: If someone votes for people who will take away others' rights... What will they do to me? If they won't protect others, they won't protect me. Regardless of if that is true, we can only judge people by their words and actions, and it's a really easy way to judge.
It isn't anyone's duty to be these people's friends. You can do it, but it's really obvious why most people wouldn't. It literally is a privilege to not be angry and threatened by these people. That wasn't a dismissal of your argument, but a point for you to reflect on.
Nazis were the members of the national socialist party, not it's voters. Also, while I don't like alt-right parties, I don't think they are at the level of the nazi party. Same as it is not true what they say about us being the CCCP.
Judging and trying to punish and discriminate people for their political beliefs is actually against human Rights. Quite a lot of articles in the declaration talk about this. Article 2, 18, 19, 21... It is as is really common for some people to try to suppress other people political beliefs and commit atrocities against them after dehumanizing them for their political thoughts... Who would have guessed!!
It's not my duty being their friend. It's my pleasure. As I enjoy their company.
And most people will do. Politically radicalized people tend to be a minority. Just look how many people doesn't even turn out to the cast a vote. Politics are not that important for many people. When you are inside it seems like it's the most important thing in the word and everyone number one priority. But the reality is that most people don't care that much about it, not even to cast a vote, much less to go doing political activism by cutting their friends and family out of their lives to conform with the agenda.
You know privilege or lack of is not a medal you get or that you can chose to have. Just for you to also meditate about, the fact that you feel extra fear and are willing to take more extreme measures about it says nothing about privilege status. I've read there are people in maga that are afraid that "white straight males" are in danger and prosecuted by the evil left wing, is every "white straight male" who doesn't think he is going to be executed by antifa privileged? I don't think so. Privilege, lack of, or how to get rid of it is a complex issue. You can have fear without privilege, you cannot have neither privilege nor fear and every combination you can think about. A woman that does not feel fear of rape walking alone in the street at night still not have the same privilege as a male walking at night on the same street. Even if the street is safe.
I do think my rights will take an impact for an alt-right government, same as it has happened in USA with trump. But not "public execution" level threat you are portraying here. Of course if we were truly talking about the all right shooting queer people and this person would keep voting them situation will be different. But that's not the reality I perceive with my senses.
Interesting discussion, I kind of understand both of your stances.
One stance is driven by fear of the slippery slope and the frog not noticing being boiled until it's too late. The fear of normalizing fascist parties and views until they dominate, which is a fully rational fear given existing history.
The other stance is driven by fear of ever increasing polarization and hostility, which is another slippery slope, to fragmentation of society into parts that live in different realities, inability to agree on almost anything, causing alienation and opposition, leading to stagnation and possibly violence, when the other side is so abstract they cannot be emphasized with anymore. That again is also a fully rational fear to have, watching what happens in societies in the last years.
I don't even know who of you is more "right", if that notion even applies. Truth is, nobody will know until we see the consequences. In hindsight (a pretty privileged vantage point) many wrong decisions look obvious.
That said, if you care about your friends and think they really do value you and your opinions and truly have no general prejudices (and you are not some "exception from the rule" to them), you maybe should try to understand what makes them vote the way they do and explain how this could have bad long term consequences on you and whether they would want that or find taking that risk acceptable.
Because, if they truly are your friends and have something called empathy and heart, they might reconsider, and otherwise, maybe they are not really your friends and would drop you the moment you become outlawed.
I don't know your friends, but I hope you do.
In a different system where you've got multiple parties and there's the "20% of GDP goes to welfare, we're meh on cannabis, duh on gay rights, our top priority is unions and workers rights and our second priority is environmental protection" party and there's the "25% GDP to welfare, we're meh on unions and workers rights, duh on the environment, top priority is gay rights and second priority is education" a couple made of one member of each of those two parties will probably work, because those two parties likely unite against the "20% of GDP goes to kicking the poor in the stomach, we're death to the environment and death to workers, our top priority is making the rich richer and our second priority is war in the middle east" party.
In the American system, which is quickly devolving into two religions whose core tenets are to hate each other as obnoxiously as possible, I just have to wonder where you even met? At what trans-ally klan rally did that meet cute take place?