This pretty much sums up life in america these days. Nothing but extremist fanatics on both sides, it is so sad :(
@freemo That's honestly one of the dumb things about a country only having two mayor political parties
@Saederup92 The thing is, america DOESNT have two major political parties. They always vote, mostly, for two major parties, but there is literally nothing giving those two parties an advantage.
@freemo Which is why it's one of the reasons why American politics is bullshit
@freemo The statement "America doesn't have two major political parties" is demonstrably false. The structure of American government is setup presently and historically as a two-party system. If you're interested in why countries with free elections evolve toward the two-party system I would suggest you check out Duverger's law. And saying that there is nothing giving those two parties an advantage is equally false. Campaign finance laws and corporate lobbying alone. I am not trying to be combative, I just don't want misinformation being spread around if I can prevent. Are you, perhaps, trying to say something else?
Agreed. Prime examples in my family on both sides. I just sit back and munch the popcorn.
@RickBrandon I have some friends who don't fit this meme, but the vast majority of Americans fit the bill.
Not in my experience. Normal persons spot fascists. That's how we came to define normality (civility) in the XX century. Most importantly normal persons, in normal situations, know their interlocutor: they are no strangers, they can see beyond their words and they can tell genuine questions from alibis. There's no extremism in defending human rights, while the causes of opposing them are well known (the call for cooperation demands a leap of faith in your neighbors' help against your fears, and that's hard; the call for respect demands the sacrifice of affinities, conventions, traditions, whims, vulnerability, comfort zone, and that's hard).
This conflict arises from thus hardness of the challenge against violence (the shock we endured after WW2); it is so unfair and so wrong to make it just a matter of difference in opinions.
Inside ourselves are not only strong, inalienable opinions and preferences; there's most importantly something volatile and delicate we've crafted as a species for hundreds of thousands of years: a meaning to give to our existence, the reason to wake up in the morning, to keep working during the day, to take care of our health. It's something that didn't exist in nature, and it takes a lot to keep it being, because the mindless cosmos will always threaten it. This thing inside ourself needs to be nurtured, it needs to be addressed, it needs to change and evolve because it's not strong, it will never be stable and self-sufficient, it can never be inalienable, because it is not an opinion, it is not individual: it's our communal duty against the universe that doesn't want us. It's life. Either you accept it and fight, or you side with the storm and eventually pass.
(nice meme, tho :-P)
@fra Let me guess, you think half of this meme is true and applies to the one extreme while the other half of the meme doesnt apply, I;m a;so going to venture a guess and say the half you feel that doesnt apply is the half of te spectrum which you happen to be on?
When I visit america I see this meme play out in the most absurd ways a dozen times a day among strangers, among friends I'd never let people like this into that circle in the first place so....
That's exactly what I tried to say. Half of this meme is wrong, the half I'm in, for the reasons exposed.
Actually...one half and a bit: the normal person butterfly is on the fair side too 😋
@fra lol, funny how that works huh? Usually when people, particularly americans, join an ideological group they quickly become blind to that groups faults, even as said group descends into cruelty to others.
It is a sad phenomenon but one that has been documented time and time again. It is the root of all human ugliness really.
Dont get me wrong people on both sides are well intentioned, they are comvinced they are working for good, which is a small glimmer of hope I suppose, for all their cruelty that comes from it though Im not sure it is much of a comfort.
In all my years of hearing the left cry about some guy they just met (in person) being a racist or a facist I cant recall a single time there was even a hint of truth to that.
Well, it depends on how (and how much better than me or anybody else) you can detect hints of truth. I was assuming (for the sake of argument, since we don't know each other) that both of us are just as much capable of skepticism and fact-checking.
How can you tell that a person who's willing to discriminate other people is not really a racist/fascist? How can you tell that a leftist who complains about them is lying? I can't, and I don't think you can, but I'm open to surprises.
@fra well I make no assertion about you or your ability to see truth. For that I'd have to see how you treat others over time. I can however speak for the left and the right in america, and neither of them can, at least, not the overwhelming majority of them. Where you fall isnt particularly critical for the discussion I suppose.
You're assuming that being opinionated or being an activist is a cause for (or a consequence of) "joining an ideology". I don't think they are.
I agree with you that the moment you "join" anything you submit yourself to certain social mechanisms, since you are engaging in a group activity and you have to comply to a certain degree of conformity.
That's very different from just "being leftist/liberal", therefore that meme doesn't fully apply, not under those terms. It was funny as a simplification. But we tend to rely too much on simplifications. Better explain them every time we can.
@fra I never claimed or even hinted that being an activist or joining a cause meant "joining an ideology".
I'd really like to hear stories about "leftist" extremists and their exaggerations and disrespectful acts: since they're on my side, I'm interested in addressing this violent acts and try to put and end to them. As I told you, I have not experienced them, so I need help in this.
@fra Since we are talking about how individuals tend to act towards othersm I'd be unable to give you examples since I do not know you in person. It may be the region you live in doesnt have thi problem like all the other areas of America I've visited.
Its also possible that it runs rampant around you and you are just blind to it. I cant say since I dont know you personally
Again it is as possible for me as it is for anyone else. No one is immune, but then again anyone can address the issue and try to mend it. You tried, I can try just as much. Try to assume I'm privileged enough to share the same perspective that you have. If I'm not, your arguments will see my bluff. No need to appeal to prejudices, when one's confident enough.
I'd also like someone to point out what I got wrong in my long toot.
@fra Well sure "there is no extremism in defending human rights".. well there is if you arent actually defending human rights but instead perceive of a human rights violation that doesnt exist and is clearly absurd on the surface, but pursue it as a human rights violation anyway. In other words if you view rational discussion as a humans right violation and start screaming someone is racist because they ate a taco or some other absurdity, then yes, thats extremism.
That fact that you think extremism of such form can never exist because it is done so on the back drop of human rights is a rather concerning gap in your logic.
Human rights are not "feelings", you can't "perceive" a violation. They are well defined on the basis of facts (historical and verifiable) and ratified by the law. Violations can be detected just as any other crime can be, i.e. on the basis of facts, never feelings. Reasonable doubts will be explored in debate (or in court), but in the meanwhile facts stay facts. You don't perceive them: you find them.
You said you couldn't give me examples from your experience, but here you are telling me that you've met extremists yelling at tacos.
"Such form" was in your example, not in my reasoning, therefore that gap is not in my logic.
@fra No no no i can give you plenty of examples from my expiernce. What I said is I cant give you examples of individual that would be relevant to the situation since we dont know eachother, so we have no shared expiernces I can call on.
If you want examples I personally expiernced (and you would just have to trust I was being honest) I can certainly do that. I'm just not sure how helpful it would be.
One example was a video where some women of unknown race was being verbally mean to a black person. The dission I saw go down at the bar was that one person said that he didnt know if the woman was being racist or not since he didnt know what motivated her verbal outburst since the first part of the video was missing. He went on to exclaim that the black person may have done something to provoke it, the context wasnt there.
At that point the liberal in the group got extremely angry and starting yelling about how he was a racist too just for holding that opinion, started making violent threats, ultimately things got pretty ugly.
Thats one of the most recent examples I could think of.
@fra of course you can. You have no or limited evidence of a humans right violation. You then need to draw a conclusion from that as to if there is in fact one or not. You are influenced by your feelings in making that determination (well most people are anyway). In the end how much of your decision is emotionally distorted vs real varies greatly depending on the person.
This is true of any fact.
@fra By the way to be clear I am NOT accusing you of being one of those extremists. Not everyone (only most) on the left or right are extremists. The ones that arent just happen to be blind to it on their side is all.
I'm challenging your claim on the word "most", on either sides.
@freemo I assume you're knowledgeable enough to know making brash and broad generalizations about complex systems in something as reductive as a meme so you must have posted this because you thought it was funny. It is, superficially of course. However, I'm often suspicious of these types of memes and behaviors as they're indicative of a troll with no articulate axe to grind; it's rampant on most social media platforms. So I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to bait. The right side of this picture is nothing but a string of ad hominem vitriol unworthy of attention. The left side, however, displays two very egregious problems coming under increased scrutiny in the past 10 or so years. It is not "extremist" to address racism and homophobia. You may not know the extent that word gets bandied about in America and the connotations that it has accreted but it is an inflammatory one meant to fearmonger and distract. And I don't even know if I want to go down the rabbit hole of what is meant by "normal person." But I will say that what is meant by "normal" is nearly meaningless to scientist. I suppose I should now ask: Did you have a specific goal in mind when you posted this meme or was it just something meant to be innocuous?
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.