SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

@peterdrake @williamlweaver (Is this too long? I bounce around a few ideas here didn't want to flood with several posts.. )

• It's sometimes hard to take seriously - the link to wapo referenced the statement that collusion is not a crime, which they listed as a lie or misleading even though they said his statement is true, and they're reading in motives rather than reporting on the facts of what's true or false.

• My concern with "don't normalize this" is that it might mean "don't normalize that it's okay for someone to disagree with my opinion", which I suspect is far more "fantastically dangerous to our democracy" than Trump's stupidly untrue boasts to puff himself up.

• I have a theory around how the president speaks/acts, which is not based around being true or even genuine, but about triggering a certain reaction in others that advances his agenda: positive reactions in his rally-attenders while over the top negative from his perceived opponents (who are often people on his own team), which then adds to the perception that they're irrationally out to get him. When someone is manipulating you this way I think you have to rise above to not play the role the person is planning on you to play, but I haven't seen much of that.

• I'd much rather talk ideas and policies than personalities. Donald makes this very difficult as he's constantly interrupting with his wild statements or personality, which keeps turning the conversation away from the substantive.

@williamlweaver There were some issues last election where Trump and Clinton agreed, and both sides were using the issue as a wedge issue. It was ludicrous.

I think this relates to something @freemo posted earlier - everyone seems themselves as doing what's right. But when the other side isn't just wrong/mistaken but EVIL, then there's no reason to engage in discussion of issues with them. If anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, and you don't engage in discussions with Nazis, you punch them physically or by bashing their personality.

@Demo318 And 224k of those were in one hour?

The part that bothers me is that the boycott was apparently called for by the chairman of the opposing party.

I'd feel the same way if it was the opposite parties.

I'm not sure it helps to try to call for damaging business simply because a political donation went to your opponent.

As a sidenote, Snopes reports that they've twice as much to Democrat-supporting PACs than the amount reported to the California Republicans.

@rnitsch I agree - and when I left I somewhat stomped my feet and slammed the door to make a statement. Many have echo'd your comment and asked to be sure I'll re-engage.

I likely will re-engage, but it was helpful for me to unaffiliate for a while, get a clearer perspective.
It has also been helpful to be able to engage in discussion: "Hey, I agree there's problems, I'm not one of 'them'"

@rnitsch Yes! I've seen this a lot the past few years in uspolitics... I don't think you should have to know if someone is "us" or "them" in order to acclaim or condemn behavior. Tribalism in politics, in the news... so regular now.

It's a big part of why I unaffiliated with political parties.

@freemo
That's true. And that's a big benefit of how Mastodon is set up - we know we're here at the discretion of the moderator(s) of the instance. I joined because I thought the rules at #qoto are great - very straightforward and objective. Thanks!
@Surasanji @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

@cm I'm reading the link now - thanks! I think I agree with it but many use the phrase to justify intolerance in general.

From the link:

"for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"... or social media mobbing

The big emphasis is that tolerance requires rational argument - open, rational communication between different groups.

@gravity @cm My concern is that "I don't tolerate the intolerant" in practice ends up meaning: "I only tolerate those I agree with. If you don't agree with me, I label you intolerant and am against you"

Which is to just be intolerant.

@Surasanji @freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

But can you use a person's subjective knowing-when-seeing as the rule?

I think something more objective is required so people can agree on what they know as they see and so people know themselves when they're crossing the line of acceptable discourse.

I start with the belief that people are doing the best they know how for the best they know of in pursuit of, what is probably a shared goal somewhere, and those shared goals allow us to communicate.

Sadly our US politicians now sound like anonymous commenters on a polarized website; I'd like to be the opposite.

I now regularly have very enjoyable and (I think) productive discussions about politics with people who have never voted the same way as I have. I've learned and hopefully they have as well. There's much to be gained by being excellent to each other and being willing to engage rather than ban.

Of course there's a line - I've heard it called "The Overton Window", the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse; but I think we really ought to have as wide of an overton window as possible. Just because I think something is a bad idea, doesn't mean discussion of it should be banned.

If I'm not allowed to discuss my ideas, I am less likely to understand if they're wrong or could use adjustment. I may be not allowed legally or by formal banning or public shaming, or whatever, so I tend to be opposed to all of those.