this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
597 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
6441 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

With Donald Trump’s 2024 election win, young Gen Z voters like Kate, Holly, and Rachel are grappling with deepening divides with their Trump-supporting parents.

For many, these conflicts go beyond policy disagreements, touching on core values and morality. Parents once focused on fiscal conservatism have, in some cases, embraced conspiracy theories, creating painful rifts.

Studies suggest political divisions are increasingly seen as moral judgments, fostering a “mega-identity” where political views signify personal decency.

For these young adults, maintaining family connections amidst such ideological fractures has become challenging.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Now you're just justifying the actions of abusers. Your speculated scenarios are as likely to be accurate as they are to be completely off the mark. Just like your assumption that the people cutting extremists out of their lives never put any effort into changing their beliefs.

You want people to make difficult decisions because they're the right thing to do, but you don't care to understand how or why these type of decisions are difficult to them. Because it harms you, it harms others. Well guess what, harm comes in different shapes and forms, often unnoticed and unchallenged.

The same exact words apply to your own argument. You might as well be saying, "Abusive parents deserve to be in their grandchildrens' lives because it's harmful to them to not be allowed to see their grandkids."

[–] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your problem is that you believe their actions aren't supposed to be justified. But that's the wrong approach. "Every action has consequences" is just bullshit on its own. The web of reaction is as old as the universe and us picking which action deserve a certain reaction is nothing more than personal whim.

We're flawed beings, all of us. I can't be right for every situation, but neither can you. And the difference between us is that I want to try and treat each individual as an individual. You may see this as excusing an abuser, I see it as fighting against abuse.

I won't protect everyone and i can't protect everyone, but just like any other kind of death row decision, it has to be earned. Each degree of punishment has to be fair. The chance for redemption has to be given. Punishment should be for the purpose of rehabilitation. And if we can't do it at an individual level, how can we expect it to be done for a better society.

Being just is hard work. And if you can't do it, why expect it of others?

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's not that I don't believe their actions are supposed to be justified - I don't believe that they are justifiable. They can try to justify them all they want, but that doesn't make them just, right, or reasonable when they support a man who has spent 8 years telling everybody exactly who he is and what he intends to do. It means that they either support him in his bigotry and intention to destroy American democracy, or at the very least, they find it acceptable enough to ignore it. The calls for state sanctioned violence against minorities aren't a bridge too far for these people. Nor are his calls for terrorism against minorities from his supporters.

I have a saying: There are conservatives, and there are Republicans, and these are not the same thing. I have watched Republicans since 9/11. I saw how the attacks on Jews tripled in the 24 hours after the towers fell, how the attacks on black people doubled, and how Muslim parents asked their kids if they wanted to change their names to something more American so they wouldn't get attacked at school. I have tried to reason with Republicans since I was 14 and had to hide my sexuality and pretend to fit in with cis straight white people. I saw how my former coworker voted for Trump the first time and became a staunch Democrat after seeing what he did. I watched as the racist jokes kids made on 4chan became their actual beliefs. I heard over and over again on live TV Republicans complain about how they were being censored when people reacted poorly to their publicly broadcasted hatred and bigotry.

Refusing to talk to people isn't censorship or a "death row decision," as you put it. It's the conclusion to decades of attempting to reason with these people. It's accepting the fact that they have shown that when the chips are down, they won't have your back and may even turn you over to SS themselves. This is about survival now. Cutting the people who voted the fascists in out of your life is harm reduction. When the new administration is openly calling for the genocide of people like you, wagging your finger at the people who voted him in as you're carted off to the camps isn't going to cut it.

There are people who can be saved, the young people especially, but Trump is a cult, and one thing about dealing with cultists is that after a certain point, 99% of them will double down rather than accept that they're wrong. Because to admit that they're wrong is to admit that everything they've done up to this point - everything that they've believed - wasn't justified.

So you can go ahead and wax poetic about the injustice of not talking to the men with rifles all you want. It sure as hell looks like self-defense from the other end of the gun here.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I get it. Your perspective is completely normal. But you're talking out of fear. While it's fine to take note of it and make plans in case of worse outcomes, allowing fear to take charge of your decisions will only cause you to fall deeper into it.

Most people don't know what you think they know. Take any family and you'll almost always find gaps in their shared facts. Our presence here on Lemmy is deceiving us in what is supposed to be common sense that is often not. But at the same time, the fediverse is a good example of how many topics and interests we don't share or know of at all.

And besides, if these gun wielding maniacs are so widespread, why would running away help? You'll just meet them everywhere you go. Makes no sense to trade the danger you know with others you don't. Call it survival, but it's really waltzing away with limited resources and knowledge into the great unknown.

Less fear, more reason. Or you'll just drive yourself crazy with worry.