If your political ideology allows you to think that 'people who disagree with me about policy but agree with me in principle are still bad people and deserve as much righteous indignation as I can muster from others' then no, the virtue of your particular policy positions do not distinguish you in any meaningful way. That attitude is how the Republican party manages to churn out bulllshit platforms year after year
If Trump and the republican congress's healthcare policy were put into effect, millions of people would lose their health insurance. I know how shitty it can be to go about health insurance with a chronic illness. I expect thousands of people to die if this policy were put into place.
What the fuck does it mean to disagree with me about policy but agree with me in principle, in this case? Am I supposed to ignore the fact that political decisions impact the material lives of actual human beings? Am I supposed to play polite with politics that will harm people I care about because it's more important to agree in principle than to agree on actual concrete policy?
People who complain about how close-minded it is to be vehemently against Trump and by corollary people who put Trump into power never mention actual policies and how those policy differences actually impact people. It is always vague statements about politics in the abstract.
Politics in the abstract is never the reason for anything.
That's why you had Snowden and Jill Stein throwing soft support to Trump, telling their followers that the previous election was a choice between Goldman Sachs (who apprarently clinton represented) and freedom from banker rule (which apparently trump represented), and why you have Bernie supporters now attacking minority centrist candidates, who would be a challenge to him in democratic primaries.
It's pretty standard for any revolution, to be able to come together to kill the status quo without necessarily needing to agree on what would come next.
That's just a truism. The extremes of the political spectrum are, by definition, not the mainstream that defines the status quo.
Other than the fact they have the same short term goals, they're totally different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
The far left and far right have similar policies but for different reasons.
The far right will censor to ensure that nobody questions the regime. But the far left will censor to ensure nobody questions the idea of the day. Which is functionally equivalent to a social regime.
> The far right will censor to ensure that nobody questions the regime. But the far left will censor to ensure nobody questions the idea of the day. Which is functionally equivalent to a social regime.
Ok, I see. Your politics boil down to what you can say or cannot say in public without being publicly criticized.