"Woke" culture

[Pam in CT]

re how language of "I don't feel safe" registers differently across the generations...

It also matters, I am pretty sure, that kids are now coming of age with active shooter lockdown drills.  That has to affect how they experience stress and the language they use to describe it.

My daughter is under one right at this moment. Because 15 minutes after the election was called this morning, her school received a threat.

Not against all students. Against specific groups of students. 

She doesn't "feel safe."  Well, right. I expect not.

 

It is most likely just some guy blowing off steam; it is most likely only a drill. But across the nation they've grown up with such drills.  And that has to affect both the way they experience stress, and also the language they use to describe it.

 

 

 

[regentrude]

5 minutes ago, Lovely Bookishness said:

I chose to give OP the benefit of the doubt that this happened. It doesn't seem like anyone else did.

I think that might be because the dismissive tone of the OP. It starts with the quotation marks around Woke, which implies that the OP considers the concept of being "alert to injustice in society, especially racism" ridiculous. Then the dismissive treatment of the sexual harassment and the daughter's response, i.e. wanting a female therapist. The entire post, to me, had an eye roll undertone. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by regentrude

[Lovely Bookishness]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is politics simply out of bounds? I just don't see that. Political decisions can feel like moral ones to people. I understand that people may not AGREE on which choice is the moral one, but I don't understand why someone can't be upset about someone else's politics, IF they think they have a moral dimensions. 

Politics don't need to be out of bounds necessarily, but I think the kid had an equal responsibility to civil discourse as the parent, considering she's also an adult. Her unsafe comment struck me as a conversation shut down and an emotional ploy. I hope I'm wrong, but I've been on both sides of that kind of dynamic, and I don't see anything wrong with OP's response if that was the case. I'm simply asking - is there possibly a scenario where OP isn't a jerk for saying what she did?

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

That may be because the language used to describe a significant workplace incident was VERY, VERY dismissive.

I'm not saying she did everything right, either. I'm asking why we can't give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe she wasn't wrong in how she handled her kids, since she is their mother.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re how language of "I don't feel safe" registers differently across the generations...

It also matters, I am pretty sure, that kids are now coming of age with active shooter lockdown drills.  That has to affect how they experience stress and the language they use to describe it.

My daughter is under one right at this moment. Because 15 minutes after the election was called this morning, her school received a threat.

Not against all students. Against specific groups of students. 

She doesn't "feel safe."  Well, right. I expect not.

 

It is most likely just some guy blowing off steam; it is most likely only a drill. But across the nation they've grown up with such drills.  And that has to affect both the way they experience stress, and also the language they use to describe it.

 

 

 

Indeed. I went to give my ASD child a hug last week and was told...”This is not consensual.” I laughed, as is my wont, but sobered enough to say, do you want me to stop? Child said no. These kids ARE different and that’s ok. I happen to think this child will be served well by this approach tho.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Sneezyone

[*****]

8 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

9 hours ago, Lovely Bookishness said:

But that's not what happened in the OP, which she explained more than once. Her daughter came up with "I don't feel safe" in response to her refusal to agree to vote the way the daughter wanted her to, or abstain from voting. That's ridiculous. At what point do we acknowledge that even young people can be emotionally manipulative, as much as we love them and value their feelings? OP is allowed her own feelings and opinions, too.

Expand  

Expand  

I have no idea what exactly happened in that conversation, but I know that if I said something like that, there's no way I'd want someone to say "You don't feel safe? Then LEAVE!"

Everyone needs to realize that OP has edited this post, maybe more than 1 time.  When I reacted to the post earlier, the part about:

Her daughter came up with "I don't feel safe" in response to her refusal to agree to vote the way the daughter wanted her to, or abstain from voting... I am just now reading more responses about the 'voting' part and thinking, "What are they talking about? That wasn't part of the example."  But I guess it was. This part had been deleted.  So the rest of you still had the context of voting in mind, whereas, I thought the daughter was talking about not feeling safe because no one agreed with her. We are not comparing or reacting to  apples to apples so to speak.  Someone mentioned that the thread  should have been marked as JAWM (I think that is what the acronym is). Well, for new people, they might not even know to use this, and I can't even remember what it stands for, except the person is blowing off steam. (Could we please have a list to remind us what the acronyms mean on these threads?). Time to let this thread die, people have been heard...

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Because you're saying "I need to be free to be me, however dismissive it is." But I'm sure you'd only apply that selectively. 

I'm not arguing that she needs to change her vote. I'm arguing that her kid complaining about being dismissed should be taken seriously, in the same way that complaints about other treatment need to be taken seriously. It's an analogy. 

That is an interesting and creative paraphrase of what I said.

The young adult was apparently incensed that her mother cast a vote she didn't agree with. 

First of all, every American should always feel free to vote as they please.  Nobody of any age or relationship has the right to try to coerce a person to change a vote or to punish a person for how she voted.  It's not a democracy if people can't vote as they please.

The "being myself" I'm talking about is at the level of voting my conscience, owning my own opinions, having my own personality and sense of humor (which presumably my kids are used to).  And expressing that in my own home if and when I want to, which, again, is probably nothing new to my daughters who have spent most of their lives living with me.

I don't see where the OP said her daughter isn't entitled to her own opinions and feelings about the person she voted against.  She just isn't entitled to require her mom to agree or to shut up in her own house.  "Agree to disagree" is a life skill.

Not sure what "taken seriously" looks like in your vision of the perfect scenario.  I mean what would you say that isn't dismissive when you aren't going to change your vote?  Or are you supposed to say "I acknowledge that my voting for xyz has triggered awful feelings in you"?  Is it the mom's fault if the young adult has irrational reactions / associations?  What then?  Or should she say "Do you think therapy would help?"  I mean that sounds dismissive + sarcastic to me....

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Indeed. I went to give my ASD child a hug last week and was told...”This is not consensual.” I laughed, as is my wont, but sobered enough to say, do you want me to stop? Child said no. These kids ARE different and that’s ok. I happen to think this child will be served well by this approach tho.

I actually don't hug without asking, partially because I believe in it, but partially because DD8 is really not huggy. She doesn't want the hugs most of the time. So it makes sense to ask. 

 

4 minutes ago, Lovely Bookishness said:

I'm simply asking - is there possibly a scenario where OP isn't a jerk for saying what she did?

I mean, there's always such a scenario 🙂 . It's possible it was said calmly and lovingly. That wasn't my read on the situation, but I could of course be wrong. 

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

  Or are you supposed to say "I acknowledge that my voting for xyz has triggered awful feelings in you"?  Is it the mom's fault if the young adult has irrational reactions / associations? 

Why do you say these associations are irrational?

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

That is an interesting and creative paraphrase of what I said.

The young adult was apparently incensed that her mother cast a vote she didn't agree with. 

First of all, every American should always feel free to vote as they please.  Nobody of any age or relationship has the right to try to coerce a person to change a vote or to punish a person for how she voted.  It's not a democracy if people can't vote as they please.

The "being myself" I'm talking about is at the level of voting my conscience, owning my own opinions, having my own personality and sense of humor (which presumably my kids are used to).  And expressing that in my own home if and when I want to, which, again, is probably nothing new to my daughters who have spent most of their lives living with me.

I don't see where the OP said her daughter isn't entitled to her own opinions and feelings about the person she voted against.  She just isn't entitled to require her mom to agree or to shut up in her own house.  "Agree to disagree" is a life skill.

Not sure what "taken seriously" looks like in your vision of the perfect scenario.  I mean what would you say that isn't dismissive when you aren't going to change your vote?  Or are you supposed to say "I acknowledge that my voting for xyz has triggered awful feelings in you"?  Is it the mom's fault if the young adult has irrational reactions / associations?  What then?  Or should she say "Do you think therapy would help?"  I mean that sounds dismissive + sarcastic to me....

You have the right to cast your vote however you please. That's your right in a democracy. You do NOT have the right to demand that other people find your vote moral, no matter who it's for. 

Can you imagine a situation in which you'd be genuinely unhappy about how another person voted or no? Or do you feel like these public decisions are irrelevant in a private context? 

 

[regentrude]

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is politics simply out of bounds? I just don't see that. Political decisions can feel like moral ones to people. I understand that people may not AGREE on which choice is the moral one, but I don't understand why someone can't be upset about someone else's politics, IF they think they have a moral dimensions. 

Not only can political decisions feel like moral ones - they are, intrinsically, moral ones.
There is no abstract "politics" - these decisions affect concrete human lives.

There is no abstract "immigrant"  - it's your coworker. There is no abstract "the gays" - they are the couple from which you buy at the farmers market. There is no abstract debate about health care policies - it's your neighbor who may lose her health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Politics affects the lives of real people, and our political views are inseparable from our moral values.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

Not only can political decisions feel like moral ones - they are, intrinsically, moral ones.
There is no abstract "politics" - these decisions affect concrete human lives.

There is no abstract "immigrant"  - it's your coworker. There is no abstract "the gays" - they are the couple from which you buy at the farmers market. There is no abstract debate about health care policies - it's your neighbor who may lose her health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Politics affects the lives of real people, and our political views are inseparable from our moral values.

Of course, one can make moral arguments for the opposite policies as well. I personally don't agree with most of them, but people DO. But I absolutely agree with you that there's no reason to treat politics as something that's separate from morality. The political is personal.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, DorothyNJ said:

But in this case the guy with the questionable past also vowed to pass policies that would have actual, real, adverse affects on people's actual, in-person lives.  

Were you just as blasé about creepy men when you were 16?  20?  35?  What age is the one where it's required to be at ease about being around creepy men?  

This could be said about both candidates, in this and every past election.

As for my feelings about creepy men, I guess they started when I was molested by an elderly guy multiple times at age 12.  However, somehow I never associated that with voting, even when the candidate / incumbent had been formally accused and on trial for rape and sexual harassment and was known to be womanizing and engaging in carnal relations in the oval office with at least one young intern.  Of course the party of that candidate insisted it was all just his personal business and "it's the economy, stupid."  But none of that was associated with my personal experiences with creepy men.  Maybe I just wasn't "woke" enough.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

This could be said about both candidates, in this and every past election.

As for my feelings about creepy men, I guess they started when I was molested by an elderly guy multiple times at age 12.  However, somehow I never associated that with voting, even when the candidate / incumbent had been formally accused and on trial for rape and sexual harassment and was known to be womanizing and engaging in carnal relations in the oval office with at least one young intern.  Of course the party of that candidate insisted it was all just his personal business and "it's the economy, stupid."  But none of that was associated with my personal experiences with creepy men.  Maybe I just wasn't "woke" enough.

As I said, I don't actually expect very much of politicians' private lives, although there are degrees. Anyway, I remember my grandmother being very bitter about that situation, because her husband had been a serial philanderer who eventually left her for one of his flings... it's not only young people who can be triggered by the private lives of public figures. 

I think it's reasonable to argue that your vote IS the moral choice, whoever you voted for. What I don't think is reasonable is insisting that there IS no moral dimension to a vote and that you can't have a conversation about the morality of who you vote for. (And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point I'm on the receiving end of this, because I'm a pragmatic person, and young adults don't tend to be. But I don't think the right thing is to dismiss people's concerns.) 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

38 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is politics simply out of bounds? I just don't see that. Political decisions can feel like moral ones to people. I understand that people may not AGREE on which choice is the moral one, but I don't understand why someone can't be upset about someone else's politics, IF they think they have a moral dimensions. 

Disagreeing is fine.  But families need to be able to live together amidst diverse thought.  Or do you believe it is OK for all members of a family to be required to vote one way to keep peace in the home?  I don't consider that to be a democracy.  I mean, that was one of the arguments against giving women the right to vote.  Do we really want to go back there?

It sounds to me like the young adult's reaction went well beyond just disagreeing or feeling personally disappointed.

Even if the young adult feels very intensely unhappy about the vote of her parent, she still doesn't get to tell her parent how to vote ... nor vice versa.  People need to understand how elections work.  Half of the country is going to be disappointed, every time.  Sometimes it's this half, sometimes it's that half.  It's not a personal assault on each voter.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Or do you believe it is OK for all members of a family to be required to vote one way to keep peace in the home? 

Of course not 🙂 . 

Would you mind doing a thought experiment for me? Can you imagine your family member voting for ANYONE that would honestly make you uncomfortable and unhappy? Is there any situation like that that you could imagine? (It doesn't have to be a real candidate.) 

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I actually don't hug without asking, partially because I believe in it, but partially because DD8 is really not huggy. She doesn't want the hugs most of the time. So it makes sense to ask.

One of mine is averse to hugs/touches except under specific circumstances.  I have to be very careful about it.  It's a matter of know your kid.  My other kid loves any and all mom hugs.

On the other hand, I say and do many things that strangers might question.  But my kids know me better than anyone, and they know where my weird actions/words are coming from.  Isn't that usually how it is with our own kids?

[Moonhawk]

As much as I enjoy having particular examples, I don't want to focus on the OP's particular experience since we keep getting stuck in we-weren't-there loops. So keeping more general. And less political too, since politics seem to be an example, not the higher problem. Sorry it seems like I'm just coming out with a wall of text that isn't in relation to the rest of the thread, but really, it is! I'm just... longwinded and trying to stay vague so as not to trigger trivial objections. 

 

I know this is a thread specifically about woke culture, but I find it interesting that a lot of the characteristics we are ascribing to woke-ness actually reminds me more of outrage culture. I think outrage culture is now so engrained in our public discourse/media that it's hard to pick out.

And, we're talking a lot about generational miscommunications and how easy they are to fall into, but not really how to climb out of them.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, dismissing the other person, or being offended by the words, if your goal is to actually understand and be understood: de-escalate. 

De-escalation of a conversation is almost always a better option than escalating or even matching the other person's energy when you want to actually make inroads of understanding (of either way). I think as a culture we are a bit out of practice.

This is hard especially in parent-kid dynamics: just because you are a parent does not mean you don't have emotions that can be hurt. Quite the opposite, as this is a person who is uniquely able to hurt you.

But as the parent you have a special privilege/superpower of hearing and affirming their ABILITY to have an opinion. This is still new to them, since most of their opinions have been mostly learned, not necessarily made. Even though they are now SUPER sure of their conclusion, I think it's natural for them to feel the need to prove it, and to see any disagreement with their conclusion to be an attack on their ABILITY to come to conclusions.

(Let's be honest, I think most of us feel that)

You don't have to agree, but if they know you actually care about HOW they got there, that probably would go a long way to their feelings regardless of disagreement. The less emotionally charged you are, the faster you can lead your kid to the same state. And maybe even, gasp, have a conversation. Even if it takes them a couple days to realize it themselves, since it is still a learning process, I think this is what a lot of young adults are looking for.

In general public discourse, it's hard to do this too, because it seems like whenever you give an inch you get walked over. And no one wants that, and you get tired of it, and so you start to give as good as you get. It's a vicious cycle. But still, if the goal is to understand and conversate, not just get hurt or hurt others, it's probably worth a few thousand tries. (For the Christians in the thread, that whole 70 times 7 thing probably would apply.) 

So, TLDR: no easy solutions. But maybe some solutions nonetheless.

Not really on a high horse here. I usually don't succeed on what I know is the better way. But thankfully so far I've had a good record of waking up the next day, so, I can try again.

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You have the right to cast your vote however you please. That's your right in a democracy. You do NOT have the right to demand that other people find your vote moral, no matter who it's for. 

Can you imagine a situation in which you'd be genuinely unhappy about how another person voted or no? Or do you feel like these public decisions are irrelevant in a private context? 

 

It sounds to me like OP's issue wasn't that her kid disagreed, but that her kid gave her a major major guilt trip. 

I live with people who vote differently from me.  I'm very used to it.  We each have our reasons for thinking the other person is wrong, and yet we manage to be respectful about it.  What would be the point of fighting about it?  If these people didn't have any morals, we wouldn't be living in the same house.

As for the adult child, if she has decided her mom lacks morals just based on a vote, that is just wrong and really disappointing.  Voting is more complex than that.  How to make young people understand it?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

It sounds to me like OP's issue wasn't that her kid disagreed, but that her kid gave her a major major guilt trip. 

I live with people who vote differently from me.  I'm very used to it.  We each have our reasons for thinking the other person is wrong, and yet we manage to be respectful about it.  What would be the point of fighting about it?  If these people didn't have any morals, we wouldn't be living in the same house.

As for the adult child, if she has decided her mom lacks morals just based on a vote, that is just wrong and really disappointing.  Voting is more complex than that.  How to make young people understand it?

I'd appreciate if you did my thought experiment, when you got to it 🙂 

[SKL]

35 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Not only can political decisions feel like moral ones - they are, intrinsically, moral ones.
There is no abstract "politics" - these decisions affect concrete human lives.

There is no abstract "immigrant"  - it's your coworker. There is no abstract "the gays" - they are the couple from which you buy at the farmers market. There is no abstract debate about health care policies - it's your neighbor who may lose her health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Politics affects the lives of real people, and our political views are inseparable from our moral values.

True, but each candidate's platform is a mix of things we agree with (morally) and things we disagree with (morally), as well as an apparent degree of credibility that we perceive.  In addition there are strategy differences that are not moral IMO, such as many economic policies that are intended to help low-income people in different ways.  We have to decide which one has the mix we can best accept.  Often it's the "least worst" choice that we vote for.  And if I prefer a different guy than you because I feel more strongly about x moral issue, believe Candidate A is more of a liar, and trust in a different kind of economic policy than you do, it doesn't mean either of us is immoral.

[SKL]

33 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

As I said, I don't actually expect very much of politicians' private lives, although there are degrees. Anyway, I remember my grandmother being very bitter about that situation, because her husband had been a serial philanderer who eventually left her for one of his flings... it's not only young people who can be triggered by the private lives of public figures. 

I think it's reasonable to argue that your vote IS the moral choice, whoever you voted for. What I don't think is reasonable is insisting that there IS no moral dimension to a vote and that you can't have a conversation about the morality of who you vote for. (And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point I'm on the receiving end of this, because I'm a pragmatic person, and young adults don't tend to be. But I don't think the right thing is to dismiss people's concerns.) 

I haven't seen anyone say you can't have a conversation about the morality of whom a person votes for.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

I haven't seen anyone say you can't have a conversation about the morality of whom a person votes for.

But you can't get very upset about it? At least, not to the point of saying you feel unsafe? 

[SKL]

21 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Of course not 🙂 . 

Would you mind doing a thought experiment for me? Can you imagine your family member voting for ANYONE that would honestly make you uncomfortable and unhappy? Is there any situation like that that you could imagine? (It doesn't have to be a real candidate.) 

I am not pleased with certain people's votes, but I know these people and I know they are not morally repugnant individuals.

If I felt a family member was simply OK with rape, child trafficking, hate crimes, etc., then I would have a problem with them in general.  I wouldn't have to wait to see how they voted to form my opinion.

If there are people who believe everyone who voted for Candidate X (either party) is morally repugnant, IMO that is really low level reasoning.  There's a reason our elections are always so close, and it's not because 50% of Americans are absolute scum.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I am not pleased with certain people's votes, but I know these people and I know they are not morally repugnant individuals.

If I felt a family member was simply OK with rape, child trafficking, hate crimes, etc., then I would have a problem with them in general.  I wouldn't have to wait to see how they voted to form my opinion.

If there are people who believe everyone who voted for Candidate X (either party) is morally repugnant, IMO that is really low level reasoning.  There's a reason our elections are always so close, and it's not because 50% of Americans are absolute scum.

Not sure that answered the question 🙂 . The question was "Can you imagine there being a candidate that you would think it was morally repugnant to vote for?" 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Not sure that answered the question 🙂 . The question was "Can you imagine there being a candidate that you would think it was morally repugnant to vote for?" 

Hmm, well in the prez election, after the primaries vetted out all but two, I don't think that has ever happened in my lifetime.  There are morally repugnant things about most of the candidates, but people find reasons to vote for them that are not morally repugnant.

So I am not sure what you are trying to get at.  I mean if there was a candidate whose platform was legalize child rape or had a proven history of child rape that everyone knew about, well, sure, a vote for that guy would be morally repugnant ... assuming his opponent hadn't murdered his mom and grandma and a school full of children.  But that is not real life.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

So I am not sure what you are trying to get at.  I mean if there was a candidate whose platform was legalize child rape or had a proven history of child rape that everyone knew about, well, sure, a vote for that guy would be morally repugnant ... assuming his opponent hadn't murdered his mom and grandma and a school full of children.  But that is not real life.

Hah. That's one election that's going to get me to try to move to another country, that's for sure, lol.

OK, so you CAN imagine a candidate that you'd think it was morally repugnant to vote for 🙂 . 

[SKL]

20 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But you can't get very upset about it? At least, not to the point of saying you feel unsafe? 

Can you explain why you think this would be helpful in a family situation?

[theelfqueen]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Not sure that answered the question 🙂 . The question was "Can you imagine there being a candidate that you would think it was morally repugnant to vote for?" 

I tell my kids that voting is not like driving where you want to go - it's like catching a bus - you find the bus that is headed in the direction you wish to go and will get you closest to your desired destination.... no bus is going where you want, when you want to get there.... but there's one that will get you closer. 

I generally vote for a platform more than the individual candidate. 

Of course there are candidates I would find it morally repugnant to vote for, but if a person I care for and respect has chosen to vote for them - I try to see why they made that choice in a realistic way... different people prioritize different policy decisions... someone I love and respect could reasonably explain to me what led them to do so and what policies they felt that person would pursue that were important. I would grant them the chance to show me their reasoning. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

Can you explain why you think this would be helpful in a family situation?

Well, I don't know if that'd be helpful 🙂 . But you might also get upset if your family member voted for the hypothetical proven child rapist, right? 

[Sdel]

20 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Not sure that answered the question 🙂 . The question was "Can you imagine there being a candidate that you would think it was morally repugnant to vote for?" 

For me, the answer to that is no, because I don't think about elections in terms of the individual players once we get past the primary.  I'm not going to suddenly stop supporting a set of political ideals, or do a complete about face to support a set of ideals I don't believe in, because I don't like the particular person running for office once we get to the general election.

 

[SKL]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, I don't know if that'd be helpful 🙂 . But you might also get upset if your family member voted for the hypothetical proven child rapist, right? 

I think we're going way off the deep end here.  You seem to be supporting angry arguments about actual candidates in a family setting.  I'm asking you why you think that would be helpful.

There is no doubt people feel passionate about actual candidates who aren't child rapists.  But the passion needs to be balanced against the need to get along with people - especially those who live under the same roof.

And I'm sure some families do have fights, but is that helpful?

I will say that I have to make a major effort not to let political discussions go over the line.  Most of the time I just won't discuss politics at all with the other adults here, and when I do, it's with the least possible words to get my main point across.  Because certain people tend to respond with hyperbole, selective facts/rhetoric, and insults, instead of trying to hold an adult level conversation.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Sdel said:

For me, the answer to that is no, because I don't think about elections in terms of the individual players once we get past the primary.  I'm not going to suddenly stop supporting a set of political ideals, or do a complete about face to support a set of ideals I don't believe in, because I don't like the particular person running for office once we get to the general election.

But perhaps you can imagine a platform that you would think of as morally repugnant? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

I think we're going way off the deep end here.  You seem to be supporting angry arguments about actual candidates in a family setting.  I'm asking you why you think that would be helpful.

I'm not supporting them at all 🙂. So you're saying that if your family member voted for someone who had a platform of child rape, you would still not argue with them?  That's an interesting choice 🙂 . 

[SKL]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not supporting them at all 🙂. So you're saying that if your family member voted for someone who had a platform of child rape, you would still not argue with them?  That's an interesting choice 🙂 . 

I have no idea what you are trying to do here, but no, I did not say that. 

I need to go do mom stuff now.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SKL said:

I have no idea what you are trying to do here, but no, I did not say that. 

I need to go do mom stuff now.

I'm trying to figure out whether you'd EVER think it was worthwhile to pick a fight over a political choice 🙂 . I'm getting the sense you think it's never appropriate. Am I misinterpreting? 

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

You have the right to cast your vote however you please. That's your right in a democracy. You do NOT have the right to demand that other people find your vote moral, no matter who it's for. 

Can you imagine a situation in which you'd be genuinely unhappy about how another person voted or no? Or do you feel like these public decisions are irrelevant in a private context? 

 

I think that demanding that someone feels that a vote is moral is unreasonable, but I think that breaking a family relationship over that is much more unreasonable.  

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm trying to figure out whether you'd EVER think it was worthwhile to pick a fight over a political choice 🙂 . I'm getting the sense you think it's never appropriate. Am I misinterpreting? 

Right, but the way that you put it is awfully insulting.  You could have just asked the question like you did here.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that demanding that someone feels that a vote is moral is unreasonable, but I think that breaking a family relationship over that is much more unreasonable.  

I don't think you're choosing to break the family relationship by expressing strong feelings about the morality of a vote 🙂 . 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

Right, but the way that you put it is awfully insulting.  You could have just asked the question like you did here.  

Why was it insulting? 🙂 I'm not sure I'm following. 

[Sdel]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But perhaps you can imagine a platform that you would think of as morally repugnant? 

Not one that is currently active in the country currently as opposed to ones made up to incite gottchas.   

As far as your proven child rapist....well, BTDT saw that election.  In fact, the whole point of voting for the guy was to get another election when he went to jail.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sdel said:

Not one that is currently active in the country currently as opposed to ones made up to incite gottchas.   

Yes, I understand that you do not find any of the current platforms morally repugnant 🙂 . But can you imagine one that would be? 

 

Just now, Sdel said:

As far as your proven child rapist....well, BTDT saw that election.  In fact, the whole point of voting for the guy was to get another election when he went to jail.  

I'm not sure what you are referring to. 

[Carol in Cal.]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not supporting them at all 🙂. So you're saying that if your family member voted for someone who had a platform of child rape, you would still not argue with them?  That's an interesting choice 🙂 . 

This was the precursor, and it adds up to insulting when paired with the other quote I made.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

This was the precursor, and it adds up to insulting when paired with the other quote I made.

Can you please explain to me why it's insulting? 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm trying to figure out whether you'd EVER think it was worthwhile to pick a fight over a political choice 🙂 . I'm getting the sense you think it's never appropriate. Am I misinterpreting? 

I will try again.  I would have a problem with a guy who thought child rape was fine, regardless of anything he might vote for or against.  My issue would be that my family member thinks child rape is OK.

In my current state of maturity, I would not pick a fight over a real world political choice.  When I was decades younger, I certainly had animated discussions over politics.  They were intended to be friendly, but they often got unpleasant, so I started to avoid the topic rather than strain the friendships.  (I'm happy to say we are all still friends!)

There are a few people I know whose political views are literally anti-American, and while I treat them with respect, I don't consider them friends.  But I don't pick fights with them either.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I will try again.  I would have a problem with a guy who thought child rape was fine, regardless of anything he might vote for or against.  My issue would be that my family member thinks child rape is OK.

But say that you always thought he DIDN'T think child rape was fine, but then he voted for the convicted child rapist. Would that be a problem for you or not? 

[theelfqueen]

If a person that I love/care for and respect makes a decision that seems unfathomable to me, my assumption is not that the person who has my love and respect is amoral. It is that they have a different perspective on something .... and that doesn't inherently undermine my relationship with that person. The real person standing in front of me (or even connected to me by the internet) is my brother, my sister, my neighbor and I believe them to be fundamentally a decent person with a different understanding than me....

[Carol in Cal.]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't think you're choosing to break the family relationship by expressing strong feelings about the morality of a vote 🙂 . 

It wasn’t just strong feelings, as described in the OP.  It was histrionics, it seemed like it approached verbal abuse, and it was asserting that the family home is unsafe because there is someone in it (your mother) that refuses to vote the way you are.  That’s breaking the relationship right there.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

It wasn’t just strong feelings, as described in the OP.  It was histrionics, it seemed like it approached verbal abuse, and it was asserting that the family home is unsafe because there is someone in it (your mother) that refuses to vote the way you are.  That’s breaking the relationship right there.

I believe you're misinterpreting the meaning of "unsafe" in this context. Have you seen the explanations upthread? 

[Sdel]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, I understand that you do not find any of the current platforms morally repugnant 🙂 . But can you imagine one that would be? 

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to. 

Personal experience.  Your going on about how horrible it is to vote for a child rapist.  I'm telling you I've seen the election where the child rapist won by a landslide.  Of course, the reason why the child rapist won was so there could be a do-over election but still, the electorate overwhelmingly voted for a "child rapist".

But no, I do not think there is not a political platform that I can think of that would be morally repugnant because that is not how political platforms are developed.  Morality is a moving target and should a political party ever get to the point where "child rape" becomes acceptable idea to put forward, the prevailing morality will have changed to match such an outcome....meaning it will no longer be generally considered immoral and it would probably no longer be considered "rape".

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, theelfqueen said:

If a person that I love/care for and respect makes a decision that seems unfathomable to me, my assumption is not that the person who has my love and respect is amoral. It is that they have a different perspective on something .... and that doesn't inherently undermine my relationship with that person. The real person standing in front of me (or even connected to me by the internet) is my brother, my sister, my neighbor and I believe them to be fundamentally a decent person with a different understanding than me....

OK. So if I'm understanding you correctly, there is nothing a person you love/care for could vote for that would change your mind about them? Is that right?