• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    The issue I have with stances like this is that, well, politics are not inconsequential. Its not like being on different sides of a game, where everyone is equally in the right and one side winning or losing changes little. The consequences to political policy are far reaching, nuanced, and can literally be life and death to some, even if the policy seems boring or inconsequential. Some stances therefore are going to seem so heinous to someone with an opposing stance that there really cant simply be an “agree to disagree”, its more a “we work together on this, or we work against eachother”. And if youre working against someone in a matter that can be life and death, that someone is almost definitionally your enemy, regardless of genetic similarity. Humans only have so much capacity in their lives for close relationships with other people. If you cant stand someone, it therefore makes sense to use that capacity to maintain ties with someone you do get along with. Being born around a certain person is not an obligation to stay with them.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      2 months ago

      I did not say “agree to disagree”. Quite the contrary. Read my post again. Serious issues can be calmly discussed and families not need to be broken.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m sorry but when the “serious issues” are whether or not some of my best friends have a right to exist, there will be no calm discussions.

      • Infinite@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Congrats on not being raised by a narcissist.

        Calm discussions are for people that share a reality.