Bob and Van didn't make you aware of their political views within a few minutes of meeting them. They didn't put a sign in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their vehicle. They weren't wearing any particular apparel. You didn't notice them in the town's Facebook group making their opinions crystal clear. It's much different in a world where people make their political views their whole identity.

It's also a bit ironic, since Marco has a pride flag with the trans additions flying from his house. So is this blog post him coming to realize he's a part of the problem or...?

He lives on Fire Island, that's about as political as flying the American flag in Orange County.

The problem is not showing what you stand for. The problem is that your political system only offers two options.

And then all that’s left is game theory.

Yeah, how dare he make such a statement as "trans people exist and deserve rights"? This is equally as offensive as the other side's position of "trans people are all mentally ill, they should be ostracized and made as miserable as possible"!

I'm tired of pretending this is a "both sides" issue. One side, and one side only, is diving further and further in their hatred of blacks, gays, trans, women, progressives, you-name-it. Progressives haven't changed their tunes, they're still on equal rights and public healthcare, as they have been for decades. It's on conservatives to do some introspection, and ask themselves why their views have become so toxic that the world is slowly distancing themselves from their country, now that their guy is in office.

The thesis seems to be

1. We could refrain from getting offended when just buying coffee etc., and overlook low-key indications of political views, in order to cooperate,

2. We could avoid offending one another with confrontational exhibitions of political views, in ordinary life, when not seeking a confrontation.

In which case the fact that they are wrong, and we are correct and wonderful, and indeed the fact that moral relativism is kaput, can just be ignored in this ordinary everyday context. Which we could inhabit most days.

Okay, but I don't wanna. Would you have defended that same thesis in 1934 Germany, when the Right was pushing further and further into illiberalism? Should the Jews and Leftists have overlooked the mounting hate they received from society?

No, what actually got rid of Nazism in the post-war era was how shameful it was to be perceived as one. That's how we overcame racism and homophobia too: by making it socially unacceptable to be such.

So if you care about anything, you can't just treat "support for Trump" as simply another mundane personal preference. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't treat Trump supporters with empathy, just that ignoring their garbage views is not helping anyone or anything.

One point is that being in an actual war changes the rules. If you're caught in a desperate fight for your civilization, you'll put civility on hold, because being polite wouldn't do any good and you're too busy being desperate. But unless you love living like you're in a warzone, you probably prefer to maintain civility at all other times.

So you ask what one should do in 1934, on the cusp of war, in a pre-war situation. That kind of depends on knowing that it's a pre-war situation and knowing that things are desperate and that you should throw civility out of the window. If I was strongly aware of that fact (as some were), I'd be thinking mainly "how do I keep a low profile and escape from Germany," not "how do I tell the fascists that I disapprove of all they stand for".

But I suppose there's a kind of antsy ambiguous semi-desperate state that just makes people angry without fully committing to desperation.

Post-war is different of course because then you've won, and it's socially acceptable to be rude to nazis, the conventionally accepted bad guys. Common consent encourages it. It's a civil kind of rudeness!

It wasn't clear at all in 1934 that a war was coming. Maybe the most educated and politically conscious could have foreseen that something bad was going to happen, but I'd wager most of the World was clueless about Nazism up until its very end. I would direct you to the international press' commentary on the opening of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Lots of "Whatever should we think of this new Germany?".

But we are not in wartimes, and my comment wasn't telling people that they should act as if we were. If anything, tolerating and overlooking bigotry isn't civism, it's how we invite incivility in our societies. Hence why I believe we shouldn't normalize the views of MAGA more than they already are. We're not in the same place Germany was in the 1930s, and I don't intend us to ever get there.

The issue isn’t being offended. It’s human rights.

One group of people are upset their views, which were consequence free until recently, are now resulting in negative consequences.

The other group is arguing to defend the rights of people who until recently didn’t have them and who are being threatened with a loss of liberty, freedom or equality.

There’s no equivalence.

That's not in practice what that flag means to many people though. That's kinda the point. The pride flag already was a rainbow, none of the colors meant anything specific. Adding to it is less inclusive and more crazy.

And it's not a both sides issue AT ALL, unless you mean "both sides [that are heard in the media]" are absolutely crazy and wrong, in which case I'm with you. Trans rights are super important. Inclusivity and tolerance is super important. But not being able to talk about the science of gender dysphoria at all is not tolerance, it's a type of fascism, just coming from people who identify as left.

Exactly. Bob and Van weren't hyper-political.

Sure, there was the John Birch Society, but as a society we also kind of understood that they were nut-birds.

This sounds nice, but what if your neighbor's political views are an existential threat to you personally? What if they don't want you to live in their neighborhood because of the color of your skin, or if they don't think you're a fit parent because you let your kid wear certain clothes? There are some things about which we can have friendly disagreements, like Laffer curves, school vouchers, the death penalty, environmental regulations, or whatever. But there are other disagreements which mean we cannot be friends.

What if you were friendly with your neighbor, but on the way to return a shovel you get hit by a bus?

Point being: you're dreaming up edge cases, presumably as a justification for... what? Refusing to engage with people who don't wear their political views like a badge on their chest?

If your stance honestly is "we cannot be friends unless I know your political views", then those who keep their views to themselves in the face of that are wise.

>you're dreaming up edge cases

Are you saying that bigots are edge cases?

In my experience, yes, the irredeemable bigot is rare. For everyone else, regardless of whether their political views are unknown to you or they are threatening your personal way of life, the world will be a better place for you being good neighbors with them. Not to mention that it will improve your own living situation as well.

Most bigotry doesn't come from an inherent maliciousness or evil. It's often just limited experience and never having had reason to reflect on one's views. If you instinctively go "fuck off bigot", you're not only not helping, you're their mirror image.

To be clear, there's a point at which you have to be intolerant of intolerance, but starting off with that is not only counterproductive by reinforcing echo chambers and increasing division, it also makes you not unlike the thing you're opposed to.

I'm reminded of this exchange in Good Omens:

Madame Tracy poked her head around the door. "Coo-ee, Mr. Shadwell," she said, giving Newt a friendly little wave. "A gentleman on the telephone for you. Hallo, Mr. Newton."

"Awa' wi' ye, harlot," said Shadwell, automatically.

"He sounds ever so refined," said Madame Tracy, taking no notice. "And I'll be getting us a nice bit of liver for Sunday."

"I'd sooner sup wi' the De'el, wumman."

"So if you'd let me have the plates back from last week it'd be a help, there's a love," said Madame Tracy, and tottered unsteadily back on three-inch heels to her flat and whatever it was that had been interrupted.

From above: "…your neighbor's political views are an existential threat to you personally…"

Feels like an edge case to me.

> you're dreaming up edge cases

Xenophobia and racial (or religious ) animus are hardly edge cases. On the contrary, they are the default setting for our species, as evidenced by (flips through history book) the last few millennia.

Bigotry is innate and one has to fight it. And that's exactly chmod775's point - stop being a bigot towards other people's reasonable opinions, stop being dramatic, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

> stop being a bigot towards other people's reasonable opinions

I welcome all reasonable opinions. But not all opinions are reasonable.

In particular, the Maga crowd favors opinions based on hero-worship credulity and irrational vibes, completely divorced from factual reality. Very often, this leads to a place of xenophibia and bigotry, which no one is obligated to tolerate.

Just look at the "conservative" "arguments" in this thread. Just a chain of non-sequiturs and preconceived biases.

The word "bigotry" actually has a meaning. Trying to equate "unjustified hate against a person for their skin color, ethnicity, or religion" with "distaste for a set of chosen political opinions" is a hoot.

Then you live next to them and let them borrow a cup of sugar or ask to borrow one from them and collect their mail while they’re away and thank them when they let you know you left a light on when you left for work the other day. And realize that your hangups, quirks, and beliefs are just as offensive to them as theirs are to yours but that doesn’t mean either one of you is. Or a good neighbor that can’t crack a beer and just live next door to one another.

> Then you live next to them and let them borrow a cup of sugar or ask to borrow one from them and collect their mail while they’re away and thank them when they let you know you left a light on when you left for work the other day.

You would have liked my grandmother, who shared your opinion that kindness between neighbors can heal political rifts.

Unfortunately it didn't work out so well for her, as despite her kindness, the neighbors sent her to Dachau anyway.

Once again with the implication that conservatives are equivalent to Nazis and therefore should be treated with vitriol. The hyperbole isn’t unwarranted and the whole point.

That's not the implication. Read it again, stop playing the victim. The point is simply that hate is not rational, and that your proposal of kindness does nothing to assuage the rampant ignorance and xenophobia that animates evil ideology.

Would you prefer a Communist rather than Nazi parable? Either way works.

> evil ideology

Does exist and should be labeled as such. But it's also always been a term that evil political movements use to label those who oppose their ideas.

Let the wise be discerning. Not all is as it appears on the surface or is reported to be.

> Not all is as it appears on the surface or is reported to be.

Are you literally asking for a moral re-evaluaion of fascism?

Heck no. Hitler and Mussolini were deeply evil and their ideology was too. But there's nothing like them happening today.

> But there's nothing like them happening today.

<rolls eyes>

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-president-and-c...

I think we can judge fascism by its fruit.

Authoritarian Communism and its variants mostly fail by the same standard: lots of misery and death.

A good principle here I think is “a thing is what it does.” It effectively banishes all the sophistry that these kinds of ideologies deploy in their defense. No, a thing is what it does, and these ideologies murder and impoverish.

I find it really disheartening that so many people today seem to want to revisit one of these two ideologies. These are the failed death cults of the early 20th century. They should be forgotten.

If what we have is not working we need new ideas, not these.

Bit of a false equivalence there.

The modern right wants to replace democratic rule of law with enlightened despotism focused on eliminating perceived racial, sexual, and ideological impurities.

The modern left wants universal healthcare and high taxes for billionaires, similar to the well-known death cult of Norway. /s

These things are not the same.

What the ...? Please show me examples of this on the right, and I don't mean random nutjobs on Twitter or 4chan. That's complete insanity.

Have you read the news lately?

The president has given up pretending to obey the law. He's torn down the east wing of the White House (which does not belong to him), he's issued Executive Orders that contradict a plain reading of the Constitution (14th amendment, among others), he has gratuitously and repeatedly violated the Emoluments Clause, he has used the DOJ to attack political enemies on the thinnest of pretenses, he is continuing an illegal "armed conflict" in violation of the War Powers Resolution, etc, etc. This has all been documented thoroughly elsewhere: the president acts like a king and demonstrates contempt for his oath of office.

That, in combination with his civil rights abuses, are tantamount to fascism. Under the guise of "immigration enforcement," he's unleashed a horde of undertrained, overpaid henchmen who apparently act above the law, killing people, including US citizens, and denying medical care to detainees, without any fear of accountability. He's also sought to withdraw citizenship from and cancel visas to those people who are legally in the US but, for whatever reason, displease him. This kind of capricious, content-based discrimination, without Congressional oversight, is exactly what the Founding Fathers fought to prevent.

Any other really easy questions?

There is a racist video game on whitehouse.gov.

No we are not Nazi Germany. Yet. But the ideas are absolutely popular in certain places and it takes a lot of deliberate ignoring not to see it.

I wasn’t talking about people who want social services like Sweden or Norway or more progressive taxes. That’s why I used a double qualifier of “authoritarian communism.”

That being said, I see that kind of rhetoric and adjacent rhetoric around.

Can you please name any currently sitting national politician in the US who is advocating for authoritarian communism?

Not really. I see it on social media though… the way I saw fascist and fascist adjacent ideas blossoming on social media in the 20 teens. It feels like it’s coming the way I saw fascism coming in 2014.

That makes me think first we will finish our current bad LARP of fascism with our tacky parody of Mussolini or Franco (Trump is more like them than Hitler) and then we will do some kind of bad LARP of communism in the 30s when youth unemployment and the total decimation of entry level jobs really starts to hurt bad. It will (like fascism is doing for the grievances it was marketed to) make everything worse, because these fascism and communism don’t work.

It’s probably waiting for a good populist (which means a charismatic malignant narcissist) like a tankie Trump. Imagine a more extreme Mamdani or Bernie Sanders with Trump’s narcissism.

Ultimately we are LARPing these bad ideas because there are no new ones. It’s a testament to intellectual bankruptcy that anyone takes fascism or Marxism seriously in 2026.

(Lack of anything entry level was already a problem before AI. Now we are looking at there being basically no entry level jobs in multiple fields other than “bot herder.”)

Your grandmother sounds incredible, and her story tragic. I read your earlier comment a slight towards her. Perhaps that’s not what you meant.

Since OP was adding a counter argument to the article that some people shouldn’t be trusted, your comment seemed to reinforce the point that differing ideologies inferring that current preferences could result in similar outcomes. In another comment you equated that same group with Jim Crow.

I find the hyperbole counterproductive, immature, and annoying. It seems like you don’t know any conservatives very well, the ones you do know are the scum of the earth.

Either way, way, I find your Grandmother’s story noble, inspiring. It represents the best of humanity when faced with the worst. I’d want to be known for that a million times before being known for being the angry neighbor that knew he was more virtuous than everyone else.

> I find the hyperbole counterproductive, immature, and annoying.

I'm sorry you find it annoying, but I don't find the comparison hyperbolic at all, and perhaps if you understand the historical context and the facts on the ground, you wouldn't either. You are letting your feelings (in this case, being annoyed, combined with a cult of personality) get in the way of a sober analysis of the situation, which is unambiguously the decay of the rule of the law and the persecution of morally innocent people.

> It seems like you don’t know any conservatives very well, the ones you do know are the scum of the earth.

I agree with the second part. I live in a red state. I see these people every day. People just as bigoted and short-sighted as you. People who are utterly convinced of their correctness, even as they reveal their complete ignorance of and indifference to what is actually happening. Instead, what I hear again and again is blind trust for the billionaire in power based solely on his rhetorical style.

> Either way, way, I find your Grandmother’s story noble, inspiring.

It's not noble to be a victim. I hope that those persecuted in today's America won't be as naive as my grandmother.

> being the angry neighbor that knew he was more virtuous than everyone else.

This perfectly describes my actual neighbor, who regularly blames poor immigrants for all his self-inflicted ills and demands violent retribution against the gays, the liberals, the trans, the foreigners, and brown people, all while claiming to speak in the virtuous name of Jesus Christ.

Was it really her neighbors that sent her there or a police/military? I very much doubt that.

But let's play the hypothetical.

- Would your grandmother's fate be better if instead of kindness she would be spewing vitriol? Don't think so, the situation would have been even worse, much faster.

- What about the other side of the coin - about all of those people, who survived, because they were nice and friendly?

- In general, always having the same strategy, no matter what is happening around you, is dumb. When the environment changes, so should the behavior. Kindness often helps, but not against wild animals like bears, nature forces like tornadoes, and the faceless state bureucracy.

> Would your grandmother's fate be better if instead of kindness she would be spewing vitriol?

"Spewing vitriol" is loaded language used to smear people you disagree with.

The fact is that during the Nazi regime, some people did speak out against the atrocities, and some people did fight back. More people should have. Those who did resist would certainly have been described as "spewing vitriol" by those in power. I wish my grandmother was that brave.

> What about the other side of the coin - about all of those people, who survived, because they were nice and friendly?

Some things are more important than surviving.

I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but what if you were a jew, and you applied that reasoning to your hitler-loving neighbors back in nazi germany?

Modern politics is fundamentally different from the way things used to be. The right-wing political parties in america today have almost nothing at their core besides hatred for marginalized communities. Demonizing trans people, immigrants, muslims, "communists"- that's it. Everything else is just the whims of an impulsive imbecile - the tariffs, the war with Iran, kidnapping the president of Venezuela, the belligerence towards _greenland_ (?!?!?), etc...

And the purpose behind demonizing them it to energize a shrinking demographic base to compensate for how many reasonable people they've driven away. So at this point, the ones who remain under the maga umbrella have been exposed to so much vitriolic propaganda that they are just at a fever pitch of hatred at all times. I've seen it countless times in my own life- People who used to say that Obama was naive and inexperienced and that his policies were misguided, but who now say he's a muslim jihadi who wanted to destroy america. And so on with many other political issues.

I have several close relatives who used to be like bob, or van- but MAGA has changed them. They are just completely dripping with hate, now. And if I was a member of one of the communities they've been frothed up against, I don't know if I'd feel safe trying to engage with them like the person on the OP.

This is just sentimental nonsense. You are not obligated to patronize or be friendly to evil people.

> evil people

Your conservative neighbor is no more evil than someone who thinks their conservative neighbor is evil because they are conservative.

You said:

> Your conservative neighbor is no more evil than someone who thinks their conservative neighbor is evil because they are conservative.

In response this:

> This is just sentimental nonsense. You are not obligated to patronize or be friendly to evil people.

Why do you assume that "evil" == "conservative" here?

Inferred based on OP and other comments from parent. Works the same way reverse.

Incorrect inference. You're so eager to achieve victim status that you've totally missed the point.

> what if your neighbor's political views are an existential threat to you personally?

Then you are uniquely placed to show them you're not the baddie they thought you were. Say hello, introduce yourself, smile and wave, bring cookies or stuff from your backyard garden once in a while, be personable.

Firearms lobby, institutionalized prejudice in law enforcement, Justice system, etc all have made this additional labor of the marginalized minority extraordinarily dangerous.

> Then you are uniquely placed to show them you're not the baddie they thought you were.

Great idea! If only we had thought of this sooner. We could have avoided Jim Crow and segregation if only black people had thought to be friendly to racist whites!

/s

If you're in physical danger, then flee. I'm not talking about that. There's a bigger reality than your street - pay attention and be wise.

But at the same time, it is true than many white kids had racist parents but chose not to be racist themselves, largely because they rubbed shoulders with black kids and learned they had a lot in common with them. Don't underestimate the power of patience, kindness, generosity, and general personability to win, eventually. It took a generation of integration before racism disappeared from most US neighborhoods.

> It took a generation of integration before racism disappeared from most US neighborhoods.

I'm still waiting

Do you have racist neighbors? If so, I'm curious which county you live in.

Two of my grandparents were racist, but I haven't talked personally with a racist in probably 25-30 years.

> I haven't talked personally with a racist in probably 25-30 years.

Let me guess, you mostly mingle with white people? It's a different story among Latinos, Asians (toward blacks and other Asians), but especially among African-Americans.

> Let me guess, you mostly mingle with white people? It's a different story among Latinos, Asians (toward blacks and other Asians), but especially among African-Americans.

Fascinating. I've found the perfect example of "white victimhood." Thank you for sharing your truth that "minorities are the real racists."

What utter nonsense.

Oh, you must be one of those anti-White racists...

> White Democrats showed the effect: they imposed a somewhat weaker norm against offensive statements targeting Whites than against statements targeting other racial groups.

> So there is genuine evidence of something reasonably described as selective tolerance of anti-White prejudice among White Democrats.

> The present study demonstrates that Whites (in comparison to other Americans) are also more likely to perceive a social norm governing anti-White prejudice. Interestingly, the strength of this norm follows a political ‘gradient’ and is most pronounced among White Republicans.

> Within this context, an interesting question is whether this norm can be expected to spread outside the core of White Republicans? For instance, it is possible that racial minorities within the Republican party will come to adopt the same position as White Republicans on the social inappropriateness of anti-White prejudice (in much the same way that White Democrats have come to adopt norms around anti-minority prejudice). At the same time, the social norm appears strongly linked to the Republican party. And given current levels of affective polarization in American society, efforts at norm propagation will likely make little headway among Democrats of any race. These considerations therefore suggest that the norm against anti-White prejudice is likely to remain a ‘particularistic norm’ for some time to come.

> I haven't talked personally with a racist in probably 25-30 years.

How do you know that you haven't talked with a racist? Are you in the habit of asking new acquaintances if they are racist, and then believing their answer? Or do you just assume that all racists wear the same uniform?

Real racists in your orbit of regular acquaintances are pretty straightforward to pick out.

You did not answer my question.

To be clear: if you think you haven't met a racist in decades, you're probably wrong. I call into question your ability to accurately diagnose racism.

A racist is known by their speech or actions. Like making prejudicial comments about people of one or more other races, or demonstrating through actions that they do not view other races as equals. If someone does neither, then they're not racist.

The last people I heard do that were my grandparents - like "Did you hear? She married a black man." with raised eyebrows.

You didn't answer my question - do you have racist neighbors?

If your friends are not making unprompted bigoted statements, all it means is that they are tactful. I hope you can understand that bigotry is more subtle, in comparison with your grandparents' generation when it was more socially acceptable.

Please read up on "implicit bias."

Do you know the definition of the word "prejudice"? It means "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

You say you think a lot of my acquaintances are racist, without even knowing who I am, let alone who they are, let alone what they act like or say. That's pretty extreme prejudice.

Don't judge people before you've at least learned who they are.

> You say you think a lot of my acquaintances are racist, without even knowing who I am, l

Nothing personal. The fact is that a lot of people are racist: that's the basis of "implicit bias" which I gather you did not bother to read about, despite my encouragement. Given that, it's statistically likely that everyone knows a racist. I know plenty of racists, and I wish I didn't. I'm not judging people, I'm just playing the odds.

Before continuing this conversation, please complete the required reading: https://www.nationalequityproject.org/articles/dont-talk-abo...

I reject the notion of "structural racism". That's not about civil rights, it's critical theory masquerading. It's a destructive ideology.

It teaches us to suspect everyone around us, which promotes division and hatred, not love and unity.

Racism is an individual sin that arises from the heart, and it can be repented of and turned away from like any other sin.

> I reject the notion of "structural racism".

As I understand it, structural racism is less of a notion and more of a series of facts; eg: post WWII white servicemen largely got easy bank loans and a greased entry into generation housing, black servicemen didn't, real estate agents and HOAs redlined (?) rental and purchase applications to separate out black American families, infrastructure tended to destroy and break up black communities over white communities, etc.

Are these past events that you reject?

Those happened and they were evil. I'm not arguing with that.

Fair enough then, you don't reject past structural racism existing as a fact, and likely acknowledge that has cast a shadow that continues into today's US society.

You might want to be clear to the other commentator (I'm just a drive by) what the "notion" is that you reject.

> I reject the notion of "structural racism". That's not about civil rights, it's critical theory masquerading. It's a destructive ideology.

It's clear that you didn't read past the headline of the article that I linked, since the article makes it clear that structural racism is not the same as implicit bias.

You are welcome to disagree with the extent that structural racism is present in American society today, but it makes no sense to dismiss the idea of structural racism. Slavery, as practiced in the US before the civil war, is a clear example of structural racism. Or do you think that race did not play a part in slavery?

> It teaches us to suspect everyone around us, which promotes division and hatred, not love and unity.

Perhaps, but that's an argument from outcomes, not from principles. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I read the first few paragraphs. It's all critical race theory and intersectionality. A worldview I reject. It leads to odd conclusions like saying it's impossible to be racist against white people, or that a black person can't be racist.

That's absurd. It's possible for anyone to judge another person by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character or their actual traits. No race is morally superior or inferior (and to say otherwise is very racist).

> It's possible for anyone to judge another person by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character or their actual traits.

It might be helpful if you understood the definition of "racism" as used in this article before you reject it. Racism is not the same as discrimination. I agree that anyone can judge another person by the color of their skin: that's racial discrimination. Racism (again, as used in this article, not necessarily as used in everybody life) is defined as a particularly hierarchical view of the races based on social order. Thus, by that thinking, black people can't be racist because they aren't in a position to oppress white people.

But all of that is a digression from the original point of this conversation, which is implicit bias, according to which everyone is somewhat racist because they judge people at an automatic, unconscious level. You might find this article less challenging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype

Remember: the onus is always on you to prove that you're one of the "good ones" by coddling them.

it means someone tricked you into thinking that

The essay makes a token gesture toward this ("privilege and power dynamics play a complex and unavoidable role"), but ultimately Marco, who is a rich straight white male unaffected by any meaningful or existential prejudice, is willing to overlook those views (which do not impact him) as things that do not matter.

I get this but there’s this thing called the contact hypothesis. Friendly contact with people makes it harder to hate them.

I’ve heard many stories of people who were once racists or some other kind of bigot losing that attitude from living close to people of the other ethnic group. It’s common.

It’s a major hypothesis for why xenophobia is more popular in rural areas: lack of contact with out groups.

But if you instantly call someone out for their views, condemn them, take a self righteous position, that doesn’t happen. It might even have the opposite effect.

So maybe let the bigot next door borrow some eggs. Smile at them. But make sure they know it if you’re one of the people their dogma or emotional conditioning says they’re supposed to hate.

Might change someone’s mind every now and then.

It’s also important to note that people often don’t change their minds quickly. Seeds get planted. Experiences that contradict a dogma or an unexamined conditioned attitude are noted. The brain slowly updates its priors.

I would extend that to what if their views are an existential threat to anybody.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came

It is still like this in most neighborhoods in the US, but it does require being outside and actually talking to them... which does seem rarer today.

I think the key differentiator today is the silent mental health crisis that’s gripped this country. Until you know them well, it’s hard to know if your neighbor is secretly part of a weird Discord server where obsessive people lord over random strangers for internet clout. You really don’t want to inadvertently become the day’s “main character” somehow by giving the wrong “vibes” or being unaware of the latest taboo.

It used to be easier to tell when someone was a nutjob based on their appearance, but these days not so much.

It’s still good to get to know your neighbors, but some caution is warranted.

For context, this post seems to be a reaction to MacStories deciding to return to X [0], which has been quite controversial in the Apple developer community.

There has been the predictable blowback, then the blowback to the blowback, which he alludes to in the post: "should I be condemned for not publicly condemning them myself?" [1]

Ultimately, everyone needs to do what's workable. If you find X's owner repugnant but you feel you need to be on the platform, that's a choice you have to make. If your audience revolts, that's a consequence of the choice. Each audience member also has to do what's workable for them. There is no "right" or "wrong" response.

[0]: https://ticci.craft.me/explanation

[1]: TFA

I intentionally try to foster friendships with all sort of different people with obviously different political positions. Many of them are very far left and very far right and very far in a third direction i have trouble articulating, in ways that would shock most normal people.

What I have found is that, accepting the inevitable human flaws that we are all prone to, they are all pretty good folks.

This is still the case today, if you let it be. I am friends with many neighbors with differing views from my own and literally do have them over for dinner, invite them to my toddlers' birthday parties, etc.

I don't recognize the things the author describes here - awareness of hot takes, opinions about coffee shop owners... they strike me as features of the online world, but not the offline one I inhabit.

Too bad Marco quit Twitter, I enjoyed following him.

You can follow him other places. I believe he is active on mastodon.

I struggle with this. Where I live, it's harder nowadays to compartmentalize how someone votes from their core values. What we used to call "politics" now encompasses some fundamental aspects of how we observe and process our daily lives.

It might help to realize that this is a uniquely American affliction. People almost anywhere else simply don't consider politics (or race or gender for that matter) to be nearly as important.

This would then let you see your neighbors as people. What you claim are core values are nothing of the sort. They are misconceptions invented by your in-group to dehumanize the out-group. In reality people's core values are: their kids, their health, love, belonging, a sense of purpose. The rest is just a puppet master hijacking these core values for organizing a crowd.

Counterpoint: what you want to claim are core values are actually window dressing to hide how people see the out-group. Who doesn't "love their kids" or fall in love, or want a sense of belonging (ok, a few), or a sense of purpose (ok, a few more). These are not statements about anyone's core values, they're statements about what it is to be human.

Core values are about how you treat people who are NOT close to you, how you believe limited resources should be allocated, how and by whom you think decisions should be made, what the relationship between individuals and society ought to be, and specifically between individuals and government.

That also sounds nice on the surface - but has the same problem. Political positions disguised as core human values. Allow me to explain.

You say "values like how you treat people who are NOT close to you". Which is really code for "people who like open immigration policies are virtuous and people who oppose them are bad and/or less intelligent". But once you drill down to details - the picture changes. This kind of sentiment is used to drum up support for very specific pieces of very questionable legislation. Why should a specific ethnic group with a large and powerful diaspora get a free pass to ignore immigration laws, but other ethnic groups get the book? How is this about being virtuous and treating people NOT close to you equally? Well, you aren't allowed to ask these questions - you don't want to be a part of the dumb racist outgroup, do you?

That's a narrower framing than I had in mind for my original comment. My whole point is that "politics" has transcended any single issue and has become indicative of a much broader world view. Sure, if you zoom in on any policy question you'll find plenty of places where reasonable people can honestly disagree. But that's not the way our political system functions.

You're reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have not suggested that any particular stance towards people who are not close to you is virtuous. What I wrote is not "code for" anything.

If your core values are the there should no border controls at all, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should very tightly controlled borders, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should let in more Norwegians and less Bangladeshis, or vice versa, then those are your core values.

My point wasn't that a particular set of core values are virtuous, it was that core values are not things like "loving my kids".

Well - what's a core value? I'd say that if you can remove a value and still stay "you" then that value wasn't really core.

By that definition maybe even "loving my kids" wouldn't pass the test, as Viktor Frankl explains better than anyone could.

As for immigration, it is no accident that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise precisely when the economy is doing poorly. When there were enough resources to go around - there wasn't nearly as much reason to oppose immigration. Which means that "my family is financially secure" is a much more core value for most people than being open to the world (even if they'll never admit it).

It always did, we just had the norm that in a liberal democracy, we put that to the side for our dealings with people. Same thing as religion -- a huge deal that shapes people's values and attitudes about the most core aspects of life -- and there was a norm of "no politics or religion" in polite conversation.

> What we used to call "politics" now encompasses some fundamental aspects

That's less true IRL if you just talk to people and be personable. There's something about seeing someone face to face and chatting that helps you intuitively understand you have a lot in common with them (or not) - and regardless of their political opinions either way.

I find that the sorts of life choices people make and the character they have as a result is a far better discriminator of what they actually have in common (or don't) with others.

I do talk to people. A lot. I live in a politically mixed area, a lean-red town in a solid-blue US state. Most people keep their "political" leanings to themselves but it doesn't take very long to get a clue. I'm thinking of one friend-of-a-friend with whom I interact fairly frequently. I know their views on current events not because they've said anything directly to me but they're active on Facebook and other friends have shown me some posts. What do I do? Pretend it doesn't bother me that they have chosen to advance causes that I believe are actively undermining our society? Right now I'm polite to them. But I feel like it's dishonest on some level.

Speaking from my own moral compass - I don't think there's a moral obligation to bring up politics with people I know with whom I disagree. They have their opinion, I have mine.

I think that's even true when a horrible ideology is gripping a nation. The Bolsheviks and Red Guards were not to be reasoned with by neighbors in their heyday. "The wise man sees trouble coming and hides himself."

I'm reconsidering here - there's a long distance between "someone believes in a harmful ideology" and "someone is an informant". So yes - there's ample room to talk with people.

"He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James)

This is such a uniquely US thing.

Maybe the healthier past wasn’t one where nobody talked about politics. Maybe it was one where disagreeing about politics didn’t automatically make someone your enemy.

As someone from the Netherlands, I find this especially strange. You can call the leader of the party your neighbour voted for every name under the sun, preferably involving some kind of disease, because that’s our style, and still have a beer together afterwards.

In all likelihood, that leader of the party your neighbor voted for does not hold views that you consider an existential threat to yourself, or those you love. I say this because you live in (or are from) NL, and while there is certainly a range of political views there, compared to the US you may as well all be in the same party.

Try having a beer with someone who thinks your daughter in law should have her drivers license revoked because she "lied about being a woman", in a society where a drivers license is a critical part of life.

Have you ever heard of Geert Wilders?

I have indeed.

I think that the gap between the MAGA crowd and, say, Santa Fe progressives, is much deeper than the one between Wilders and some progressive NL equivalent. It might be as wide, but depth matters too.

The USA contains a lot of people who simply don't agree that the government has much of a role to play in anything. Wilders might sound quite MAGA in a number of areas, but he's still a Nederlander.

I'm a pretty left wing person. Most of my friends are a lot more conservative. We can talk anything including politics and disagree without breaking apart our relationship. Last night out it was abortion and Lindsay Clancy, before that colonialism, race/IQ and labor rights. I guess it helps that we all think the people in power right now are corrupt.

If your friendships can't handle a debate that's a skill issue.

In my experience it’s not the conservatives who end relationships over disagreements. In fact, I’ve never heard of a conservative kid disowning their parents, family, or friends because of their liberal views.

Never heard of a "Christian" parent kicking out their gay son?

Never heard a "conservative" call a protester a "libtard" right before rolling coal at them?

Never heard of a friendly Southern town doing anything they can to keep out people of the wrong skin color, or to encourage them to leave?

Oh.

Maybe you should read some history and not rely on your personal anecdata.

Nope. I haven’t seen any of those things personally. Have you?

I have personally seen family members disown their parents. Siblings not speak for decades. A friend call another racist and cut off communication not for any racist behavior, but because the friend (who has a multiracial family) didn’t support the same cause.

And likewise, maybe you should experience the real world instead of believing sensationalized things you read.

> Nope. I haven’t seen any of those things personally

I didn't ask if you saw those things personally.

> And likewise, maybe you should experience the real world instead of believing sensationalized things you read.

Do you think the Jim Crow era was "sensationalized"?

Do you think that your own personal experience is more representative than documented historical fact?

Jim Crow is slightly different than yelling slurs. I’ve also never lived during a time where it was the law of the land, but that was also not what you were originally referring to.

Your comment is utterly non sequitur. If you want to reply to what I wrote, I'd be happy to engage.

You said:

> Never heard a "conservative" call a protester a "libtard" right before rolling coal at them?

Then you said:

> Do you think the Jim Crow era was "sensationalized"?

Then you said:

> Your comment is utterly non sequitur.

While I like a good non sequitur, I don't like equating heckling protestors with racism, and think it's part of the problem of talking past one another. You jumped from several hypothetical social issues and one broad, non-specific racial issue in one comment to Jim Crow in the next.

I'm not denying the existence of profoundly racist people. I am saying I have personally been harmed by people who have jumped to the conclusion that people who don't believe exactly as they do are inherently evil.

You said:

> In fact, I’ve never heard of a conservative kid disowning their parents, family, or friends because of their liberal views.

Then when I confronted you with historical examples of conservatives behaving abominably (which you certainly had heard of) you pivoted to your own irrelevant personal experience, and you've been dwelling there since.

I never equated slurs to Jim Crow. I simply provided several examples, at different scales and degree, of conservative harming people who don't believe (or look) exactly as they do.

I’m dense, apparently, and have no idea how disowning parents relates to Jim Crow.

Back up to OP: he has conservative friends. They’re all cool with each other.

I mentioned, in _that_ context, that I have not experienced conservatives causing issues. Then I got hit with, yeah, but Jim Crow. I think my point stands.

Be cool with each other. Don’t equate people for things they aren’t involved with.

> I’m dense, apparently, and have no idea how disowning parents relates to Jim Crow.

At the risk of repeating myself, since you missed it the first time: "I simply provided several examples, at different scales and degree, of conservative harming people who don't believe (or look) exactly as they do."

> I mentioned, in _that_ context, that I have not experienced conservatives causing issues.

You're talking about your personal experience with a small number of people who have enough in common to form a friend group. The point I'm trying to make, and which you are consistently not grasping, is that your friend group is not representative and frankly not relevant. You're like that guy who says "I know lots of dogs, and none have ever bitten me." Good for you, but your experience is not universal. We're talking about society and law, not your pals. It is logically invalid to extrapolate from your personal experience that conservatives do not hurt people, or even that they don't typically hurt people.

> Don’t equate people for things they aren’t involved with.

I don't equate people for things they aren't involved in. I judge every person as an individual. But if you vote for a fascist, then you're involved, and you're a fascist, and you need to be held accountable.

Of course he does. He is comically ignorant.

True. Conservatives are more tolerant of people with differing views than progressives are. Women are the worst at that.

The research was done to measure the level of intolerance students had towards people of different views. Women were 3 times more intolerant toward people with the opposite views to their, than men. Heck, women were MORE intolerant towards people holding THE SAME exact political view as them, than men were towards people with the radically opposite views.

I mostly roll my eyes but it seems like there's so much fretting over echo chambers... when we are online. Only online. But this post is anecdotal example of IRL being a wicked echo chamber, a place where we stay within our bubbles and avoid finding out and avoid sharing our world or regional views.

I think it's good to exchange views on the world. That's a stronger better species, society. People receive different information, and talking about the world and what events we see and what they mean to us helps broaden that base and provide context. A lot of it is bad wrong and annoying. I want to hope though that socialization and seeing that oh we are humans together is a great relief for many of the narrownesses that afflict our hearts and souls and which cause strife, which is terrible for our welfare economically, socially, spiritually, politically.

Thought this would be a cool story about Dylan and Morrison :(

From the timing, this seems to be a vaguepost in support of Omarchy and DHH.

I would shocked if it was, Accidental Tech Podcast is not a political show but they don't hide the fact that all three hosts are very liberal.

Assume for the moment that he did not have DHH in mind, and the timing of the post is coincidental.

Is there some way of reading the moral of his story such that it is not defending projects and people like Omarchy/DHH against criticism?

Which would be a strange defense. DHH is not someone who keeps his political views to himself.

The crux of this post is that even publicly stated political views like DHH's shouldn't matter.

"If I learn today that my neighbors have political views that my “side” considers unacceptable and unforgivable, [...] Should I be condemned for not publicly condemning them myself? [...] I don’t want to associate with any community that would insist on either of those. [...]

"The town coffee shop was just a coffee shop. We weren’t publicly shamed for going there because one of the owners was an ass."

> And I can’t help but feel that maybe we were better off before we knew everyone’s hot takes on everything

He says this, while implying his conservative neighbors, who did nothing but be wonderful neighbors to him and his family except have different political opinions, should, in fact be publicly shamed by people he agrees with. But now they’re not shoveling his snow anymore, so maybe it’s time for a mea culpa.

Did he feel this way when he shamed Y Combinator? When saying alternative political stances are reprehensible, regressive, and aggressive.

The world he helped create is uglier. Now he’s not happy that he crapped in the sandbox and no one wants to play with him.

I think you misread the post. He's saying that his ignorance was great, and maybe we should go back towards that.

I don't think Tumblr was particularly influential on the neighbors aspect. It never reached that kind of broad base. Twitter did though. Unless you just mean social media broadly?

It wasn’t ignorance, but tolerance.

I wasn’t referring to social media or his role in it at all except as a participant.

Won't somebody think of the Y Combinator!

It was a case relevant to this audience where he attacked a group due to their perceived political affiliation or views. I could have less about YC except it provides one do the last social news sites that I find consistently high signal.

This is a post that only a straight middle-aged white guy could make. I’m also a white middle-aged guy, but being in a same-sex interracial marriage really opens your eyes to the reality of living in America.

Also, there was a time when your neighbors’ politics probably didn’t want to strip you and your family of their rights and citizenship; times have changed a bit.

This is the result of a bi-partisan effort[0], to divide the country, and keep our focus away from the concerns of the donor class.

First, Ronald Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater[1], advocated for the use of wedge issues, such as the mythical "Welfare Queen"[2], to erode support for the social safety net. Reagan's FCC commission decided end the Fairness Doctrine[3], which helped maintain the public consensus in the mainstream. In my strong opinion, it was a huge mistake, along with Trickle down economics. However, considering the traitorous nature of Reagan's administration[4,5], I guess it's to be expected.

Hillary and Bill Clinton went along with things, and came up with the strategy of "Triangulation"[6], in which they used wedge issues as a way of staking out a political position, without actually needing to care for their base. This resulted in a wave of virtue signaling[7] and political correctness[8], and an end to actual support of the social safety net. Examples of this include "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as official policy in the US Military.[9]

When Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary[10], they shunted the backlash against all of this that Bernie Sanders was channeling, and gave us Donald Trump, who is a master of exploiting it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#Revocation

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

[10] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...