Submitted by uzernaimed t3_yppwq0 in newhampshire
[deleted] t1_ivkx2yb wrote
Reply to comment by Funktron3000 in Who got your vote? by uzernaimed
[deleted]
Funktron3000 t1_ivkxbj5 wrote
He appeals to a large portion of republican voters because he’s such an awful candidate…that wasn’t an insult?
[deleted] t1_ivkxsug wrote
[deleted]
Funktron3000 t1_ivky751 wrote
I’m aware of a lot of bad actors involved with politics. Not saying it’s a 50/50 split but they exist on both sides. It seems like you’re not discussing in good faith. Even though we probably voted similarly, I think you’re part of the problem.
lMickNastyl t1_ivl7w1d wrote
I think the issue is that for years conservatives pushed hateful rhetoric and the left attempted to debate it in good faith; thus giving many unacceptable positions an air of legitimacy.
The emerging thinking on the left is that the time of going high when they go low is over. It's reckless to entertain politicians who say things like kitty litter in schools or the only chip going on me is a Dorito. There is no need to be tolerant of a person so clearly pushing conspiracy, hate and lies.
Funktron3000 t1_ivlm7bv wrote
Yeah, I certainly understand your point and the logic behind it. I don’t agree though, personally. There are strategies to deal with bad faith actors other than becoming a bad faith actor for the opposite side. But that’s just a matter of strategy and opinion. I’m going to stick with my morals no matter what others do. Thanks for the genuine response
lMickNastyl t1_ivlo8ow wrote
It's not bad faith to publicly shame actual bad faith actors, in fact it's what they need.
Though I do wish I had a magic wand to wave so we could all get back to being semi-reasonable with each other. At least then we can make progress even if we disagree on the way to do it.
I'd love for the Republicans to put up a strong and just candidate because then the democratic party is going to have to try hard again.
Funktron3000 t1_ivmhghb wrote
I think we agree more than we disagree. Things have definitely seemed crazy and hostile for the past several years.
The part that we disagree on is the public shaming aspect. It’s ok that we disagree by the way. In my view, the best bet is to shine the light on ignorance. There is no need to insult or demean. The ignorant parties will do that work for you. Acting hostile in response tends to breed and provoke more hostility.
This video is a good example of a style that I prefer. Notice the interviewers aren’t dicks at any point. They just ask questions and shine the light.
[deleted] t1_ivky95g wrote
It was pretty clearly an insult. I'm sure you know that the vast majority of people that disagree with you on politics are good people. They certainly aren't voting for people specifically because they think they're awful.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments