Hot take: both sides of the political isle have more in common than (social) media makes it seem

The bottom line, I think, is that we're all afraid to lose freedoms. And both sides already have lost freedoms, so the fear that this will continue is valid for both sides.

We can argue that some losses were/are more impactful than others, that some perceived dangers are more realistic than others, and that the motivation to object change is different. But in the end we're all afraid for things to get worse and are desperate to warn others and prevent that.

I don't know where to go from there, but can we at least agree we have this much in common and both just want things to get better, regardless of how each of us defines that?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M

That wholly depends on region and the political climate though.

I mean yeah, in healthy democracies like the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands (with a few notable extremist parties being the exception).

However, in the case of the US, you now have a centre-right party and a far-right party.
The Democrats keep trying to find common ground with Republicans, but it creates a false middle where the Republicans move further right and the Democrats try to engage with that shifting the overton window further right.

I have no issue working with or debating actual conservatives. But reactionaries are a different story. I'll debate whether we should spend more on infrastructure vs education.
I won't debate whether PoC and LGBT deserve civil rights. The former is debate, the latter os attempting a human rights violation.