Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

Here is something i wrote here back in 2009

Free market = plutocratic tyranny.

There is an argument that has been set out here several times that corporatism comes about because the market isn’t free enough.

I’d say, don’t get fooled again.

The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and if that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Nixon, Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It was funded and promoted. It opponents failures were screamed loudly its own failures were white washed over or spun to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs.

(see ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ or ‘The shock doctrine’ for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour

Quote:

What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.


Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.

 

6

Can you cite the article?

If it was about ten years was it an extract from Ron Pauls book ‘End the Fed’ published 2009? I found that rather naive and utopian, but then the fantasizing neo-liberals think Austrian school economics is kooky.

It is utopian capitalist but not sure what your friend meant by white.

But was this just a matter of the straw that broke the camel’s back?

Thing is had you been making many comments, did you give your own comment on the article, some side views?

Because you do have those alt-right leaning viewpoints that can so easily be interpreted as racially coloured, the stuff about the racial discrimination of white people and your seeming hatred of things like Black Lives Matter.

It could also be your Social Darwinist leaning of course, I mean Social Darwinism has been used by racists to indicate that the traditionally lower income of black household compared to whites is an indication of racial inferiority.

Really without knowing what you said in that relationship (not just in that post but as a whole) it is hard to make a judgement.

 

How many times to I have to tell you that you need to read posts not go off the handle after misreading one – you need to calm down a bit and think.

Now go back and read the post and you will see I was not saying feminism was a race I was just pointing out the kind of attitude and mental architecture that would say something like ‘I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from’ even as some type of nasty mean joke.

And again why do you feel the need to tell us this is the same as when you had to tell everyone you were willing to date ‘brown Mexicans’. As pointed out before someone saying such things does not prove they are not a racist for some people sex is about power, I knew a racist that bragged about how many black women he claimed to have slept with.

 

6

Can you define what you mean by ‘hard leftists’? And I would point out that many if not most of your ideas don’t seem to stand up well to rational and reasonable scrutiny.

Anyway let’s get back to the subject

 

One of the articles cited in the OP was based on a Pew Research Centre study

Political Polarization and Media Habits

Political Polarization & Media Habits | Pew Research Center

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

• Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
• Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
• Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
• Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

• Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
• Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
• Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
• Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.

*

Basically it seems to be that people on the right are more likely to just make friends with people of similar political views and hang out in places that just have people of similar views in them and so are less likely to ‘unfriend’.

While on the other hand those on the left are more enquiring and so are more likely to come into contact with people of opposing views which if they strongly disagree with are more likely to ‘unfriend’.

Neither situation is great but I can understand the second viewpoint more than the first which seems rather stagnant and yes conservative.

 

It's a shame that we can't have these discussions like respectable adults and without fueled hostility. Politics is a way of life, and emotions become a big part of these discussions because some are profoundly affected by it, and some are not even scathed by it. None of it is ever a reason to unfriend or blacklist someone unless they are truly toxic, nothing but garbage comes out of thier mouth constantly, and if thier opinion is laced with blatant hatred. We have a serious problem with this in the US right now, and it's worse than I've over seen it in my life.

 

Eric

The question to ask - is the animus coming from the right or the left or from bother and the follow up question is it justified?

Looking at the right wing at the moment and it seems to me that they don’t care much for the state of their society they just want their side to win and so they don’t care about the methods used, the ends justifies the means.

Respect has to come from both sides, if one side dumps respect in favour of winning at all costs then can their be friendship, should there be friendship?

I think many on the right would happily accept an authoritarian regime if it was of their political persuasion and so don’t worry about the trampling of norms, precedent and due process that inches the state toward that end. Just look at the scale of voter suppression going on for the coming election.

That can cause a lot of resentment.

Imagine the uproar from the right if the Democrats did even 1% of the things that are going on now daily while others on the right seem happy to threaten an armed response to left wing policies and especially any infringement of the 2nd amendment ‘rights’ and the fellow travellers like the NRA push out fear propaganda about the violent leftist ‘mob’.

I think it’s clear that certain people on the right would have no problem in censoring their opponents voices and would think it fine idea to use the mechanisms of state to harasses, supresses and intimidate their political ‘enemies’, while all the time claiming they were only doing it to protect the nation and to make America great again.

It reminds me of the Vietnam War quote - “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Is that a friendly act?

 

"Destroying the village to save it" certainly didn't save the village in the end. Innocent people, who had no choice either way, got killed. But you know what? All this starts at the top with the leadership, and now we are seeing what effect shitty leadership can truly have on people, especially those people who aren't capable of making reasonable decisions on their own or acting civilized towards other people. I'm neither democratic or republican and I don't care to be affiliated with ANY political party. But I do know that leadership and positive direction is lacking, and thats why we have the issues you mentioned above.

 

So.. I read the OP and several of the other posts. I agree that politics can be divisive. I think though that if someone were adamant about their views I wouldn't hesitate to avoid them for that reason.

 

I'm bonded with my friends because they have qualities that I like, I enjoy being around them, and share things in common. My best friend is my wife, who is my soul mate. We're in sync on political and religious matters, and of course partners in a wide variety of practical matters from rearing our children to managing a household, saving and spending money, etc. It's similar with other close friends. Obviously sex isn't a bond with them, and many of the others, as well, but there has to be something and that something has to be important enough to me to put up with the other shit. As I've said, a lot of my friends are Trump supporters, so the offsetting ties have to be pretty strong for me to put up with them. And they are. For the most part, these are stand up guys who would go to bat for me in difficult situations and I'd do the same for them. We share lots of life experiences that have tied us together as family. I don't cut as much slack for other friends who are more on the acquaintance level. But since my main ties with these folks have nothing to do with politics, what difference do their views make?

 

This is an interesting question, what are we going to do?
A friend of mine and I've known him all my life routinely posts crap about Muslims taking over sections of cities and those sections are now under Sharia law. And there a lot of people that believe that.
And it's not just that alone it's other crap too. He is is not the only right-wing friend I have either They do harbor a lot of hate. And it is beyond the difference of opinion that it used to be. The driving force seems to be the Evangelical connection and right-wing media, the further out there than Fox network shit. It's like they are in a cult or cult-like influence.

 

Many political scholars trace back the “winner take all, don’t compromise culture” as starting since Newt Gingrich became speaker of the house in the 1990’s. And the culture got more intense over time which coincided with the echo chamber advent of cable news.

It wasn’t as intense as it is now, but that was the foundation from which compromise was seen as weakness.

 

I have a homeowners meeting in my neighborhood about the use of a community clubhouse for political meetings. One neighbor is adamantly opposed to it, because Muslims might move in and use it to hold meetings to plot murdering us all, which the Qur'an supposedly tells them to do. (I'm serious!) Should be interesting. Lord, give me the strength to be tactful.

 

I thought they had a second amendment for that. Oh sorry, I’ve been listening to too many Batman one-liner comebacks.



There are insane cult-like vibes from almost all religious nut cases. But one unique thing is the Islamic faith has not had a movement equivalent to the Protestant reformation nor has it had a political equivalent to separation between church and state.

So while media might report some bias here, they aren’t necessarily factually wrong. The main thing the media does is begin to lays foundation from which counter-extremists groups end up resupposing and launching verbal and illegal physical violence and harassment against groups that have not yet manifested any harm....and then a microcosm of those people end up embracing the stereotype launched at them usually as a traumatic and defensive response.

The UK does have some crazy Muslim extremist rhetoric and Sweden too, after accepting some refugees in there society has seen an uptick in disharmonious cultural activity in what was largely homogenous Swedish culture.

A lot of the Islamic interpretation conflicts come from hadiths Vs their holy book. The hard American political right is reacting in defense of that at a surface heuristic level given their understanding of Revelation. (Because we’re in end times and all, and signs and wonders all over youtube in the sky prove certain lines of prophecy fulfillment).


You want to understand the other side you literally have to walk in their shoes a bit.

 

Okie

Yes that is what I’ve been trying to say it isn’t black and white it is a matter of scales, so much shit on one side to so much candy on the other.

So most people could be friends with someone that thinks Darth Vader is cool but probably not someone who was enthusiastic about the Empires policies of political suppression, torture and genocide and wanted the US government to be more like it (and wants to build a Death Star and get the Jawa to pay for it)

The question is at what point does the shit outweigh the candy?

 

Some people are saying things along the lines of "I wouldn't turn on my friends no matter what their political views are!" to which some are replying, "what if they were racist?" to which I have to ask...is racism really political?

I don't know why one side of the political spectrum can't discuss politics with the other side without throwing the word "racist" around. Racism is bigotry, hatred, and ignorance. It's not politics.

 

If you decide to unfriend or blacklist that friend it is not for him having a different or even opposing political view or affiliation. It is because he's discriminating and seemingly paranoid

 

Racism is often connected to politics in a certain way. Unscrupolous opportunists love to discriminate on race and ethnicity. Its also done by hopeless peeps with nothing to lose. Especially if they see another group they don't belong too getting aid or attention

 

Very well said. Not to mention that very often politicians rise to power while focusing on some kind of threat to their 'pure' nation, for example the "refugee crisis" or the "Jewish problem".

But even beyond that, it's hard to separate these issues from political structures, as those structures are generally based on and survive due to various oppressions such classism, racism and sexism.

And to follow this through to the end, the very founding of America itself relied extensively on the creation of white-supremacy and racism.

 

I read a book about that, GuerillaLorax. The truth isn't easy to accept... I believe that there is no other accurate way to understand the implications of what was happening with the Irish in Europe even before America was discovered; which is a misnomer but I'll use the word "discovered" there for lack of a better one. We didn't discover it. There was a native population who deserves compensation for the centuries of injustice we as colonists perpetrated upon them. Unfortunately, we seem to seek to make these divisions in the minds of our populations. As humans, we create a mentality about those we don't understand or agree with. It's sad.