Who's fault is the division really? Is it fair to dunk on "right wingers" for ideological differences when it's unlikely the other side has any desire to give an inch in their direction either.
Is it really so impossible that different groups simply have irreconcilable differences that should be peacefully negotiated, rather than inflamed with blame and shame?
Ultimately I agree with your conclusion that there is no overarching resistance across tribal affiliation, but what's the fix?
Is it to continue to nit-pick ideological differences, or find ways to connect despite it?
I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy being portrayed here. Right-wingers, libertarians, some conservatives (collectively, the camp on the "right" that doesn't start race and gender wars or typically set cities on fire in the name of DEI) disapprove of looting for completely different reasons than those they adopt in support of boycotts. Their values are in no way inconsistent in these matters.
On the one hand, they call for legitimate boycotts of businesses that promote a morally ambiguous, arguably reprehensible marketing campaign target-ing children with inappropriate, sexually themed lifestyle products. On the other hand, they oppose wanton chaos and aggression that follows no core moral value whatsoever but is instead arbitrary, or random in its practice. Think BLM destroying black-owned businesses AS WELL AS big box stores in a bid to sow chaos, not to attack the big corps. Looting doesn't only happen in Target and Walmart stores. Looters don't generally enter establishments thinking "I'm going to loot this place on ideological grounds."
In the interest of complete transparency, my policy with comments is that I will not allow them to escalate and spiral out of control. The rule here, for me or anyone else, is that something is posted, then there is a critique, and then the original author responds--and that is it. I don't want to see the comments section explode into some melodramatic novel. Anyone abusing this policy will be permanently banned.
Two commenters above are temporarily suspended, in the hope that this cools things down. One of them decided to post an abusive comment under another name (like a troll), and is now permanently banned.
Anecdotally, this past weekend I went to a bachelor party weekend with 10 old friends, people I've known since childhood, and who have over time filtered to opposite ends of the political spectrum, the two most extreme being a Trump supporting flat earth lizard people conspiracist, and at the other a Concordia PHD and lecturer who apparently majored in white guilt and speech policing, with most of the rest somewhere in the middle, and myself who prefers to be left out of the entire spectrum altogether. We had a messenger group leading up to the event which predictably devolved into self-indulgent hostile nonsense between people on the opposite ends of the ideological aisle, which left me dreading the weekend would be a disaster before it even began.
Know what happened when we were altogether? We drank beer, smoked pot, went swimming, and sat around the fire talking about just about anything but all that bullshit.
I think it's a great example of how disconnected people can become from any ideas outside of their prescribed online and/or university echo chambers, and equally just how powerful those echo chambers can be when we don't engage with people in the real world. There is a palpable toxicity to online forums (and I think we have a few examples of it in this comment section already), but just like that video most of us have seen with the dogs barking through a gate at each other ... pull away the gate, and the vitriol tends to melt away for most people ... because all of a sudden you have to be accountable for your words and actions.
Who's fault is the division really? Is it fair to dunk on "right wingers" for ideological differences when it's unlikely the other side has any desire to give an inch in their direction either.
Is it really so impossible that different groups simply have irreconcilable differences that should be peacefully negotiated, rather than inflamed with blame and shame?
Ultimately I agree with your conclusion that there is no overarching resistance across tribal affiliation, but what's the fix?
Is it to continue to nit-pick ideological differences, or find ways to connect despite it?
I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy being portrayed here. Right-wingers, libertarians, some conservatives (collectively, the camp on the "right" that doesn't start race and gender wars or typically set cities on fire in the name of DEI) disapprove of looting for completely different reasons than those they adopt in support of boycotts. Their values are in no way inconsistent in these matters.
On the one hand, they call for legitimate boycotts of businesses that promote a morally ambiguous, arguably reprehensible marketing campaign target-ing children with inappropriate, sexually themed lifestyle products. On the other hand, they oppose wanton chaos and aggression that follows no core moral value whatsoever but is instead arbitrary, or random in its practice. Think BLM destroying black-owned businesses AS WELL AS big box stores in a bid to sow chaos, not to attack the big corps. Looting doesn't only happen in Target and Walmart stores. Looters don't generally enter establishments thinking "I'm going to loot this place on ideological grounds."
My two cents. Richard G
In the interest of complete transparency, my policy with comments is that I will not allow them to escalate and spiral out of control. The rule here, for me or anyone else, is that something is posted, then there is a critique, and then the original author responds--and that is it. I don't want to see the comments section explode into some melodramatic novel. Anyone abusing this policy will be permanently banned.
Two commenters above are temporarily suspended, in the hope that this cools things down. One of them decided to post an abusive comment under another name (like a troll), and is now permanently banned.
Anecdotally, this past weekend I went to a bachelor party weekend with 10 old friends, people I've known since childhood, and who have over time filtered to opposite ends of the political spectrum, the two most extreme being a Trump supporting flat earth lizard people conspiracist, and at the other a Concordia PHD and lecturer who apparently majored in white guilt and speech policing, with most of the rest somewhere in the middle, and myself who prefers to be left out of the entire spectrum altogether. We had a messenger group leading up to the event which predictably devolved into self-indulgent hostile nonsense between people on the opposite ends of the ideological aisle, which left me dreading the weekend would be a disaster before it even began.
Know what happened when we were altogether? We drank beer, smoked pot, went swimming, and sat around the fire talking about just about anything but all that bullshit.
I think it's a great example of how disconnected people can become from any ideas outside of their prescribed online and/or university echo chambers, and equally just how powerful those echo chambers can be when we don't engage with people in the real world. There is a palpable toxicity to online forums (and I think we have a few examples of it in this comment section already), but just like that video most of us have seen with the dogs barking through a gate at each other ... pull away the gate, and the vitriol tends to melt away for most people ... because all of a sudden you have to be accountable for your words and actions.
Just a thought :)