> The racism and selfishness of right-wing politics is just … ugh, honestly, I just can’t. It’s Godless.
The first step would be to humbly recognize your side’s shortcomings. To me, aiding the destruction of malls, pardoning authors of crimes is bad, protesting against having borders is worse and defunding the police is a hallmark of criminality (and before you say it: Defunding doesn’t mean rearranging, it means defunding, according to protesters on your camp).
There are two essential Christian concepts that you skip when you unilaterally hold your opponent for contempt of humanity:
- Those who have never sinned should throw the first stone,
- Pardon.
Once you become milder in your accusations, maybe we can design a common world where we have common principles. I’d say those principles should be etched into law, but your side is against law enforcement, so it’s a bit complicated.
Many of the religious views I see coming out of the US right now aren't Christian, ie following Christ, but some Abrahamic[1] mishmash wrapped up in jingoism.
[1] not sure what to call it maybe fundamentalism.
Ok, so it looks like you conveniently skipped over your own first step.
> Once you become milder in your accusations
...
> but your side is against law enforcement
It’s easy to say “The other camp is extreme, so we have to”, but you’re welcome if you have any proposal.
My proposal is: I think an extreme lot of my camp would switch if there was an ethical left, with strong ethics but also not prone to degrading whites.
What’s your proposal?
My proposal is that you drop the holier than thou attitude.
And what will it do?
You suggested it first (for other people), so you surely know the answer to this question already?
It'll help make you look like someone who actually practices what they preach.
Ok, so your goal is not to share the governance of a country together?
With your proposal, I make concessions (which, by all means, is the concession that I stop arguing, so that’s a general concession on the idea of negotiating together entirely), while you don’t make concessions, and then we don’t govern the country together, is it correct?
Sounds like extremism to me. Either you get the power, either we do, but it’s a struggle of power if you do not engage in listening.
The goal is discussion is that you will discover points on which you can compromise without hurting your values, and we do as well, until we deal together. But it seems Americans have lost that. Which is mirrored by the line of your party: “Don’t engage with the other party. No concession.”
It is one-sided. The discussion has always been open on the right, but people moved to the right because the discussion was closed on the left.
You're completely missing the point of my original response to you.
You're sanctimoniously telling "us" to make milder accusations, then nearly immediately accusing us of being against law enforcement.
That is an entirely non-mild accusation, to the point that I consider it entirely discredits the rest of your comments because of how hypocritical it makes you look.
It's rhetoric that doesn't entitle you to the good faith engagement you supposedly want.
[dead]