Disclaimers and trigger warnings

The purpose of this mediocre and pseudo-philosophical diatribe of mine is to foster discussion.

I’ve come to understand that this is what Tildes is for. This isn’t a “platform” (I don’t think that I can even call it that) like Reddit, which has become like any other social media app, that is designed for retaining attention, make money from ads and in-app perks, and give people the means to build a following on the Internet.

As such, I’m proposing to you that we, well... discuss... something.

Now, we do discuss a lot of things in here, but it’s obviously more interesting to discuss hot button issues, am I right? I’m talking about those that we seem to be all be up in arms about these days. lol

I know that some of the topics that I will bring up can be very triggering to a lot of people.

I want you to know that I do not intend to harm nor hurt anyone with my words.

I spent hours (I’m not exaggerating) carefully crafting this, uh... “““essay””” of mine, to make sure that the words contained in it will inspire you to engage in a meaningful discussion by sharing your opinions in a polite and humble manner, think more deeply and nuanced about these issues, and perhaps (I can only hope) extend a hand to those who disagree with you.

When I wrote this piece, I did so feeling completely at ease. In my head, I heard my own words, as if I was having a dialogue with you all. I imagined sitting with you in a big circle, talking with you face-to-face. My tone was natural and calm, and I occasionally used a humorous tone (marked by every instance where I wrote “lol”, which always refers back to the sentence immediately preceding it). This is how I’d like you to imagine that I’m talking to you through these words, because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Even if my choice of words isn’t the best (for which I apologize upfront, if anything that I wrote offends you), then know that in no way did I write any of these words with an accusatory tone in mind. I hope that this visualization makes it easier for you to chew through the bits where you disagree with me.

Also, I was recently made aware that in some online circles, the use of italicized or bold formatting, is equivalent to CAPS LOCK, meaning, a way to express “loud screaming”. That is not how I use these formatting tools. I use italics for emphasizing certain words in my “speech”. Again, imagine that I’m speaking to you face-to-face. A natural part of my speech will be to give emphasis to certain words that are central to the point that I’m making. In writing, I emulate that effect via the use of italics. I hope that makes it clear what I mean. As for bold text, I just use it to highlight a point that I think is particularly important, and that I wish to be easy to find if you ever return to my essay.

(I keep calling this an “essay” for lack of a better term. If you can think of a better word, then please do let me know. I intend no offense to actual essayists. lol)

Finally, if you want to discuss scientific facts with me, then please do so, but know that I’m aiming more for a philosophical discussion. I will admit that, despite my best efforts throughout the years to read as much scientific literature as I can, I have been unable to memorize any studies, papers, or “facts” on any of these topics. I don’t know why that is. Maybe my IQ is too low. So, all of my arguments here will be 100% anecdotal. Either way, I don’t intend to make those of you who do want to cite research or link to news outlets uncomfortable, so feel free to do so. Just know that I will probably not have anything to reply to you in that case. I mean, if the research proves your point, then that ends the discussion, right? lol

More than anything, I’m good at asking thought-provoking questions (I think, I hope), and that’s what I came here to do.

I want to remind you that here on Tildes, there isn’t any “karma”, so I have nothing to gain from posting this (apart from some interesting discussions for a day or two), and have everything to lose.

And with that, I’d like to say that it was nice knowing all of you.

(Just in case I get banned. lol)

Introduction

Over the last few years, much has been said about the political polarization of society, particularly in the United States of America (though this has since spread to much of Europe and other places, I feel).

I often hear folks say that there used to be a time when people’s opinions did not vary so widely as they do today. Allegedly, the majority of the population held politically moderate beliefs that orbited the “center” of the isle. Also, allegedly again, there used to be a culture in which it was acceptable for people to “agree to disagree”.

I have heard from these people that all of this has radically changed. One can now simply not have moderate opinions on any topic anymore. One must pick a side and blindly adhere to it, 100%. It is also not possible (nor safe) to engage with the opposite safe, under any circumstances. There are only two camps: red and blue, right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Atheist, carnivore and vegan, fossil fuels and green energy, Windows and Mac, PC and consoles.

The last two dichotomies are just a joke. lol

The more I think about this, the more I doubt if there ever has been a “golden age of tolerance” in “recorded” human history though. I say “recorded”, because as far back historically as we can look, I see that all that humanity has ever done is to be at war with itself.

Maybe back then, it made a bit more sense that we looked with suspicion upon each other, after all, we didn’t know three things:

1. That we all resided on the same globe.
2. That we’re all the exact same species.
3. That the planet can sustain all of us...

...if we properly steward its resources.

But now we do know. We do know how big this planet is. We know more or less to what extent its resources can support our way of living. We also know that all of us are part of the same human species. We know (or should know) that fighting each other is pointless, and that we have more to gain from cooperating and living in harmony.

And yet, we still choose not to.

But it’s not only about resources, living space, and ethnicity that we fight each other now. Now we also fight over ethics, morality, societal norms, culture, or in one word: politics.

Now, politics is a bit of different debate than the other three items.

I think...

Because resources and living space are a thing that a group can have and lose to another group, for example.

But is a “political opinion” the same?

Well, if you think of politics as a tool for securing a group’s “rights”, then I can see why you would think that way. To give an over-simplified and sadly caricaturized (but often and hotly debated) example: The liberal side of the isle argues that if a country enacts and enforces a law stating that trans women are not entitled to using public restrooms assigned to women, then they lose that right, making it so that one group has more rights than the other. But the conservative side of the isle will argue that “biological women” have a right to have the restrooms assigned to them be private spaces where no “biological man” can enter, which is a right that they would lose if an opposite law was enacted and enforced, meaning that a different group would have less right.

(oof That was a mouthful. lol You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to craft those last two sentences. lol)

Notice how even the language employed by both sides wildly differs, for example, with the terms “trans women” and “biological women”.

So, does that mean that polarization is pre-programmed into the human species? Will we always want to fight over resources, living space, ethnicity, and which political ideology is the “correct” one? Are humans designed to seek reasons to disagree with each other?

And taking these questions to the absolute extreme: Are civil wars inevitable?

Could one in the US be on the horizon?

A lot of people sadly seem to think so.

(And it’s even more unfortunate that we have plenty of historic precedent for that.)

Or...

...is there perhaps a way for us to agree to disagree, to live and let live, and to ensure that everyone has the freedom to do as they choose, no matter what set of politics they believe in, and yet not have their freedom interfere with the freedom of any other?

Are the “culture wars” just a distraction?

Some say that we’re all just being made to fight each other, so that we’re distracted from what is really going on, which supposedly is the fact that there is a “tiny and elite cabal” that sits on the capstone of the pyramid of society, which wants to retain all of its wealth and power, and can only do so if we don’t notice that they exist, because if we did, then we would depose them.

I won’t deny that our world’s society has a clear elite that exercises a lot of influence over all of us, but I don’t believe that this tiny cabal that sits at the top really exists. I find it more plausible to say that there are very many competing groups of “elites”, and that there is no society that we can take refuge in where we won’t end up having to submit to one (meaning, a governing power). Some elites just happen to be slightly more benevolent and open to feedback from those who they rule than others.

(I even question whether in human society, it would even be possible for a political system to arise where, from the “peasant” all the way to the “president”, everyone is treated equally and has access to the same amount of wealth and influence. Notice that I couldn’t even find the language to avoid using words that denote a difference in class.)

But let’s assume for a moment that the “tiny capstone cabal” does exist, and that they are just pitting us all against one another. How could we stop that? Could we all join hands, climb the pyramid, and topple the capstone? Could we overcome our extreme differences of political opinion to focus on dethroning corrupt political leaders and installing fully trustworthy and competent ones?

(Do such politicians even exist? Or does power always, inevitably corrupt those who have it? I sometimes imagine myself trying to get into politics only as far as it would take for someone to try to bride me to peddle my influence. My gut tells me that I wouldn’t even get into any office before the first “buyer” appeared. lol So, on a more serious note, aren’t humans just inherently self-serving? Doesn’t everyone has a “price tag”? I do sincerely wonder what my price tag is sometimes, and if I would truly be willing to die for what I believe in.)

So, what I find somewhat amusing about the discussion surrounding this idea that the elites are to blame for the polarization, is that neither side seems to be willing to give up on its ideals. I have heard some on the left say: “Reproductive and trans rights aren’t the issue and aren’t going to hurt anyone. The elites are the problem.” But to very many people on the right, “outlawing abortion and banning gender ideology” is something that is going to “prevent” a lot of people from “getting hurt”. It’s a hill that they are willing to die on. In other words, what one side thinks is “obviously” a minor issue, is a major issue for the other side, and vice-versa.

So, who gets to decide what is and isn’t an important moral principle that needs to be protected by the law, and which side is willing to change its opinion on the matter, or at least, agree to concede its position on it?

Let’s look at some more concrete examples:

“Abortion” versus “reproductive rights”

A few months ago I stumbled on this podcast episode, moderated by one Ellen Fisher, where a “liberal feminist” influencer, Bronte Remsik, hashed it out with a “conservative wife” influencer, Isabel Brown. The topic of the debate was abortion.

I felt so nervous through the whole thing. The tension was palpable. I felt as if the two would jump on each other and viciously tear each other apart at any moment.

But maybe it was just me. Maybe I’m the unreasonable, overly sensitive one here. Maybe the two of them actually felt calm throughout (or at most, a little nervous) the whole thing. I should say that Ellen Fisher did an excellent job (I think) at giving both sides equal opportunity to build, consolidate, and defend their arguments. I don’t think that anything was left unsaid. I therefore highly recommend this podcast to you. It’s probably the best debate on the topic of abortion that I have ever heard.

However Remsik and Brown may have felt about each other and the debate, they kept it together. They remained polite. They looked in each other’s eyes while they talked. They didn’t use any bad faith arguments (not that I noticed anyway). They kept a calm tone of voice throughout. They didn’t get sarcastic with each other. It felt as though they were trying to listen to understand, rather than to reply (to a certain extent anyway). And surprisingly, they even agreed on a few points.

Wow. Refreshing. As intense as it was, I loved listening to both of them.

What I thought was the high point of this debate, was when they reached the bedrock of the issue. It turns out that their opinions on the matter are built on entirely different foundations. This was best illustrated, I think, when Remsik argued that forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to full term, violates her bodily autonomy. Brown countered by arguing that an abortion always violates the bodily autonomy of the baby. The discussion then moved to a debate about whether it morally matters more that the “already living and conscious” woman gets to choose if the fetus continues to “exploit” her body for its development, or the baby is given the opportunity to be born as he or she “naturally intends” to in order for him or her to later decide what to do with his or her own life. The debate boiled down to: “Which of the two ‘lives’ ‘matters’ more?”

Notice how, again, I tried to emulate the specific (and differing) language used by both sides. There was even a moment where Remsik was referring to “people who can get pregnant” in these terms, and Brown insisted on calling them “women” and “mothers” instead. Honestly, I’m worried that someday we won’t even be speaking the same language anymore and will become unable to understand each other. I think that was what George Orwell warned us about with the concept of newspeek, among other things.

With such a fundamental disagreement, it was inevitable that Remsik and Brown would end the debate at an impasse.

So, I’m not sure that they could become “friends” outside of this debate, and that saddens me.

But at least they were able to agree to disagree. They were willing to face each other and discuss this difficult topic without vitriol.

It probably wasn’t easy for them, but I think that it was worth it.

“Gender ideology” versus “LGBTQ+ rights”

I’m a Christian, and I have a very close gay friend.

I know. It’s a cliché. I understand that.

But it’s true.

And in fact, we met all the way back in 2015. We were very close friends for three to four years before he felt comfortable enough to come out to me.

Yes, we have discussed his sexual orientation at length. I have given him a fully open ear to tell me about his story and experiences. We never had anything even close to resembling a heated argument. I have never told him to seek any sort of conversion therapy. He told me that he knew that he was gay from whence he was a child. He told me that he has a good relationship with his parents and siblings (which I know he does), and that there isn’t any some sort of “repressed trauma” that “made” him gay. For all that we know, he was born that way, and he can’t change.

Now, his friendship has been one of the most important and meaningful to me in the years since we’ve met. We come from different countries but have spent a lot of time together. We have even traveled together (some of my fondest memories). We often update each other and talk just about anything. No, he’s not secretly into me (he’s into blondes, and I’ve known a lot of his crushes, lol), and he has known and been friends with my wife for about as long, because we all met around the same time. In fact, it’s a bit of a long story, but if it wasn’t for this gay man, then I wouldn’t be happily married today to begin with.

I won’t pretend that I don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and how offensive and hurtful those eight short pieces of text are to people within the LGBTQ+ community. But tell me sincerely, what can I do about it? What can we do about it? Can we just pull a Nineteen Eighty-Four, erect a “Ministry of Truth”, and redact every statement about homosexuality in every Bible that’s in circulation? Should we just get rid of Christianity and the Bible altogether? I’m sincerely asking you to tell me what the solution here is.

As for me, I have long decided that I don’t want to be a part of this “us versus them” circus.

My friend is gay. That won’t change. I don’t want to change him. I know that I couldn’t anyway. We cannot change others. We can only change ourselves.

Therefore, I have chosen to accept my gay just friend as he is.

Gay.

Time will tell if I made the right choice. I’m willing to die eternally (as per the beliefs of my particular Christian denomination), if my choice to embrace this friendship is “a sin” that I’m unrepentant of. Ultimately, I’m not worried about whether I will “be saved” or not though. It’s not up for me to decide. I’m worried about my relationship with God. He is also a good friend to me—my best friend, in fact. I worry that what I do and say things that offend Him—Him who created me and died for me. And I have come to believe that it would be exceedingly offensive to God for me to antagonize my friend for being gay, given that He died for him as well.

All of this is to say that, it seems that a gay man and a Christian man can be close friends, agree on many things, work together (as we have), and live in harmony.

All it took, is for both of us to be willing to be friends.

Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone can be close friends with anyone. That’s a different topic altogether.

My point is that we had the potential to become friends, and we didn’t let the political polarization that needlessly pits members of the LGBTQ+ community and Christians against each other to get in the way of that.

But I’ll be honest with you about something.

As careful as my (admittedly introverted) gay friend is to conceal his sexual orientation from those whom he feels he cannot trust...

...as careful am I to conceal my religious beliefs in the vast majority of the social interactions that I have, because I know that they will not be tolerated. And that leads me to the next topic:

On being a “social double agent”...

...as opposed to a “social butterfly”. lol

As you can imagine, as a Christian, I often hear opinions that deeply offend me and hurt my feelings. This is particularly true when I interact with people in my “secular social circles” (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one). Even those who tout themselves as “tolerant”, feel at ease to equate all of Christianity with bigotry of all kinds, including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, you name it. I hear this list of evils that I’m supposedly guilty of all. The time.

When I was younger, I would get angry whenever someone unfairly characterized my religious beliefs.

These days, I just take a deep breath and... say nothing.

In fact, I have stopped the act of telling my people about my religious (or political beliefs) upfront, unless prompted. And in the case of this thread, I bring up Christianity a lot just because of my personal experiences, and because it is an excellent example of the points that I’m making, since it has become such a devise religion.

It just isn’t safe to be open about my religion anymore.

I have at times gotten into very ugly fights with people (both on and offline), as well as lost friends, or even been excluded from entire friend groups.

A lot of it was justified. I’ll admit that. Still, if you think about it, isn’t that counterproductive? That is, for me, a Christian, to be excluded from “secular social circles” because of some of my beliefs?

Think about it: If I keep being excluded from social circles where the majority of people have opinions different from those of my own, then where am I supposed to go? Well, back to my “echo chambers”, of course.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating, circular problem that we have in our society today?

People keep excluding each other from social circles for dissenting opinions. Therefore, they retreat into their echo chambers. This makes them exclude dissenting opinions even more, further radicalizing their beliefs. And the cycle continues.

Now, I am aware that I’m about as intelligent and mature as a molding aubergine. lol So, I know that I desperately need to be exposed to a variety of opinions, thoughts, philosophies, ideologies, etc., in order to not become some radical fundamentalist myself. Of course, I’m not willing to adopt any opinion that is out there just for the sake of appearing “tolerant” or open or whatever. However, I know that I can learn from all, and will definitely come closer to a more balanced worldview if I do (cue the cliché) “keep an open mind”.

So, what have I done in these last few years to ensure that I retain access to “secular social circles”?

As I said, I have kept quiet.

I mix and mingle with folks of all kinds of strokes, and when I hear them criticize an opinion that I hold, if I feel that me “coming out” will start a fight, then I just choose to stay quiet and nod.

Experience has taught me that, in many cases, an opportunity will eventually arise for us to discuss that exact opinion on good faith terms, sometime in the future.

But in that particular moment, it just may not be the right time to do that.

Yes, on occasion I meet people on either side who are just completely obnoxious and can’t be reasoned with, whether vocally or silently. They will demand that you either side with them or against them. In those cases, I just distance myself. Acting like a doormat doesn’t help anyone either.

And yes. It could be that I never get an opportunity to “set the record straight” about who I truly am or what I truly believe in.

So what though?

I don’t think that I’d like my epitaph to read: “He always made sure that people knew his opinion about every single thing.” lol

I lose nothing from occasionally “swallowing the frog” (as we say in Portuguese) and keeping quiet. My “opinions” won’t be offended if I don’t defend them. lol

Now, does that mean that sometimes people think that I agree with them when I actually don’t? Would they be offended to eventually find out? Probably. But, I mean, what’s the alternative? “To always say it as it is”? Because that’s really going to benefit both parties, right? lol I mean, the choice is yours. You can be my friend, have meaningful interactions with me, and accept that I may secretly not see eye-to-eye with you (which, let’s be honest, none of us 100% agree on everything), or you can continue to retreat into your echo chamber.

But do my opinions really matter that much? Am I somehow incapable of being a good person to you, and enrich your life with my friendship, because I have opinions that are different from yours? Do my opinions define who I am?

I won’t say that they “completely don’t”, but I’ll say this:

Years ago I learned this really useful principle (starts at 1m 6s) from CGP Grey, that a better way to relate to our opinions, is to think of them as items that are “separate” from us (as in, bodily), and sit somewhere in a “box” (if we were to mentally visualize this principle), so that when people inevitably “attack” them, we don’t feel like the attack was directed at us. This also makes it easier to swap them out if we find better ones, and in turn means that our opinions aren’t what fundamentally defines us, so “hiding” them isn’t tantamount to deception. Rather, we are then primarily defined by how we interact with others. To simply this principle: It isn’t what you think or say, it’s what you do.

Is me adhering to this principle dishonest on my part? I’ll let God decide that. I think that it matters to Him more that I live in harmony with people, though I could be wrong.

But do know that adopting this attitude is very difficult. It took me a lot of painful practice to get to the point that I am at now (and I still have such a long journey ahead). And it just so happens that I subject myself to opinions that I disagree with on a daily basis, not just in discussions with other people, but even through the media that I consume (where some sources are those that often express views that disagree with mine). It physically hurts me, sometimes. I feel a knot in my stomach. I won’t pretend that I’m stronger than other people. I’m not. I often think to myself: “My goodness. That is such a horrible misrepresentation of my opinion!”

And believe it or not...

...that even happens to me in my church.

I generally agree with the tenants and fundamental beliefs of the denomination that I am a member of.

But boy, oh boy, would I be quickly burned at the stake if some of them knew what I actually believe concerning certain topics. lol

(And this includes what I wrote earlier about my gay friend.)

It seems that we’re just not allowed to hold opinions from different camps in one brain anymore.

And this leads me to the next topic:

The appropriation or co-opting of lifestyles and the death of variety

A lot of Christians these days say that the carnivore diet is the best and most “natural” one.

I’m a Christian and I don’t agree with that.

Surprisingly, my denomination happens to be one of the few ones out there that mostly subscribes to veganism.

Unfortunately though (in my opinion), politically conservative Christians (especially the loudest ones on social media) have made the carnivore diet a part of their “brand”. And very many of them do push the idea that vegans are always weak, unhealthy, and leftist.

In other words: Vegan = left wing. Carnivore = right wing.

If this sounds dumb to you, then welcome to my club. I also think that it sounds dumb.

Yes, I’m vegan because of my religion... and also because of the environment, animals, and my health.

And speaking of the environment, yes, I think that humanity has a (God-given) duty to steward the earth, and I think that green energy is the technology that we should invest in.

Crazy! Who would think that Christians, who believe something as ridiculous as the idea that God created the earth in seven days, and told the first two humans He created to take care of a garden, could be environmentalists? lol

One attitude that I think contributes more to the polarization of politics than almost anything, is this co-opting or appropriation of lifestyles, interests, and political opinions, by the two tribes. And what saddens me the most about this, is that I have observed that many people “choose their tribe”, and then end up subscribing to all of the other ideas of that tribe, even those they disagree with, just because the tribe demands complete loyalty to its entire ideological program.

Just to give an example in the category of “interests”, I find it astonishing how unwelcome Christians are in the FOSS community. Believe it or not, I would love for FOSS to grow and become mainstream. I think that decentralized, free, and open-sourced software would benefit us all. My denomination branched off from Protestantism, which may deserve criticism for a lot of things, but not for being closed to technological and openly-shared innovations, as printing Bibles in the vernacular (German) was central to the popularization of the printing press. So, I don’t think that my religious beliefs make me somehow incompatible with open-sourced software. Would a FOSS app get offended that I believe that its was “code” was “programed” by a “higher intelligence”, and that it didn’t evolve out of the silicon and copper by pure chance? lol

This “death of ideologically diversity”, if I may call it that, is what led us to this situation where, in the words of the guys from The Juice Media, we are left with all but two tribes to plead our loyalty to: Shit™ and Shit Lite™. lol

And that leads me to the next topic:

How I vote

I don’t.

I voted once, in a parliamentary election, not long after I turned 18 in 2007.

Side note: I’m still a babe with regards to politics, but I was a political zygote when I became old enough to legally vote. What is holding us back from using our much neglected systems of education to teach students about how our political systems work? How they can participate in politics? How they can obtain information about politicians and parties? Call it “Political Literacy 101” if you will.

Either way, I never voted again. A big reason is simply because I began to spend more time abroad than at home when I turned 22. And since I’m 29, I’ve been permanently living abroad, with no plan of returning to the absolute dumpster fire that the Portuguese political landscape has been in the last few years.

But another big reason is just because... I don’t “who” to vote for.

First of all, it seems that every party that makes it into power, is ultimately caught in multiple scandals. And given enough time, every politician will turn out to have done something deeply corrupt and/or outright illegal. Very many of them get blatantly away with it and laugh in our faces.. We keep “voting for change” (which the candidates and parties promise), but after the victory celebrations are over, it’s back to the status quo, or maybe even a step deeper into the mire.

Furthermore, no politician or party seems to represent me. Until 2022, in Portugal, there was a Christian, center-right party (they would have characterized themselves as such) named CDS-PP. But that year, they lost all remaining seats they had (and that after being existing since 1974, founded right after the military coup that returned democracy to the country). Whats particularly unfortunate about this, is that an actually dangerous, populist, far-right party rose to replace them. CDS-PP are kind of back now, but in a way that makes them even less representative for me.

You will tell me that abstaining from voting is the same as casting my vote with the powers that be. But I have also heard from many people that casting my ballot in favor of a small and independent party, has the exact same effect. The big parties are “guaranteed to win”, so any other option is not a “useful vote” (which is an expression that I dislike, and is, as I understand it, what we call a “strategic vote” in Portugal) So, as much as the system seems to encourage (or at least, not be effective enough to prevent) the polarization of the isle, it would seem to me that the voting habits of the population do exactly the same. It would require a large majority of us to collectively agree to refuse to vote for the two, primary, ruling parties, for any real shakeup to occur. But how can we achieve that agreement?

I live in Latvia, and it isn’t a perfect system either, but the people here do one thing right: They have and vote for a lot of small parties that hold seats in their parliament, giving voters a real choice and forcing politicians to compromise, compromise, compromise when forming coalitions. Again, I’m politically ignorant, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in theory, this should make it more likely that moderate policies end up the ones that are enacted, right? Which in turn should displease every citizen only slightly, rather than pleasing either only one half or the other.

I brought up The Juice Media YouTube channel before, and I’d like to recommend to you this very funny three-minute-long video, that is as much a parody as it is highly informative, where the creators warn Australians about how the two-party system is about to become entrenched in Aussie politics. The video lists the large number of alternative minority parties that can be voted for, and how the red and blue dinosaurs currently in power are working to use the system to make it impossible for any of them to get a seat at the table. Talk about kangaroo politics! lol

I don’t think that packing a parliament (or the chambers of the US Congress for that matter) with many small parties, is what is going to solve all of these problems. I know that. And unfortunately, in a way, the polarization has even affected how parties form coalition governments, creating all sorts of chaos. We’ve seen that recently in my country, as well as in Spain and France. I haven’t been paying too much attention, but it seems to be an issue in Germany as well. If you happen to come from any of these countries, or know a lot about their political systems, then please do enlighten me. This is all to say, that I acknowledge that coming up with a better system is a complex and complicated matter.

Still, I cannot imagine that having lots of small parties in an assembly would be worse than what we have in the United States at the moment, which despite all the talk about “checks and balances”, seems to be a popularity contest that is an eternally swinging pendulum of “winner takes all” politics.

And by the way: I say “we”, because when the United States “sneezes”, the rest of the world catches a cold. My lungs have been coughing up “tariffs” lately. It’s rather painful. I think that, as important as it is to respect the sovereignty of a nation’s electorate, we also need to stop pretending that any countries’ politics are completely inconsequential to their neighbors, or worse, the rest of the world. They’re not, and the US is a particularly heavy link in this chain. In other words, as “apolitical” as I feel these days, politics affect me nonetheless.

Can we accept the outcome of elections?

And that leads me to my last point.

I would like to see an utopia where those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, live together in harmony, and don’t clash with each other.

But inevitably, they will. A woman will pregnant and want an abortion, and someone close to her (or the state) will want to prevent that.

And this is just one example where the freedoms and right of one group can clash with the freedoms and rights of another group.

So, sadly, I have to admit defeat. I don’t think that we can reverse the political polarization. I also don’t think that we can prevent more civil wars. They have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. I just can’t imagine what thing could possibly make everyone stop for a moment and think: “Hey, maybe it would be best to just let others live however they choose to”, and then cooperate to build a system that somehow, magically makes that a reality.

And even if one cohesive ideology could conquer every single human mind and take control of the world (which would be a horrible idea, but for the sake of the argument, let’s imagine it for a second), I’m willing to bet that, given human nature, sooner or later, some new kind of division would come out of it. A good illustration of this are episodes 12 and 13 of the 10th season of South Park. They were hilarious, for various reasons (including for making fun of the launch of the Nintendo Wii), but the overarching story in those two episodes is that, in the future, there are only atheists. They, however, broke off into three factions and started a war because... well... I won’t spoil it, but you can watch it for yourself in the 13th episode, between 16m 45s and 17m 55s. It’s hilarious.

I try to act in a manner where I accept the outcome of elections, and more broadly speaking, the societal shifts that go along with them. I’ve been a Christian since around 2004, and the world has only become more hostile to my kind, but I just move on with my life. At the same time, I try to avoid to cause any disturbance to anyone around me, especially those who associate my religion with painful lived experiences.

But even the Bible warns me (or at least, that’s how I interpret it), that a day will come, when I will be persecuted for my beliefs, particularly “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or said differently, refusing to work on Saturday. And I have felt that this is a real and growing danger, as it’s becoming the norm for businesses and companies to expect their employees to work on Saturday. I have been unemployed for a while now, and part of my difficulty in finding a new job is that no employer wants to give me Saturday off (I should add that I always offer to work from Sunday to Friday). This state of things is partly due to politics. But there was once a group of people that was persecuted and killed, and they happen to also refuse to work on Saturdays, so it’s not impossible that something like that might happen again. And if that day comes, then... well... I’ll take the bullet.

It worries me that people are increasingly dissatisfied with election results, unwilling to accept them and move on, and that more and more are openly (or secretly) calling on those around them to start a violent uprising. J6 may have been a foretaste of that. We also saw the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place in 2020. More recently, a bullet missed its intended target by one inch, preventing what could become a complete catastrophe (though causing the electorate to vote for a different one). I would like to the Americans among us to take head, because we saw how absolutely brutal a civil war can be, when all the weapons at your disposal are primitive firearms. So imagine what a civil war would like with very effective, modern firearms. I’d rather not imagine that. So, shouldn’t we take a deep breath and turn the heat down?

If you have made it this far, you’re a trooper.

I want to give a special thanks to the kind people maintaining Tildes for allowing me to participate on here (especially if I’m not banned after posting this, lol).

I can’t wait to read your comments.

Much love from Latvia.

There have been frequent and repeated comments by Trump about "annexing" or "absorbing" or taking over other sovereign countries.

NY Times How 51st State talk became seen as deadly serious

White House Asked US Military for Panama Options

CNBC - Trump on US Annexation of Greenland

I think anyone paying attention to this should be extremely alarmed, especially when you connect this to the purges that he is doing to the US military and other organizations that would limit the power of the president, and of course recent supreme court rulings about presidential power.

It appears like he's trying to get people used to a new colonialism. Maybe if he attacks Panama and there isn't much internal resistance, then he'll attack Greenland, and so on. Sure we can guess whether he is doing this to help Putin, or to normalize Putin's invasion. In any case just the discussion of these things harms the other countries, the reputation of the US, and world stability.

Frankly I think this stuff, and the attack on federal workers and social programs and social security, is an attempt to not only do these things, but to generate mass protests which will be used as an excuse for martial law and the removal of other rights, including future elections.

Here's another article, This is by David Frum about how we allow people to minimize Trump's actions at our peril: The MAGA-Strategy Spin Machine

I don't think it's possible to overreact to this. A functioning US Congress would remove him from office right away.

Heretofore, I have held the idea that, 1)Russia is a despotic aggressor, 2)Ukraine is largely innocent holder of resources and land, and 3)Ukraine is largely winning due to a combination of pluck and western supplies.

But I heard a recent podcast, however, that caused me to question my line of thinking. The podcast was Chapo Trap House* and they had guest podcasts hosts War Nerd or something, who seem to have some expertise in the slavic world. And they presented a very different narrative. Namely, 1)Ukrainians really want the war to end, even if the country loses some land, 2)There’s tons of corruption in the military, as bad as leaders demanding payment from soldiers to avoid deployment to the front lines, 3)There are fascist units in the military, and they shake down the civilians, 4) Zelensky was of a mind to deal with Russia until Biden asked him not to, 5)Russias economy is very resilient and has adapted to sanctions, and 6)Russia has been very adept at neutralizing new western military tech, and 7) there is a conspiracy of silence about Ukrainian casualties. Side note, there may be problematic funding of all the open source intelligence arms, especially bellingcat, by US Governemtnt intelligence interests.

I managed to confirm at least partially one of the objections:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/russia-jamming-himars-rockets-ukraine/index.html

But some of the claims seem less strong:

https://kyivindependent.com/a-very-bloody-war-what-is-the-death-toll-of-russias-war-in-ukraine/

Mixed on some of the others:

https://theintercept.com/2024/06/22/ukraine-azov-battalion-us-training-ban/

The podcast was a useful reminder, at least, to retain a humility about my beliefs, and that news media is especially suspect in our present moment.

It’s not like I have any power to influence the outcome, but I do still buy into the myth that a responsible citizen retains some degree of information about events around them. My query to tildes is, what’s your narrative about the war, and what sources of information are you drawing upon?

*I’m vaguely aware that there’s somce controversy around these guys. I find the podcast entertaining, however, and they seem to share some of my values about how a sane society would function, and, like this report, they sometimes really challenge my understanding of what I think is going on.