IMO in all actuality the best course of action is somewhere in the middle.

As a sidenote I realize Biden made that garbage comment which came across to me as a misconstrued sentence that is common with Biden's speech impediment. But even if not, Trump has said a lot of terrible things about left leaning people like myself. Is your standard as equivically disdainful of Trump's comments, and if not, why not?

I guess I just find it wild you're appealing to civil discourse when the winner of this election does very little civil discourse, by his own admission.

- Group "watercooler" discussions at work where people parrot vilifying language that targets groups I identify with (I do work at a _very_ left-leaning workplace)

- Community events that I have participated in, where people were not necessarily attacking me personally, but were hurling insults at our group

- The media. This one is fairly self-documenting.

As I mentioned in another reply, since I fall in the middle, I often get negative rhetoric from both sides. But only one has stooped to the levels of vitriol that have often left me shocked (for example, that I should forcibly have my genitals removed so as to prevent procreation).

like how he said he wishes he had Hitler's generals so he could just have democrats or others who disagree with him executed

> And for clarity, yes, both sides participate in this charade of incivilities

Although I'm unaware of him asking for Hitler's generals so he could execute democrats, but I'm also not interested in participating in this back-and-forth exchange, as I dislike both administrations.

> He's looking for obedience. This is the thing that shocks him about American generals and continues to shock him, is that they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the president. That's what he's looking for, personal loyalty. And we know that from many other discussions we have heard around him.

My original comment was simply a personal observation that, in this election season, I received far more abuse from one side over the other, and that I was sad to see this same disdain continue here in HN. You may have had a completely different experience, and that's perfectly OK, but I'm honestly confused at the goal with you questioning me about a comment Trump made.

> just curious if you think that the rhetoric from trump and his followers is not only hurtful, but also incredibly violent.

It was *exactly* at this moment that the old tactics resurfaced.

Instead of just saying "Yes, you're right", a counterfact was brought up to refute OP's original premise. This tactic laid bare how such a conversation like this would end up: With either side just saying "but X said this!", whilst no common ground is established.

chicagobuss was not seeking to establish common ground, instead the goal was to construct a fight & win it.

-----

> We’re so close to understanding each other here. People have validated your experience, and then said hey, we feel it too. Yet when they try to have the same conversation and seek validation of their own experience, you decide that’s the time to shut the conversation down.

Because there was no attempt in a genuine exploration of the original premise.

The *moment* that aliasxneo tried to break down where the insults came from, instead of examining why the sources were engaging in such rhetoric, chicagobuss barged in with a "but X said this!", and proceeded to engage in a fight instead of an examination of the original premise.

The original premise still remains unexamined: Why these circles felt that they could engage in the same tactics as who they hate & not feel repercussions from doing so.

I added that sentence with the express purpose of acknowledging both sides have participated in harsh rhetoric, but that for me as an independent, it came far more from one side than the other.

I was getting dragged into an argument I wasn't interested in pursuing since I had already addressed this perspective (and even explicitly re-quoted it). The commenter's insistence on continuing is what perplexed me, and I don't think my follow-up inquiry was shutting down the conversation.

Thanks for reiterating that clarification, it kinda got lost on me in the chain of replies. FWIW, I agree with you about the state of discourse today and also feel the heat from both sides (check my comment history to see where I’m coming from) although I’ve been spared any direct vilification of that sort, but I’ve definitely felt my radar spike when listening to nearby conversation in past workspaces.

My best guess is that someone sees the worst rhetoric from “the other side” somewhere on social media and imputes that onto everyone they perceive as being on that side. Then they break after being exposed to too much of it, and lash back out with something equally reprehensible. Then someone on the other side sees that. Repeat ad nauseum…

I’m sorry to hear anyone would seriously suggest forced castration on you, that is just absurdly despicable. I don’t know how this country can rebound from this. Not even one but both or all “sides” have to be vulnerable with the others to apologize and commit to behaving more respectfully. It sounds comical to even suggest that is possible given the litany of things I’ve seen and heard over the last 30 years.

I’m wracking my brain to figure out how I can personally make a difference. Because what Democrats and liberals and those on the far left are doing ain’t working. I say that as a Democratic party voter, albeit one that has to hold their nose too often. Do Republicans have to hold their nose when they vote for Trump, or are they actually voting with joy? If so, color me envious.

Most of my disgust is reserved for the spirit that produces this vitriol we see all over the political landscape. Or, using Dawkins' language (yes, a genuine Christian independent quoting Richard Dawkins), this meme that is infecting the culture at large. It's a plague and I'm always saddened when I see it rear its head, especially here on HN.

I'm not smart enough to have it all figured out, but I've found the most meaningful work I've been able to do is in small communities where face-to-face is the priority. It's why I really prize community work. We're all here, from different backgrounds, working entirely for free, but for a cause we all deeply care about. I've had some amazing conversations during these times.

Anyways, I appreciate your genuine response. I can tell you care deeply, and I encourage you not to lose hope.

I would be happy for someone to provide more evidence, as I gave up after 10-15 minutes.

Clinton: "Basket of deplorables".

Biden: "Garbage".

HN, all over this thread: "How could people be so stupid?"

In the Democratic Party, there's a long, deep thread of contempt for everyone who doesn't agree. They're supposed to be the party that represents the little guy, but if you're a little guy who thinks abortion is morally wrong, or who doesn't think gay marriage is a good idea, or who doesn't think trans women should be in womens' sports or womens' restrooms, then they don't represent you, and they aren't going to. Instead, they view you as a moral leper, whose only proper action is to repent, and whose culture should be completely eradicated.

If you're on the receiving end of that kind of attitude, it's a fairly normal response to flip them the bird and vote for the other guy.

To all the people who are saying, "how could they be so stupid?", I say: "How could you be so stupid? What did you think was going to happen?"

If you want to win elections, start by not holding in contempt the people you claim to represent. Stop telling them what they're supposed to think, and what they're supposed to value, and what they're supposed to believe. Instead, find out what they think and value and believe, and then represent that.

Right leaning supporters online love to throw around contemptuous terms like groomer, pedophile, cuck, soyboy etc

But to me, the difference is this: Vance said "miserable childless cat ladies" about people who were Harris supporters. They already weren't going to vote for Trump. But the Democrats are pointing contempt at people that have, historically, been the Democrats' core constituency.

Vance is alienating Harris voters, Democrats are alienating their own voters. In that way, it's different. It's not morally different - contempt is contempt - but it's practically different.

Honestly, is this because of his speech impediment or because Biden is just really old and unable to function anywhere close to 100%?

I mention this because another angle of "talked down to" is a sense that the Democrats have gaslit the country on a number of issues, most clearly on Biden's age.

We now know that Biden has declined cognitively since becoming President. We now know that his inner circle and the media around him engaged in small "cover up" to hide his decline. One element of this "cover up" was explaining his behavior as a result of his speech impediment. Of course, the debate spoke for itself and the whole thing came crashing down.

people in the middle get caught in the crossfire of harsh rhetoric. and it is hard to blame people for this, an eye for an eye is so easy and tempting.

I've had right wingers criticize me with patronizing "anti-commie" rhetoric, but the worst has been shaming (yes actual shaming and exclusion) from my peers because i (mostly) agree with them in a contrarian way that they dont like or attempt to understand.

i don't really interact with many right wingers day to day, so this difference might just be a result of that bias.

I'm curious if this kind of thing happens to right wingers as well, or if there is less such "friendly-fire" on the right.

P.S I'm European.

It appears to be the plight of critical thinkers in this culture. You are not allowed to have a complex set of beliefs that may cross both sides of the culture war.