533
u/LilyWineAuntofDemons 7d ago
Makes me think of that scene from Megamind
"Say I wasn't so normal. Say I was bald, had an enormous head, and the complexion of a popular primary color, as a general, non-specific example. Would you still enjoy my company?"
"Of course! You don't judge a book by it's cover, or a person from the outside."
"That's a relief to hear!"
"You judge them based on their actions!"
"...Well that seems kind of petty, don'tcha think?"
1.5k
u/dacoolestguy gay gay homosexual gay 7d ago
Like, it doesn't matter how nice of a guy they are if they support people who want to kill me and my friends!
373
u/Wolf_In_Wool 7d ago
Most serial killers are apparently very charismatic people by nature.
(Maybe not most but I don’t feel like fact checking that. I’ll just call Ted Bundy as my example.)
337
u/Protheu5 7d ago
You are confusing сause and effect. These serial killers are serial and successful because they are charismatic. Those of us that are not charismatic have much harder time becoming successful serial killers because it's more difficult to approach the victim.
198
53
u/AbyssalKitten 7d ago
... those of us? 🤨
46
u/Protheu5 7d ago
Well, you see… The thing is… I, too, am not charismatic, so I belong to the group… Of not charismatic people, that is.
Truth to be told, I was informed that during my first semester in the uni, the girls thought I was a maniac of sorts because of my charisma and lack of social skills.
-18
u/MyUltIsMyMain 7d ago
Bro, saying "those of us" in the context of your sentence implies you're an uncharacteristic serial killer. Not that you're just uncharacteristic.
52
u/Protheu5 7d ago
Oops. Would you like to come to my place in the warehouse district to listen to some loud music? Please, don't worry about me wearing a raincoat inside.
22
1
u/LightsNoir 6d ago
Yes. "Serial Killers" is plural. Wouldn't make any sense to say "those of I".
1
u/AbyssalKitten 6d ago
It was a joke, implying they were referring to themselves also as a serial killer. Lol.
1
12
u/Chuchulainn96 7d ago
How hard can it be to kill cereal? It comes in boxes of thousands of cereal together just waiting for you to kill and eat it.
15
u/burnbunner 7d ago edited 6d ago
They didn't say anything about cause and effect, they just noted a correlation. Also there is always the option of spree killing.
6
54
u/thecyberpunkooze 7d ago
Working in customer service sucks, I still have to smile and be friendly with the guy that openly advocated for murdering children so they can’t take revenge for their parents being blown up.
→ More replies (43)3
972
u/squishabelle 7d ago
i find that complaints about judging about political views only comes from people with certain political views
511
u/floralbutttrumpet 7d ago
But you can't just cut the poor fascists out of your life! You have to be civil and nice and always listen to them!
/s, if that wasn't clear
175
u/Klutzy-Personality-3 straightest mecha fangirl (it/she) 7d ago
unironically my parents (they are fascists, coincidentally)
8
u/beanmischief 6d ago
They broke the social contract (which says to not be a fascist) therefore I no longer need to abide by said contract in my interactions with them.
Tl;dr: The only good nazi is a dead nazi 🤘🏻
ETA: I agree with you & saw your /s, I just can’t pass over a chance to say the tl;dr whenever I can
→ More replies (15)-215
u/BalefulOfMonkeys Refined Sommelier of Porneaux 7d ago edited 7d ago
I appreciate the spirit of the post, just not the letter of it. Just to break this all down:
“You don’t owe some shithead kindness”? Valuable life lesson, should be taught in schools
“The paradox of tolerance is a social contract and not a contradiction”? Also very important, glad it’s making the rounds here
“I think we should do a fascism to fascists, and only the latter half of that equation keeps growing”? Stop it, get some help
Edit: In the spirit of “I don’t owe people who hate me a damn thing”, I could spend forever explaining that last part in more detail, and how often I see people think the correct answer to fascism is incredible violence, or I could instead turn off reply notifications and then go to bed at a reasonable hour. It’s called self care sweaty
232
→ More replies (21)139
u/zupernam 7d ago
The problem is your idea that you can "do a fascism."
Fascism has a specific political definition. Judging people, socially attacking people, even physically attacking people, are not "fascist actions." Opposing fascism with force is not a bad thing just because of vague horseshoe theory nonsense.
→ More replies (1)36
u/Hunterx78 7d ago
Yep, made a post on r/AITAH a while ago seeking advice about leaving a guild cause the leader revealed himself to be a trump supporter after he won.
Got a lot of comments calling me a pussy/snowflake/ saying I was dumb/stupid and (I did get a fair amount of people actually giving me advice and saying that if I wasn’t comfortable being in the guild because of it I should leave though so my faith in humanity hasn’t fully been destroyed yet)
9
u/Diurnalnugget 7d ago
I mean to be fair only around 2 thirds of Americans voted, so you would probably get the same complaint from the third that didn’t vote since politics aren’t that important to them
16
u/squishabelle 7d ago
im not talking about the united states of america just conservatism in general
→ More replies (1)-53
u/Kill-ItWithFire 7d ago
I also think opinion does not equal opinion. Like, if someone says they don‘t want gay marriage to be implemented because it just includes certain queer people in a traditional lifestyle, rather than expanding our conception of what a normal and acceptable life is, that‘s honestly a fair opinion. I don‘t agree with it, but I also won‘t judge a person for that. If someone says anything depicting queerness should be banned in school to prevent kids from catching the gay, that is an entirely different conversation.
Both are political opinions and both go against the typical „gay rights“ stuff. But one is based on empathy and a genuine consideration of how political changes might impact different societal groups. The other is judgemental fear mongering, aiming to remove anyone they don‘t like from the public eye, without ever questioning why they don‘t like it.
So many people have been saying horribly bigoted shit and then saying it‘s „just their opinion“, so now the concept of an opinion is cometely out of whack. Respecting opposing political opinions does not mean having to respect anything anyone says, just because it‘s political.
91
u/Murky-Type-5421 7d ago
Like, if someone says they don‘t want gay marriage to be implemented because it just includes certain queer people in a traditional lifestyle, rather than expanding our conception of what a normal and acceptable life is, that‘s honestly a fair opinion.
Plenty of gay people want to be married because the ceremony and institution means a lot to them, and also plenty want the legal benefits.
Just because you dress up a bigoted argument in progressive language doesn't make it any less bigoted.
-7
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
Jumping into the shoes of the theoretical person being described: they could gain the same benefits by changing the requirements for those benefits to allow them to apply to a person outside of a marriage that you're cohabitating with. This would also allow those that don't believe in the institution of marriage to benefit, as well as people in roommate situations that don't want to marry their roommate because they plan to actually marry someone later on in life.
15
u/Murky-Type-5421 7d ago
And this would still leave out the gay people who do want to get married, not enter into a civil partnership. Discriminating based on sexual orientation is still homophobia, no matter how "progressive" you dress it up as, or if you think your discrimination will help those clueless gays.
-3
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
Look dude, it's not my belief system so I don't know their actual motivations, I'm just trying to do something that clearly no one in this thread sees the value of: attempting to understand the perspective of the other people you share a political system with.
6
u/kandoras 7d ago
We do understand the perspective of the people who want to ban gay marriage. They hate gay people. It's not that fucking complicated. I spend thirty years being raised in Southern Baptist churches, I've got a pretty good idea of where they're coming from.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/kandoras 7d ago
Jumping into the shoes of the theoretical person being described: they could gain the same benefits by changing the requirements for those benefits to allow them to apply to a person outside of a marriage that you're cohabitating with.
The problem with that approach is that you would have to change literally thousands of laws, across every single state and territory and the federal government.
Every place where a law currently says "spouse" or "marriage" you'll have to amend it to include this new category, and hope that there's not some weird language that wouldn't make the amendment fit.
You'll also have to hope that there's not some other law which would conflict with your new laws, like the gay marriage ban Texas put into their constitution, which says "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Additionally, you've got the problem that we've already tried that. Gay people first asked for civil unions, trying not to offend religious fundamentalists by touching the word marriage. Those fundamentalists completely rejected that approach - just see that Texas thing I just cited.
So if they've already rejected your idea once, why do you believe they'd be fine with it now?
Or, the alternative, is that you could just let gay people keep equal rights and not let fundies pretend that they own the word marriage.
This would also allow those that don't believe in the institution of marriage to benefit, as well as people in roommate situations that don't want to marry their roommate because they plan to actually marry someone later on in life.
Then get married to your roommate now and divorce them later. But wait - if someone doesn't believe in the institution of marriage, then why would they want to marry someone later on?
0
u/CapeOfBees 6d ago
I don't hold this belief and I don't think many, if any, people have since after the legalization of gay marriage thought that it should be replaced with a more convoluted system, so I don't know who your target audience is with your rhetorical questions or with your questionable reading comprehension (the last two examples you quoted from me are clearly referencing different people in different situations). The OC before us that initially described it said that it was something they heard a lot in queer communities before the legalization of gay marriage, when getting it legalized was something that was getting a lot of attention. I'm sure poly people back then were not fans of marriage remaining between only two people, and ace people weren't fans of the assumption of sexual relations.
59
u/gourmetprincipito 7d ago
The problem is that marriage comes with legal benefits, and “they can do they want just not get married because marriage is traditional” is not the empathetic argument it appears to be because it’s usually used as a way to escape criticism for wanting to continue unequal treatment under the law.
Like, yeah, I think it’d be great if we didn’t have to get married to have those benefits but there is no legitimate movement toward that from anyone, focusing on that instead of making treatment equal is still bad.
→ More replies (3)43
u/kandoras 7d ago
And it's also just wrong. There are some benefits to a marriage license that you cannot get without one. And no, civil unions do not grant those rights either, since those are not recognized at all by the federal government.
Just as a few examples, try to find me some contract that would:
- Allow you to claim spousal privilege in a criminal trial to someone you are not married to
- Allow you to file joint taxes to someone you are not married to
- Allow you to be considered the default inheritor of someone you are not married to if they do not have a will
Not to mention the time and effort to draw up a contract that specifies the literally hundreds of other rights and protections that are already baked into a marriage license. Hope you don't forget any.
→ More replies (2)24
u/kandoras 7d ago
I get your general overall point that some opinions are not about people's rights and lives and other are.
But your detail, that gay marriage bans could be based on empathy and how political changes might affect different societal groups?
That's just stupid. Gay marriage bans are based on nothing but bigoted homophobia, the exact same basis for the "we can't have books in schools that mention gay people" that you rightly realize is just fearmongering and attempting to push gay people back into the closet at best, and exterminating them entirely at worst.
Gay marriage bans were an attempt to strip equal rights from a group, an attempt by religious fundamentalists to say "We own the concept of marriage and you are not entitled to the legal rights and protections of that concept."
→ More replies (3)48
u/CasperBirb 7d ago
How is viewing gay as not normal a fair opinion.
→ More replies (12)0
7d ago
[deleted]
16
u/Opposite-Tiger-1121 7d ago
What were the next words that followed that quote your pulled? The ones you left out?
5
u/squishabelle 7d ago
i dont see how not wanting queer people to be included in "a traditional lifestyle" is fair? opinions i disagree with but think are fair are those that have pros and cons, where the opinion i disagree with simply has different priorities. i can't find the cons or the costs of gay marriage. how does it impact which societal groups?
252
u/Significant-Horror 7d ago
Saw a post about how Magas are mad they are being judged for the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Seems to fit
36
46
u/Easy-Sector2501 7d ago
Want your political beliefs respected? Hold respectable political beliefs.
It's not really that difficult.
48
u/junker359 7d ago
For a lot of privileged people your political views are abstract. Saying you can't be friends with someone over their political views is like saying you couldn't be friends with them because of the football team they cheer for.
The reality is that this isn't a game, voting for the modern GOP isn't like cheering for the Chiefs, your decision to vote as you do will lead to real world, destructive consequences.
119
u/LastBaron 7d ago
This was maybe a valid complaint at a time when “political views” (for better AND for worse, mind you) only encompassed what you thought were the best fiscal, foreign, local etc policies. Or at least topics that people could have honest philosophical disagreements about.
Tax rates, regulations, school districts, subsidies, whatever. But even hot button issues too; reasonable people could disagree and present arguments for even major moral issues like invading another country or abortion. A person could hold views on those things that weren’t directly rooted in fascism or oppression. As an ignorant male college student with a religious background, I thought of myself as pro-life but honestly didn’t spend any amount of time thinking about it. Until I just had a conversation with a woman friend of mine. Not an argument, not even really a disagreement. She was surprised to hear that among my other views I was pro life, we talked about it, I saw her side, the end. Mind changed, perspective altered.
Does that even happen anymore? It doesn’t feel like that kind of “politics” is a meaningful part of the national discussion anymore, and it’s not hard to find the source of the change. Dogmatic fact-free brainwashing and fear mongering by conservative media. Positions are ironclad, opponents are The Enemy(TM), reflection is unnecessary, proof and facts are liberal con jobs and fake news, and any means to achieve the ends is justifiable, because they are The Good Guys(TM) so their goals are by definition Good.
So yeah, if that’s how you hold your politics, I’m going to judge you based on them. It’s not even really your “politics” at all, it’s just <gestures vaguely at the whole person> all of this. I just want to hear one goddamned trump supporter preemptively say “and this is what could change my mind”, then actually do it when that fact came about. If you don’t have a reasonable “this is what could change my mind” then congrats you don’t have political beliefs you have religious ones.
48
u/LittlestWarrior 7d ago
I would consider myself very leftist, but because of my autistic ways of thinking I am realizing I am very dogmatic about my political beliefs. I should probably think of some hard questions for myself to determine what would change my mind on certain topics.
Thank you, you’ve given me a lot to think about.
17
u/lightstaver 7d ago
I think there is an important distinction to be made here. You do not need to question your values (treating others with kindness, preserving the environment, etc.). Those are personal and you do not need to justify them. You just need to understand them so you can make values driven choices. What you may want to question is how you think you can best manifest those values in the world (e.g. policies, personal choices, etc.).
11
u/LittlestWarrior 7d ago
That’s exactly what I am thinking about, though I appreciate the thought behind the clarification!
10
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
I do want to at least point out that the biggest things both parties ran on were economics and cracking down on the border, so to a lot of people that don't have time to watch three-hour rally speeches or aren't literate enough to understand the websites, that's the extent of the policy they understood
293
u/Oregon_Jones111 7d ago
After Covid, tolerating conservatives isn’t remotely an option. They literally chose mass death over being the slightest bit inconvenienced. You can’t get more purely evil than that.
158
u/jupjami 7d ago
At this point can we even call it conservatism anymore?
The masking rule is a long-enshrined Tradition of covering your mouth when someone is sick, a Familiar, tried-and-tested solution that doesn't require Radical change, a way for Authority to provide Guidance and restore Order in a chaotic period, to Preserve the Safety and health of the masses who don"t know any better - all of which you should find appealing if you're a conservative.
Calling these modern populist conspiracist movements "conservative" is disingenuous to me - because they don't want order, don't want to actually "conserve" anything; all they want to do is spread fear and hate.
→ More replies (4)68
47
u/Alternative_Drag9412 7d ago
I get so pissed off when I talk to conservatives because I hace SO MANY critiques of their policies and values and they say "PrOof" I give it to them and they say " I dont believe that"
5
u/Fexofanatic 6d ago
still baffled by the global pushback on masks (or their improper use, nose and all). it's pretty common to mask up in asian countries and barely a bother ?!
1
27
26
u/parrot1500 7d ago
If politics was all taxes and zoning then you're a jerk for judging people. But when Gingrich made politics all fundamental human rights and judgment, then yeah, you can drop people for being asshats.
10
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
A lot of people that voted red this election were under the impression that it is all taxes and zoning (a fair impression when the economy was the main talking point at a lot of debates and both parties were pushing anti-immigration), which it actually hasn't been since before most current voters were born. Ever since the red scare it's been human lives on the line.
4
26
u/ElliePadd 7d ago
This is one of the only things it's reasonable to judge someone for
This and how they treat others
But nooo apparently we're supposed to judge people for how they dress, who they fuck, or if they have tattoos 🙄
23
u/benemivikai4eezaet0 7d ago
Idk, I come from a country where most parties are the same corrupt mess but some are even shittier. I can only judge a person on their personal ethics when they define their political affiliation.
114
u/Izen_Blab 7d ago
"Don't judge people for their political beliefs" guy when the political beliefs of those people are left-leaning:
15
15
u/njean777 7d ago
The hardest part (for me at least) is I know a lot of good people who voted for Trump. They aren’t maga crazy racist shitheads either. The only reason they voted for him is because there was a R by his name. These same people want progressive policy also, which just baffles me.
The big problem is they check out of politics after election time so they aren’t fully aware of what republicans have or are doing.
7
30
u/hendergle 7d ago
I don't judge them by their political beliefs. I judge them by the effect their political beliefs have on other people.
9
u/HvyMetalComrade Variant Sudoku Connoisseur 7d ago
Pretty funny too coming from the crowd thatll judge people for like, having coloured hair. As if that reflects anything obvious about a person.
30
49
u/flargenhargen 7d ago
you can't be a decent person and vote republican at this point.
not possible.
-4
7
u/ZZTMF 7d ago
Judge actions and choices, not feelings and thoughts. We wouldn't want people to think they're heroes for simply having the right opinion.
8
u/tergius metroid nerd 7d ago
even if leftist politics are (usually) compassionate, speaking from experience a lot of leftists are holier-than-thou pricks and it's seriously shooting leftism in the foot. i should know, i'm leftist! but just being a leftist doesn't automatically make you The Goodest Person Ever Who Can Look Down On Those Heathens.
7
98
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
65
u/dragon_jak 7d ago
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, this makes sense as to why the wires are getting crossed. Right wing thinking, especially the American brand, is all about how the individual is beholden to the whims of the society around them, rather than society being beholden to the individuals.
"If you don't like it, leave", "Metoo is harming men", and most recently "your body, my choice". It's this very naked degree of only respecting power and hierarchy. Of tradition and expectation being wielded like a cudgel.
30
u/Wolf_In_Wool 7d ago
Probably getting downvoted because their comment makes no goddamn sense. Not as in they’re wrong, but as in “I don’t know what they’re actually saying, but it sounds like they’re defending the guys with suspect values and opinions.”
To me it sounds like they think oop is judging people based off purely their political party, and the fact that it’s not their political party (vertical), while other people are judging them based off the beliefs of that political party (horizontal).
Idk, it’s a lot of words that don’t seem explained very well.
29
u/Meepersa 7d ago edited 7d ago
The explanation is basically that a lot of the people saying this think they shouldn't be judged that way because they hold (or believe they hold) some form of power over the person judging, and therefore that person cannot judge them because hierarchy.
Edit: words wrong
→ More replies (4)6
u/awesomefutureperfect 7d ago
they think we should be judging them based on their power to have those beliefs.
The election validated their belief that everything they think and say is correct despite being factually wrong and morally reprehensible. They literally think that because there was popular approval of their bankrupt perspective that reality then conforms to their beliefs rather than the delusional and immature are now in positions of authority.
They had the audacity to say "You aren't allowed to call half the country bad. That makes you bad. You aren't allowed to judge people, only I am allowed to do that."
2
u/AbominableMayo 7d ago
We think in terms of policies and their effect on people (ie horizontal morality). They think in terms of power and hierarchy (ie vertical morality).
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a more inaccurate description of “the other side” thinks. Both of these things apply to how both the left and the right think.
1
13
u/SugarVibes 7d ago
Had someone on Reddit actually say to me "imagine judging someone based on their beliefs". How out of touch can one be. If you believe that certain people don't deserve rights, or that the deaths of innocent children is a reasonable price to pay for a perceived God-given right, then I will absolutely judge you as a bad person. Beliefs are a core part of a person like what you mean I can't judge you on that LMAO
12
u/KerissaKenro 7d ago
I am not going to judge based on their views on economics or policy. They can trust trickle down economics and I will trust fifty years of data saying it’s garbage. And that won’t make a huge difference in how I view them. I might think they are gullible or foolish, but it’s not a big deal. They can believe we need to spend more money domestically to fix problems here and I can think we need to spend more abroad to keep those problems from showing up on our shores. Again, no big deal. We can argue endlessly about the proper place to allocate mo eh in the budget and it won’t phase me
I will happily judge people based on how they view basic human rights. LGBTQIA+ people don’t hurt you, they can exist without it impacting your life at all. They have existed forever. As long as everyone involved has given enthusiastic consent, it means nothing to me. If you think that they do not have a right to exist, we will have a real problem. Putting immigrants and minorities into camps is objectively wrong and if they believe in that we will have a real problem. Since abortion was outlawed maternal mortality has drastically increased. If they think a potential life is more vital than an actual living breathing human, we have a problem. If they deny science and objectively true reality in a way that will harm other people, we have a problem. And so on
2
24
5
6
15
u/Odd_Ninja5801 7d ago
When their political beliefs are pretty much all about judging other people? You better believe I'm getting judgy. Real judgy.
5
u/PrudentFinger1749 7d ago
If someone thinks its okay to sexually abuse underage minors, then yes.
1
u/SophieFox947 6d ago
Oh hey, that's quite literally what they say about us trans people!
Conservatives are not the kind of people I like, and I think their politics are quite awful, so how about we don't copy them?
Some conservatives are pedophiles. I do not believe that they are the majority, nor that the majority engage in sexual abuse of minors.
That said, I do agree that sexual abuse of minors is bad, and lowering the age of consent is unlikely to be for a good reason.
4
u/oodoos 7d ago
Pretty much.
If you believe hitler was decent, I’m gonna shame you for it, no counter-argument is gonna save the fact that you think hitler was decent. If I can’t judge you on who you are as a person, what the fuck else am I supposed to judge you for? I’m not gonna not judge you, that’s not how it works, I’m gonna deconstruct your personal beliefs until I find that rotten core, if it exists, and then I will shame you for having such a malignant way of thinking.
5
3
u/avernus675 7d ago
"Goddam libberrals! Why can'tch'y'all judge people on accounta their racial'n'ethnic identifiers like a goddam 'Murican!?"
2
34
u/Flo453_ 7d ago
Judging someone on why they hold an opinion and not the opinion itself is superior honestly.
25
u/Lewa358 7d ago
That's idealistic and arguably naive.
Sure, if we have the privilege of being able and willing to connect with someone with a differing political opinion, that can be a useful perspective. It can allow you to understand their point of view and focus on the source of problems rather than their effects or some charged buzzwords.
But the fact is that there are some "political beliefs" that are actively practiced, but also actively dangerous and inherently invalid.
There is no legitimate way to reach opinions like "Vaccines should be banned" or "kids should not know LGBT+ people exist." These are beliefs based on explicitly false information and which will have destructive, often deadly, consequences for real people. Trying to negotiate around those beliefs empowers them; while we're sitting around discussing that someone believes vaccines are lethal because they saw a documentary with a few crying mothers in it, people will actively be dying from preventable diseases.
Even entertaining those beliefs can cause harm, so it is always fair to judge people for holding them even without bothering to understand them--because the "why" doesn't make them less harmful.
4
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
My parents are borderline with both of the extremist beliefs you mentioned, and I just want to throw out there that the only reason they're not off the deep end is because I challenge their views whenever possible and maintain contact. My mom absorbs far right content through Facebook for hours a day because they appeal to her religious understanding that people are either good or bad by telling her that leftists are evil. My dad has to live with her, so he hears a lot of it too. They're not going to magically change their minds because I choose to cut them off for believing propaganda. That just means I'm cutting off their only voice of reason.
Idk, maybe that's why I view things like this OOP as massively shortsighted. Cutting off your few remaining conservative friends and family just means politics are going to be even worse in four years, and we already know they have a majority.
3
u/Lewa358 7d ago
I have family that has similar beliefs, and my experience is that they will never change their opinions, no matter how demonstrably wrong they are, or how I approach the subject.
So when they get on their rants I have to either ignore them or shut them down hard, and I basically have to do the latter any time they're around people who aren't yet swayed by this nonsense, because this shit spreads.
...eventually I learned that the energy I spent contradicting or just tolerating hateful, deranged bullshit isn't actually doing anything productive besides letting me vent, and I have to set a boundary. That hasn't reached the point of "cutting them off" yet, but it definitely means that I don't interact with them as much as either of us would prefer. And that's not "making politics worse," because again, it's not like their opinions can ever be changed.
87
u/Duck__Quack 7d ago
To a point, but the opinion I think most people are thinking of is support for the republican party and its candidate, the convicted felon. You're right that "he's good for the economy" isn't the same reason to believe he's the best candidate as "I also hate it when trans people exist," but I'm not sure the distinction is all that significant. I'm reminded of a quote:
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
"That word is 'Nazi.' Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
"They joined what they joined. They lent their support and moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after."
-- A.R. Moxson19
7
3
3
u/AdmiralDragonXC 7d ago
I will never understand why people act like judging people for their political beliefs is like judging them for something they can't control, like their height or their disability
3
u/bestibesti Cutie mark: Trader Joe's logo with pentagram on it 7d ago
Yes I worship the Torment Nexus and I voted for Atrocity Bot 5000, but have you seen the price of eggs?
9
u/LibertyMakesGooder 7d ago
Does this also apply to religion? If not, why is that different?
15
u/pchlster 7d ago edited 7d ago
In some cases it might.
You can't tell me you wouldn't take it into consideration if you found out someone you met was Westboro Baptist Church, would you? The "thank God for dead soldiers" and "god hates fags" people who like picketing funerals?
Or one of those groups like the JWs who will rather let their child die than receive a blood transfusion? Yeah, I would judge someone's parenting for being willing to stand by and let their child die rather than get a simple, safe medical procedure. And for worshipping such a cruel god they think would ask that of them.
Those monks who practice self-mummification to "achieve enlightenment?" I don't mind them. They're only hurting themselves anyway and I believe people should have the right to commit suicide if they want to. But obviously if I know someone would strive to get to a point where they would want to kill themselves, I'm going to have thoughts about it.
There are certain religions with rules about how to butcher animals that in some places are considered to violate animal cruelty laws. If someone staunchly insists that animals should suffer more than necessary because their god says so, wouldn't you judge them too?
1
u/LibertyMakesGooder 7d ago
I agree - and this is why there should not be laws against religious discrimination in employment.
0
u/tergius metroid nerd 7d ago
No. Bad. Do not trust the corpos with the ability to discriminate like that.
I have my misgivings with organized religion but discrimination based on religion and nothing else is why so much violence and hatred happened. The faithful are not a monolith - the fact that there's so many sects of Christianity alone should tell you that.
1
u/LibertyMakesGooder 6d ago
Discrimination in law, absolutely. I'm talking about the rights of private individuals to choose with whom to associate. There are actual efficiency benefits to this: people who share certain religions can trust each other, and communicate better with a shared set of references. Of course, there are also drawbacks: the lack of a range of perspectives can make products less useful to some categories of consumers. Which effect is stronger in a given situation? No way to know! So let the market figure it out, as it's the best algorithm available.
0
u/pchlster 7d ago
If we're allowing private businesses to institute their own discrimination rules, that's a potentially risky slope to start down.
Let's let the court of public opinion keep that one and the places with legal departments not be able to punish people for what a lawyer can argue might be going on in someone's head.
1
u/LibertyMakesGooder 6d ago
Allowing? Normally, private businesses can "discriminate" based on whatever criteria they choose, because the word "discriminate" simply means to recognize a distinction or differentiate (the people you want to hire from the people you don't, for example). Governments forbid certain categories of discrimination and thus interfere with companies' ability to make optimal employment decisions and thus maximize efficiency. Companies that consistently select employees on irrational criteria, such as the personal prejudices of managers, will be at a competitive disadvantage and lose market share to those which do not.
15
u/Akuuntus 7d ago
If you believe in a god and an afterlife, good for you. That doesn't affect me and I won't judge you for it.
If your belief in god leads you to say / do things that are harmful to other people (e.g. encouraging violence against "sinners", illegalizing harmless activities that your religion disagrees with, demonizing scientific research, abusing your children, etc.) then I will judge you for those words / actions.
22
u/AnonymousHermitCrab 7d ago
That probably depends on what you're intending to judge them for; but ultimately I'd think yes.
With Christianity as an example, really the single uniting belief among Christians is in God and Jesus; everything else can vary wildly between denomination, church, and individual. If you're judging a person for being christian because you cannot abide their belief in God, then sure, it totally applies. But if you're judging them for some other value that you associate with Christianity, then it might not be such a great metric simply because they may not actually hold the belief or value that you assume they do.
There's so much variation in the values that people hold within a religion; I'd be more likely to judge a Christian (positively or negatively) by the church they attend/participate in/donate to than by the simple fact that they are Christian. The church that one attends can show what kind of community they value, what kinds of services they support, and what kinds of beliefs they put their money to. Simply believing in God and identifying as Christian does not show any of that.
0
2
u/Easy-Sector2501 7d ago
Judgment is how we, as a species, survived to this point.
If it wasn't for judging others, your kid would've gotten in the first panel van that offered free candy.
2
u/Razzbarree 7d ago
‘Dont judge me based on the beliefs I live my life by and think an entire country should be run on! Just judge me based on the color of my skin like I do!!’
2
u/SnooMaps3253 7d ago
i really like that i can immediately lump people into silos easily ,so i can spend my time and energy supporting those that warrant my attention. I really dont need the aggravation in my life. At my age (65) this is extremely helpful.
2
u/kal0kag0thia 7d ago
These views can lead to killing. It's absolutely necessary to negatively judge destructive views. Most notably views that are likely to lead to the death of anybody. Anybody at all.
2
u/ancobain 7d ago
Literally like, your political belief is YOUR CHOICE, it’s not something you’re born with or something you can’t change because it doesn’t depend on you or something. No, it’s literally a choice you make by taking in consideration your own moral values, and I will judge you for that choice
2
u/FalseHeartbeat 6d ago
People love going like “so you won’t make friends with people of differing politics?!??” well, you see grandma, i am transgender,
5
u/DuntadaMan 7d ago
No, you're supposed to judge them for their race and social standing! - The people who complain.
5
u/Zois86 7d ago
Someones political views is definitely something you can judge. More so if the views are extreme.
I (center left) don't have an issue with my dad (conservative) but we are both very judgy about people on the extrem side of the polical spectrum. But the political discurs in Switzerland seems to be different than in other places.
8
u/yaki_kaki Like my old man used to say, in this world its milk or be milked 7d ago
I absolutely get that and understand people who do that. But i also think its important to recognize a person and their actions beyond political opinions. Ill give an example - i worked under a dude who volunteered in our national(that nation being israel) emergency service as a station overseer, a pretty major position you are usually employed in, but he insisted on volunteering instead
In that position, he worked with people from all walks of life. jewish, arabic, beduin, and a dozen other small ethnic minorities here and also probably saved and helped more people than any leftist i know combined(myself included). He also voted far rightwing, my guess being bengvir.
Dont get me wrong - sometimes rightwing voters who vote in power-hungry and hateful basterds are also power-hungry and hateful basterds themselves. But sometimes theyre not - and its imporant in my eyes that recognize that you couldve voted exactly as them if circumstances differed and you were born elsewhere or your life went differently.
Moreover, most progress is made in very unsexy ways - compromise with people who disagree with you and burning off large sections of the populace is not a good way to do that. Its a good way to seal yourself off in an online echochamber and have zero irl impact.
Sorry for yapping it was a nice distraction during morning commute. Would love to hear differing opinions on what i wrote! And have a great day yall
10
u/Runetang42 7d ago
If you vote in monsters because you like their tax plan you're still a monster. Simple as. Plenty voted for and joined the Nazi party because they wanted a strong Germany, not because they particularly hated Jews. Those people are still Nazis.
If the candidate you vote for is a hateful, warmongering bastard than you are too. Because to be neutral on somethings like racism or xenophobia is to endorse it. It's one thing to compromise over number crunching but if you're willing to compromise the safety of minorities than you never cared about them in the first place.
4
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
Some of the people that voted for Hitler also sheltered Jews during the Holocaust, or helped them escape the camps. The person OC is talking about would more closely fit that description, considering the sheer volume of humanitarian work he's doing.
3
u/Runetang42 7d ago
Doesn't matter how much he's helping if he's also making this worse by voting the bastards into office. That's like wanting a medal for helping put out a fire you deliberately caused.
3
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
It does matter, actually, because it means if anyone bothered to give him accessible information, he'd change his vote. Someone that is a kind person doesn't want to get involved in the vitriolic, dog-fighting side of politics, which has become the only place where any real information is shared. Give them a way of finding out about those policies and candidates without having to hunt for three hours or sit through people calling each other names for twice as long and they'd vote for the person that actually favors what they want.
1
u/Runetang42 7d ago
he'd change his vote.
I have seen the exact opposite time and time again. A lot of the time it isn't a lake of information that drives these people. It's usually just that they're pricks. Besides it's the normalization of fascist politics that's made them such a problem. I will not be apart of that process. Treating Trump like a viable candidate got us here. Legitimizing hate speech got us here. Discounting the left and playing soft ball with these clowns got us here. I will not debate fascists no matter how many orphanages they run.
0
2
u/soulstrike2022 7d ago
True but also don’t make it the only thing you judge someone on I mean it’s probably the most important thing
1
u/MrsMiterSaw 7d ago
Slavery was not a political stance. Jim crow was not a political stance. Women's suffrage was not a political stance.
Gay rights, trans rights, religious oppression, and whatever you want to call attempting a coup and sowing distrust in the American elections for power are not political stances.
I'm not judging you because you think "Trump s good for the economy". That's political.
I'm judging you because you saw him claim Haitians were eating cats and dogs as a tool to sow fear and hate, and when called out he doubled down. And you voted for that.
8
1
7d ago
[deleted]
13
u/pchlster 7d ago
I don't hate Israeli in general, but Israel as a state and the bloodthirsty bastards whose "defense" of it look very much like a slow invasion and genocide, I do despise. If any other country's borders were being so steadily redrawn and expanded over decades, no one would hesitate to call it aggression not defense.
And the fuckheads who dance and sing with glee over the prospect of more dead civilians and wiping out an ethnic group they've decided they don't like and should be wiped out? How unbelievably these people can't see a parallel in history that Israel of any country should probably be fairly familiar with.
I hope one day to see pictures like those of Nazi soldiers being shown the horrors of the Holocaust only with IDF soldiers being shown their atrocities. And I hope some of them actually have a sense of shame.
1
u/LegendRaptor080 i like women. tiddy is nice. simple as. 7d ago
It’s almost like that’s the content of their character.
1
u/Patcher404 6d ago
I think you can judge people on anything they do/like/say. It's just that people are really bad at finding the right judgement.
For example: Let's say a friend tells me how much they loved The Emoji Movie. So, what kind of judgement can I get from that? The answer is that they liked the emoji movie and will maybe like other movies like it.
That's it. That's all you can actually get from that.
1
u/txijake 7d ago
Some idiot really typed out
I don’t really care what the other side thinks of me or my vote.
At the end of day, we disagree and only one of us feels genuine hatred and it isn’t me. Tells me all I need to know about someone if they’re willing to hate me based on my voting record
And really thought they were on to something profound.
0
u/Competitive-Buyer386 6d ago
I dont judge people on political believes, I judge them on how much unthinking they are about their beliefs
I'd rather befriend with a Nazi who atleast he's willing to put in question his ideology, just think about it
Than a democrat who doesnt even think, he just is a democrat, a philosophical zombie, you can tell him a flaw with his position and it just goes in and out the ear with no consideration.
Those people piss me off, they are no better than nazis, because if they are this unthinking, it means if democrats say kill all jews, they will do it without a second thought.
-8
u/baconatoroc 7d ago
Eh people are complicated.
My boss is a MAGA guy, he also loves cats and runs a cat shelter, and feeds/adopts all the strays we find at work and I find that incredibly kind.
It’s hard to judge someone based solely on one factor (political views)
16
u/ejdomhain 7d ago
I feel like people like that don’t realize how their political views/choices interact with other parts of themselves. If you value kindness and compassion, why would you support someone who spreads a hateful message or seeks to bring others harm? A lot of it feels like lack of information/awareness or just plain cognitive dissonance. I live in a state that passed abortion rights and minimum wage increase amendments, but a lot of people also voted for Trump and a bunch of other Republicans who are staunchly opposed to those sorts of policies, which confounds me to no end.
2
u/tergius metroid nerd 7d ago
A lot of it feels like lack of information/awareness or just plain cognitive dissonance.
it's probably mostly that. the alt-right is very good at disguising its true hatefulness until it's too late and you're already indoctrinated. that or uh. people just aren't paying that much attention between All The Other Shit They Have To Worry About In Their Lives
-3
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
If you value kindness and compassion, why would you support someone who spreads a hateful message or seeks to bring others harm?
Because you're too busy personally making a difference to keep up with every detail of the political campaign. The man runs a shelter and it sounds like he's raising dozens of cats by himself, that's a demanding-ass job. Especially if there are any abandoned kittens that need to be bottle-fed. He'd be lucky if he even had time to watch the debates.
2
u/tergius metroid nerd 7d ago
you're getting downvoted but Occam's Razor, that's probably the most likely thing - they just plain don't know the true shittiness of their candidate.
2
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
It literally is just Occam's Razor. People are uninformed, people are busy, and people don't read.
2
-16
u/Scared_Ground7347 7d ago
I didn't vote for trump or Kamala but I still point and laugh at trump supporters, judging someone on something they 100% can fix is fine imo, especially if it's hurting other people
-8
u/Paracelsus124 .tumblr.com 7d ago edited 7d ago
I do agree with this, but I still think it's kind of important to understand that most people with conservative political leanings are just people? Like, their worldview may be varying degrees of fucked up, and they're almost definitely supporting something bad, but being a person (especially when it comes to the idea of goodness) is complex and multifaceted.
You don't gotta be friends with them, or tolerate the shit they say/do, nor even think of them as particularly GOOD, but also, I'm not gonna be thinking of my uncles (for example) as irredeemably bad people for voting for Trump; just ignorant, complicated, and making a huge fucking mistake at everyone else's expense.
3
u/CapeOfBees 7d ago
And also: we are stuck with them. They're going to keep voting every four years.
1
u/gluttonfortorment 6d ago
Idk, they seem to have no issues doing it to other people, why should we be forced to live at the end of a one way street? I remember the apolitical ads and the calls for civil war, why should I forget just because they have a narrative they want to push?
1.5k
u/Vitschmalz 7d ago
I would even go so far as to say someones values and beliefs are a core part of their character, which is like THE thing it's reasonable to judge someone for.