you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
people are probably amenable if you use the right approach
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
I mean if you talked with your neighbor and you can’t have a beer over some heated discussions and your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them because they are an asshole.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole. Talk first, treat a person as a person, instead of his political affiliation.
Your activism should never start with targeting people. Target ideas. Ideas won’t change but people are probably amenable if you use the right approach.
I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP: