The Dehumanization Of Conservatives

[Fox Lokison]

Not to be pedantic, but I think the two are definitely hand in hand. The same thing motivates both of them - the idea that punishing 'bad people', however we define it, is just and good. I'm not going to say that I'm sympathetic to the pain of Trump supporters right now - that is to say, those who still back him in 2020, and defend his actions, and not those who once voted for him. I'm not gonna lie and pretend I feel bad that the tables have turned and that conservatives and Trump supporters who have espoused hate and violence are not facing some sharp words and some hate back. I've dealt with fists and blades, with threats and attacks, with all sorts of triggering nastiness that doesn't need to be brought up, all for being trans/queer/disabled/etc, and frankly I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone comparing a reaction to political values that devalue other lives, to systematic oppression.

But.

"Us vs them" is dangerous. It's non-partisan. It's existed forever. It's as intrinsic to human history as anything else. And as much as I have absolutely no sympathy for people who gleefully have no sympathy for me and my friends and our pain, I'm not going to fix anything by stooping to their level. I'm quite fond of the lyric "If a million hands can build a wall, a million hands can break it down" (from the song Hands, a tribute to Orlando and what happened there, as a warning). Dehumanization is a wall, and it's a wall with many, MANY bricks in it. It's not something we should look away from, in my opinion. The idea that if you've done a bad thing, you are intrinsically awful, that plays into dehumanization AND cancel culture, and it's a piece that needs to be dealt with to stop both.

I may have no sympathy... but I also don't wish more harm. No matter what label we slap on it, what it all boils down to is punishing and hating. It's about feeling good, righteous. "They're the assholes, we're the good guys, so we're justified in what we do."

It's always interesting that the leftists who love to punch down and defend flat out abusive people are the ones complaining about the mythical cancel culture.

It's also always interesting that those who feel punched down upon will find any justification to punch down on others. Myself included, that's not a targeted jab. I think it's doing leftist movements a disservice to pretend we don't do this, or to imply it, or to frame the conversation as if we are justified and that anyone who complains is a bad person. Even if we don't mean to. We all do it. We all have bias and we all frame things a certain way, and once you do that long enough, your opinion starts to become fact for you, and then before you know it, you're justifying actions that you would have rallied against.

We all have a story. A narrative. An idea of right and wrong, good and bad. Hell, we're writers here, we're all pretty aware that stories are easy to concoct, and they simplify things and make lines easy to draw. And we're all presumably well aware of how easy it is to let those lines stray too far.  How easy it is to feel righteous and justified, and forget the person on the other side - conservative, leftist, moderate, whomever - is still a person. Because once we categorize someone as something, it becomes harder and harder for us to see them as anything but that.

Blinders are blinders. And more hate and anger and harm never healed wounds, solved problems, or fixed nations.

[Fox Lokison]

*I'm not gonna lie and pretend I feel bad that the tables have turned and that conservatives and Trump supporters who have espoused hate and violence are now facing some sharp words and some hate back.

Sorry, important typo to fix, that totally changes the meaning >.>

[Tolvo]

I do have to ask are you reading into my posts that I was framing it as anything is justified if a person is bad or harmful? It is a little hard to discuss points being made when they are not things I refute, my point is that many people cry afoul when held accountable, when they are asked to be responsible for the real harm they do. And call this cancel culture. Harassment campaigns have existed for a long time and predate the internet, and very abusive people wish to lump them together to legitimize their own tantrums when marginalized people call them out or challenge them. Most often in these instances people for years approach them in good faith and reach out, try to talk, help, and are shunned or even targeted for daring to even mildly be critical. I believe in forgiveness, in compassion, in learning and bettering, I've seen plenty of people escape toxic thought patterns and many leave hate movements and become better people. But when doing so they are self critical and willing to look at who they were, and work towards something better without lying and hiding it.  People who to this day espouse bigotry and love to throw figurative live grenades into communities to incite chaos then boo hoo when people with less than 1% the power and influence they have criticize them, I have no real sympathy for the position of as they can simply stop harming people and communities. This extends to whether someone is of any political ideology or group, I do not like abusive, hateful, careless, irresponsible, people. I do not like them broadly and I do not like it when people coddle such toxic people, which additionally inhibits possible growth. Having your friends tell you when you're out of line can be an extremely important thing.

[Fox Lokison]

I do have to ask are you reading into my posts that I was framing it as anything is justified if a person is bad or harmful?

I don't claim that you did. I'm talking about the overall phenomena that drives both dehumanization and cancel culture. Not terribly fond of personal attacks, and I don't think it's fair to say you feel that way, when I don't know how you feel.

As for the rest, I do understand where you're coming from. And yes, there are those who are being rightfully criticized that decry cancel culture as some boogyman out the get them. That's not what I'm discussing, and I don't know how to frame it any clearer. I'm saying, quite simply, that this tool that allows us to deplatform, criticize, and get the attention of prominent figures using their platform for harm, is weaponized. It's misused. And we should be critical of that, and any other rhetoric that drives us to an us vs them mentality. Which is all covered in the video I linked.

My synopsis is simple. If we do not use these tactics ethically or effectively, we stray into extremism. I'm not helped by twitter hate mobs dogpiling creators for making mistakes or representing views poorly, and I'm also not helped by those same mobs dogpiling harder when that person tries to improve. That is a thing that happens, that is a thing that needs to be noted for us to move forward, and I'm not asking that anyone agree with me. That's just my thoughts on it. I don't think statements such as 'mythical cancel culture' really do any good, and I'm not fond of the leftist habit of sweeping unseemly things under the rug. That's speaking as an anarchist. Accountability within our movement is my goal. From all sides, and from all people. From those at the very top, to those at the very bottom. Cancel culture is more than a shield that abusive and toxic people swing around to deflect criticism, in my opinion. It's a piece of a much larger problem. And like any piece, it can be used for both good and bad ends.

[Tolvo]

Ah since you quoted me I was unsure if you meant that you felt I was making those sorts of points.

[Fox Lokison]

Nope, and sorry if it came across like that - I'm not the best at tone sometimes, and I definitely come across far different than I intend more often than I'd like. My bad.

[Tolvo]

Don't worry about it, that's why I ask. Sometimes it might be a bit blunt but I figure it's best when tone is unclear to just ask directly if someone meant something or if something was confusing to me.

To bring it back a bit to the topic as well, something I'll mention in regards to dehumanization is I do use negative terms often, at the same time I do stress it is people doing these things. I hate Trump for instance but he is still a man, and I find dehumanization in regards to horrid people can also be used to distance oneself from relation to someone as a sort of escape from responsibility or realization that a person is doing and saying horrid things. Which can be hard for many to have to think about but I always find it's an important aspect to keep in mind.

[Azuresun]

Blinders are blinders. And more hate and anger and harm never healed wounds, solved problems, or fixed nations.

Though I'm very uncomfortable with the emotion of anger personally, I think it can be a valuable first step in effecting change. Anger rallies people, and it can shock outsiders out of their complacency, as we've seen recently.

But I think a major problem with society right now is the notion that anger solves complex problems by itself. The belief that I can just shriek hatred at a name on a computer screen for five minutes and come away feeling like I've done anything useful, rather than driving away undecided observers ("they're just as bad as each other") and reinforcing my opponents' beliefs that I'm one of a bunch of crazies who can be safely ignored.

[Twisted Crow]

I am having a number of 'internal dialogue' problems with the whole 'Karen' thing, actually.   :-\

[Tolvo]

Karen was honestly quite a fine thing, as originally it was just AAVE and gender neutral, as a way to talk about people who were hurting mainly black people. Now it's become a meme and everyone is throwing itt at literally everything, to the point that Karen wasn't really anything misogynistic and was focused and based in the history of the role white women serve in white supremacy. But now everyone is calling literally any woman a Karen. Which tends to happen with any term that comes from black communities.

[Oniya]

I think most people would catch the reference if you called them 'E.P.' (Entitled Person/Parent).  There's an entire subreddit of those stories.

[Tolvo]

I wouldn't know the acronym but I'd get it if I heard the full name. Also felt I should clarify I think my above ending sentence was a bit unclear, I'm specifically talking about this happening a lot when people appropriate AAVE and misuse it which is common, not that words from black communities are a problem.

[Twisted Crow]

I am imagining the social precedent mixed with the usual thing that happens whenever we have a new "in" meme to slap people with (which Tolvo sums up pretty accurately... because that's the usual shit that happens).

It is one of the reasons I rolled my eyes at "Ok, Boomer..." Because it was likely already losing whatever initial meaning it may had by the time I first heard it. It was worthless by time I learned about it.

On 'Karen', I just think about this if I started switching things around a bit while applying the same intention to label. If I run into a Mexican American who is pro-Trump and is pro-Wall (and yes... they do exist over here. And they are more than you might think). Let's say his name happens to be 'Julio'. I think it would be kinda messed up if we just start calling all Mexican pro-Trumpers (that fit his given profile) as another 'Julio'. Kind of a shitty label to drop on people, yo. Especially when the problem we are having right now, according to some; is caused by the destructive labeling of other people.* And in my experience, when exceptions are made to the standards that one creates in order to fight their fight what they oppose, in the first place. Yes, that one Nietzsche quote most of us are quite familiar with, by now.

But anyway, I already twist my mouth in disgust when I hear family members spit their slurs. But I know why they feel entitled to do it, because they get constant media ammunition and some people just crank that stuff up to eleven. Yet I try to twist their sword and deflect it with my own retort; One cannot object to racism and then turn completely around and battle racism with more racism. Yet, it is kind of hard for me to argue how their behavior is wrong (which it is), when I can easily witness the opposition doing the same thing. I am really at a loss for words in such situations... as I often look to both directions.

I am kind of an idiot... but I never imagine fighting a fire by hosing it with gasoline. I am sure some science can maybe explain how that might be possible... but I still think we have much better resources to fight fire.

Still, what I have been seeing for years (since about I left the Army, really): People fighting fire with napalm.

*The video linked is safe and positive... it just has little ones in it.

[Thufir Hawat]

I am imagining the social precedent mixed with the usual thing that happens whenever we have a new "in" meme to slap people with (which Tolvo sums up pretty accurately... because that's the usual shit that happens).

It is one of the reasons I rolled my eyes at "Ok, Boomer..." Because it was likely already losing whatever initial meaning it may had by the time I first heard it. It was worthless by time I learned about it.

On 'Karen', I just think about this if I started switching things around a bit while applying the same intention to label. If I run into a Mexican American who is pro-Trump and is pro-Wall (and yes... they do exist over here. And they are more than you might think). Let's say his name happens to be 'Julio'. I think it would be kinda messed up if we just start calling all Mexican pro-Trumpers (that fit his given profile) as another 'Julio'. Kind of a shitty label to drop on people, yo. Especially when the problem we are having right now, according to some; is caused by the destructive labeling of other people.* And in my experience, when exceptions are made to the standards that one creates in order to fight their fight what they oppose, in the first place. Yes, that one Nietzsche quote most of us are quite familiar with, by now.

But anyway, I already twist my mouth in disgust when I hear family members spit their slurs. But I know why they feel entitled to do it, because they get constant media ammunition and some people just crank that stuff up to eleven. Yet I try to twist their sword and deflect it with my own retort; One cannot object to racism and then turn completely around and battle racism with more racism. Yet, it is kind of hard for me to argue how their behavior is wrong (which it is), when I can easily witness the opposition doing the same thing. I am really at a loss for words in such situations... as I often look to both directions.

I am kind of an idiot... but I never imagine fighting a fire by hosing it with gasoline. I am sure some science can maybe explain how that might be possible... but I still think we have much better resources to fight fire.

Still, what I have been seeing for years (since about I left the Army, really): People fighting fire with napalm.

*The video linked is safe and positive... it just has little ones in it.

*slowclap*

[Dice]

Fuck this is a topic hey? Going to admit I read the first page only, this is a bit heavy.

I am all for having disagreements with others, I am all for having views that do not match my own, hell my own views do not match mine from 10 years ago, we are going to have to just live with the fact that people will not agree with one another. The thing I make no apologies for though is looking at Hate or Stupidity and calling it for what it is.

I have a boss at work who fucking loves Trump. Says the man is not Racist, more or less quotes his lines (It was just locker room talk) and what not else. At this point I just see him as a lost cause. If you are going to tell me your voting for him and can give me a reason thats something we can talk about, if your just blindly in his cult thats another.

This goes both ways. I meet a socialist once that was willing to swear to me black and blue that Castro was the best thing ever to happen to Cuba. That guy I put next to my boss as a moron, its not about politics there, it is about finding the information you want and blocking out the parts you dislike.

Let me put it this way. I do not care that Mel Gibson is to the right of me politically, he was a decent actor and I am not going to pretend I care enough about his views to not see a movie he is in. That is until he starts mouthing off about how Jews destroyed the world. Now mate, now you are crossing a line. I do not give two shits that you are voting for Tony Abbott, I do though take issue with hateful bullshit that has no basis in reality.

Personally I my moment of sadness is going back and watching a movie from the dawn of the internet age "With Honours" that has a hyper optimistic outlook on what the internet is going to do for democracy. The issue is not that we are dehumanising one side or the other and we are, I mean that is an issue with the right too "Liberals hate America!" is a slogan I think it would take me all of 20 seconds to find coming out of Tucker Carson's mouth. It does run both ways. No the issue is that we have people like Tucker that we can choose to listen to and to them only. The Cable era and the internet age have left us with people who are willing to tell us exactly what we want to hear and, because we want to hear it and feel we are right, they have to outdo one another until all the moderating voices are shouted out of the arena and all that is left is someone willing to tell you that you and your views are right. The bonus is that you can choose never to hear anyone that might point out what might be wrong with your views, you can stay in your Fox/MSNBC/Infowars/TYT bubble.

Thats not to say the left is immune to this. Remember when Maddow got one fucking page of Trumps taxes and blew a fucking gasket over nothing? Log into the Washington Post these last few years and find a story on the front page that is not about Trump? Do you want real news out of the left of late that has not been someone telling you that you are right to hate this guy like you did not already have enough reasons already? God dam it.

The issue is not that we demonise the other side, the issue is that we do not have to engage with them anymore and thus working out that maybe, just maybe, we all actually suffer from a lot of the same issues, the same fears and the same needs only we can box ourselves off and not work out an answer together. Because we would rather rip into one another over our views on society while we all get taken for a ride economically.

Also I feel this goes here for some levity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk

[lillisa]

Personally I feel there's a bit of the tolerance paradox in play here. As in can you be tolerant of intolerance.

Conservatives are being dehumanised because they support an inhumane regime. Their argument seems to be: Don't make me feel bad for supporting and aiding a monster. Trump's regime is objectively and quantifiably fascist, racist and demagogue. Proof of that is abound. Supporting that regime requires a certain lack of empathy that 30 years ago would have only seemed to be present with fringe groups.

Asking people to be polite to someone spouting abuse and threatening their lives is like asking someone to please be nice and considerate to the person murdering them.

As for fighting fire with gasoline, the left has tried water for decades, but it just made the fire grow bolder and more dangerous. Now the left is using fire of its own. It's like burning down sections of forest to try and stop a forest fire from spreading. It sounds counterintuitive, but it works.

There are a lot of conservatives of course who don't support Trumps regime. Take for example George Conway. So there is hope on the right. But if you support a man who openly praised neo nazis who killed a young woman that was protesting them as being very fine people, then yes, your humanity can validly be taken into question.

[Fox Lokison]

Asking people to be polite to someone spouting abuse and threatening their lives is like asking someone to please be nice and considerate to the person murdering them.

This is where my issue comes up with any discussion of 'well what about the feelings of Trump supporters' or their related groups. Because it always boils down to hurt feelings and being stigmatized, or even people treating them with the same bigotry they treat others with.

I'm not going to sit here and claim all conservatives and Trump supporters are like this. My ex's mother, a dear part of my life and a mother to me, has a gay daughter and a trans adoptive son. She voted Trump. My uncle, an Italian-American who grew up facing bigotry for his race, bigotry that altered the course of his life, voted Trump. Neither of them are intrinsically bad people. I don't think they deserve harm, and not just because they're tied to me, but because their motives are more misguided than hateful.

But those people voted for a man who has done such harm that I can't overlook it. Do I still love them? Of course. Will I forgive them? Of course.

Yet when it all boils down to it, their support helped put a man in office who directly harms me. There's Trump supporters I don't talk to and won't forgive. My grandmother, who openly said that what Trump was doing for America was more important than the harm his policies were doing to me. My ex's stepdad, who delighted in "seeing the liberals get what's coming to them" when violence against refugees and the camps at the border played out across his screen.

My life, the lives of those I love, and the lives of people I care about, they have been deeply harmed by this man's policies. The increase in violence and hate against me was bad enough. Now that it's being codified in law, I can't even safely have my doctor write down that I'm trans without wondering if that will put a target on my back. I'm once again wondering if I can safely hold my boyfriend's hand in the streets because of the casual homophobic and racist comments I've been treated to by people who mistake me for one of their allies, people who I would never expect to be so bigoted, people who sling their hate so casually, it may as well be a discussion on the weather.

I'm willing to compromise with some people, some conservatives, some early Trump voters. But I don't see why I should have sympathy for people who are gleeful about me being harmed, or like violence against American citizens, so long as it's against the ones they don't like. The ones who encourage and even incite this violence. As lillisa put it wonderfully;

As for fighting fire with gasoline, the left has tried water for decades, but it just made the fire grow bolder and more dangerous. Now the left is using fire of its own. It's like burning down sections of forest to try and stop a forest fire from spreading. It sounds counterintuitive, but it works.

People who would see these wounds buried yet again, see the hurts of communities of Americans who have spent decades and centuries begging to be heard, begging to be cared for, to be given the same treatment as their peers, to live in a country free of pain and strife, to not be targeted and killed and brutalized for who they are simply be smoothed over in the name of civility...

All because they faced some stigma and negativity for a political affiliation they chose, that they can change...

Those are not people I can see eye to eye with, because they would rather I smile and be nice and not call out the fact that they enable such things. They would prefer I didn't draw attention to the consequences of their choices, their votes. I am accountable for all my actions. I deal with the consequences of each. Society EXPECTS that. When I was assaulted, every single time it was asked 'what did you do to attract that'. Every time I faced bigotry for being disabled, being trans, being gay, there are those voices going 'well if you didn't flaunt it maybe you wouldn't get hurt'.

So I'm expected to stay still and silent, to not talk about my pain or strife, to not discuss the systems that keep me in this position, the systems that are routinely upheld by voters who choose men like Donald Trump to represent them. I'm supposed to smile and not be hurt, and to not cause trouble. To keep the peace. I'm supposed to sit here with open wounds and pretend I'm not bleeding for the sake of coddling their feelings. People who wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire, and in fact laugh when me and people like me are, because 'that's what we deserve'.

So I'd say to conservatives and Trump supporters who are upset about being dehumanized by words, maybe if you didn't flaunt it, you wouldn't get hurt. I'd say well, what were you doing to make people so mad at you? Because if I'm held accountable for my very EXISTENCE, and if I'm expected to endure violence and hate because of what I am, because of immutable things I cannot change, I think it's only fair for the other side to deal with a few harsh words.

An eye for an eye is not the way to heal the world. But an eye for an eye would be subjecting conservatives and trump supporters to the same violence I've endured. All I'm asking is that they open their eyes to how their actions harmed others. To be aware of what their votes did, what their political ideals do, and the damage caused by them. I want them to open their eyes and look at me, and see what has been done. What is being done. I cannot and will not equate the anger of marginalized people who have endured abuses for centuries with stoic kindness, with marches and non-violent protests and polite requests, with their votes and their open hearts, with all good intentions and the belief that if they speak loud enough others will hear them... I cannot equate the suffering of the people who are so tired of the jackboot on their throat with the very real and very valid pain of members of political parties facing the same rhetoric and words they used so casually to do irreparable harm, direct or not.

I just can't. And if that makes me a bad person, I'm fine with that. I've tolerated intolerance long enough. Our communities cannot take more violence. Hurt feelings are the least of my problems.

[Fox Lokison]

So I'd say to conservatives and Trump supporters who are upset about being dehumanized by words, maybe if you didn't flaunt it, you wouldn't get hurt. I'd say well, what were you doing to make people so mad at you? Because if I'm held accountable for my very EXISTENCE, and if I'm expected to endure violence and hate because of what I am, because of immutable things I cannot change, I think it's only fair for the other side to deal with a few harsh words.

An eye for an eye is not the way to heal the world. But an eye for an eye would be subjecting conservatives and trump supporters to the same violence I've endured. All I'm asking is that they open their eyes to how their actions harmed others. To be aware of what their votes did, what their political ideals do, and the damage caused by them. I want them to open their eyes and look at me, and see what has been done. What is being done. I cannot and will not equate the anger of marginalized people who have endured abuses for centuries with stoic kindness, with marches and non-violent protests and polite requests, with their votes and their open hearts, with all good intentions and the belief that if they speak loud enough others will hear them... I cannot equate the suffering of the people who are so tired of the jackboot on their throat with the very real and very valid pain of members of political parties facing the same rhetoric and words they used so casually to do irreparable harm, direct or not.

I just can't. And if that makes me a bad person, I'm fine with that. I've tolerated intolerance long enough. Our communities cannot take more violence. Hurt feelings are the least of my problems.

I'd like to tack on, because this is all rather sharp-tongued, and text doesn't convey tone well, I don't go out my way to be nasty to people who don't agree with me. I generally try to understand where they're coming from, but also don't brook bullshit. I'm not going to SPREAD more negativity because it gets me off or something, or gives me my jollies. I prefer to not speak unless I can actually change a person's mind, and use my energy for good. Building bridges is much more rewarding for me than burning them.

But I'm also just deadass out of sympathy for the whole concept. The idea that the left is all violent militants looking to destroy America, and that these nice right-wing folks who just voted a little bit wrong are the victims tastes like rot on my tongue. It's easy to stigmatize violence when you think it's not already happening. It's easy to call it an unjust reaction when it's not a fist in your face. I've endured enough trauma for five men due to things I can't control, and I'm bloody 26 years old. I've spent my years biting my tongue, and not lashing out, and not giving as good as I got, because I know on some level, that's morally wrong. I'm not and never will advocate for going out your way to actively harm and dehumanize others, and I do think that's an important clarification to make, because I used to run with some circles who really did think it should be an eye for an eye, and they weren't just right wingers. I want to dispel the notion that the violence we suffer justifies dehumanizing others. It does not. It never should. I just also can't ask those people to have sympathy for their victimizers.

[Giantmutantcrab]

As a Canadian, I would like to add a more distant perspective.

In the United States, there are two main political parties. Democrats and Conservatives.

Democrats are center-right in their political spectrum, and Conservatives are far-right. There are subsets like the tea party that flirt with the extreme far-right, but I digress.

That's it. That is the political width in the US.

There are countries that stretch from far-left to far-right with everything in between as far as political parties.

When conservatives in the US call anything "the left", it sounds phony. When you're at the far-right of the political spectrum, anything seems leftist and radical.

Let me add this snippet from an interesting article.

During the presidential election of 1952. Truman was out campaigning for the Democractic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, who was running against the Republican Dwight Eisenhower. Truman was in Syracuse, New York, on October 10th, 1952, during a whistle stop tour across the north-east. Speaking from the rear platform of the last car of the train (as was often done in those days), Truman complained that Ike and other powerful Republicans “opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country” and that they “blindly turned [their] backs on the tradition of public action for the public good.”

Truman then specifically targeted powerful Republican Senator Robert Taft, who had said that the biggest danger facing the country was “creeping socialism” promoted by the Democrats.Truman shot back at Taft and Ike with:

“Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan ‘Down With Socialism’ on the banner of his ‘great crusade,’ that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is, ‘Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,’ and ‘down with Harry Truman’s Fair Deal.’ That is what he means”

Sadly, conservatism often falls into social stagnation. Anti-abortion and anti-gay rights are the same old dusty scarecrows that they prop up in nearly every election cycle for decades. These are concepts and ideals that should be enshrined into every civilized country. But for conservatives, these are deeply flawed social issues that must be repealed. Because it's not enough to want to control politics, conservatives also wish to control women's bodies and what people do in the bedroom with those they want to share that bedroom with.

In 1962, John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Right now, Donald Trump is making peaceful revolution impossible. Sending unidentified federal goon squads in Portland, kidnapping protestors in unmarked vans and then freeing them the moment these kidnapping victims demand a lawyer or wish to have their rights respected. This is what dictators do; they silence dissent through violence, intimidation and fear.

I'm not sure what you're aiming at, OP, but I think you missed the mark.

[Skynet]

In the United States, there are two main political parties. Democrats and Conservatives.

Democrats are center-right in their political spectrum, and Conservatives are far-right. There are subsets like the tea party that flirt with the extreme far-right, but I digress.

That's it. That is the political width in the US.

There are countries that stretch from far-left to far-right with everything in between as far as political parties.

When conservatives in the US call anything "the left", it sounds phony. When you're at the far-right of the political spectrum, anything seems leftist and radical.

In regards to Democrats regarded as more centrist, there's a recent article talking about how some of the Democratic Party's big-money donors became comfortable with supporting Biden's run once Sanders and other "more liberal" candidates were out of the race.

[Thufir Hawat]

There are a lot of conservatives of course who don't support Trumps regime. Take for example George Conway. So there is hope on the right.

But if you support a man who openly praised neo nazis who killed a young woman that was protesting them as being very fine people, then yes, your humanity can validly be taken into question.

For the record, I find such statements hair-raising...even though I live in a wholly different country.
Three questions, though:

1) Are you trying to say that the humanity of 40,3% of Americans "can validly be taken into question"? That's Trump's approval rating that popped at the top of my search (so roughly about 140 milions people).

2) Who determines whose humanity "can be taken into question"? I'm pretty sure the other side has a roughly equal number of people who would be willing to question your humanity, common sense, or whatever qualities you wish to name.

3) What do you do with those whose humanity you find lacking? You kinda have to live in the same country as them, unless you have some really radical solutions in mind (like emigrating - but you might find that there are Trump supporters outside the USA as well). So?

[Giantmutantcrab]

For the record, I find such statements hair-raising...even though I live in a wholly different country.
Three questions, though:

1) Are you trying to say that the humanity of 40,3% of Americans "can validly be taken into question"? That's Trump's approval rating that popped at the top of my search (so roughly about 140 milions people).

2) Who determines whose humanity "can be taken into question"? I'm pretty sure the other side has a roughly equal number of people who would be willing to question your humanity, common sense, or whatever qualities you wish to name.

3) What do you do with those whose humanity you find lacking? You kinda have to live in the same country as them, unless you have some really radical solutions in mind (like emigrating - but you might find that there are Trump supporters outside the USA as well). So?

Donald Trump has validated hate and intolerance since he was imposed by the electoral college (since he lost the popular vote by a factor of several million votes). These are people driving golf carts and shouting "white power" at people carrying signs that basically say "my life matters, too". These are people who react to the death of George Floyd by calling protestors anarchists. They view nothing wrong with the current situation in the US.

That is indeed a problem and a complete lack of human empathy and caring.

[Iniquitous]

In regards to Democrats regarded as more centrist, there's a recent article talking about how some of the Democratic Party's big-money donors became comfortable with supporting Biden's run once Sanders and other "more liberal" candidates were out of the race.

What the US calls “Left” or “Liberal” is, in other countries, actually, “Center” or “Center Left”, which is why I crack up laughing when I hear people freaking out about the “liberal left”.  Even Bernie wasn’t as far left as some other countries on this planet.

[Giantmutantcrab]

In Canada, Senator Sanders is seen as a VERY moderate politician who is center-left in leaning. So possibly NDP or Liberals. Hell, maybe Green Party.

[Skynet]

By European standards I've seen Sanders described most accurately as a Social Democrat. AKA one who is fine with maintaining capitalism as an economic system, albeit with ample limitations in place to aid the common good. The similarly-named but also confusing Democratic Socialism as using a democratic system where both government and businesses are governed by majority vote of its members. Unlike Marxist-Leninism of the USSR and most self-described communist countries, which implement a single-party state that is (theoretically) designed to aid in the transition period towards a stateless, classless, and moneyless society...via a centrally-planned economy, which is kind of counter-intuitive in reducing the power of the state.