I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.
Also, avoiding social media helps. If you want to hear someone's opinion (whether you agree or disagree), talk to them in person. Play WoW as a release, but don't give up on your convictions, whatever they may be.
There's definitely something to be said for staying and trying to do what's right from within the belly of the beast, but I also understand those who wish to escape.
I am curious as to where you're going to escape to, though. So many places are turning fascist in lock-step with the US, or have to bend over and do what the US tells them. And for those places that don't, it's usually not easy to immigrate unless you're a refugee (which some of us may well become after a few more cycles of this madness).
May you be well and may we all find strength, together.
Be angry. You should be. Get your friends angry. Don't let people shut off and tune out. That's a large part of how we got to this point, to my eyes. When we truly give up, well, then you'll get to see what "too much" really feels like.
As long as I live I will not give up my agency to fight for what I believe in, no matter how hopeless the cause is. That's an integral part of my philosophy in what it is to be human; and preserving any optimism in a future of my country's governance is a hill I'm more than willing to die on.
That's true. The other side saw globalism, liberalism, feminism and multiculturalism as a threat to the world they wanted, and they got angry, and fought against it, and arguably are winning. The world is shifting towards an embrace of right-wing, racialist and authoritarian populism in part because the people who could and should stand against it have become disillusioned and cynical and have decided to drop out.
They've somehow convinced themselves that effort and political action doesn't work, despite the world around them being the result of effort and political action having worked against them.
People died fighting to end slavery. People died fighting for an 8 hour work day. People died fighting to oppose Hitler. You are just as strong as those people.
No matter how bleak it seems, do not give up. Write, Complain, Vote.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Ok, maybe I'm being too tough. OP, you should know that it's OK to feel sad. Everyone replying to this comment wants you to know that you're not alone, and we hope you can find your way out of a dark place. Please take care of yourself.
Is it because of the last sentence? I'm not saying only do those three things.
Or is it because I mentioned hitler. Sorry, I was thinking of my Grandpa. He fought in WW2, and whenever I feel like scared, I think of him because he was a brave person.
I'd also like to add: we need to organize.
But some are not. I don't know why. But they are not. They rig the system in their favor. They hurt others.
Maybe we can all evolve into enlightened beings of pure energy. Until then, we have to put in hard work to make our world a better place.
Everything you enjoy as a free person - someone had to fight for it.
(I'm not literally saying fight like beat someone up. I mean fight for your rights and the rights of others. Get involved in something.)
because everyone has a different definition of what it means to be decent - the people on the other side of the debate do believe they're being decent as well
Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives add value.
Miyazaki comes to mind quite a bit. For the most part the "villains" in his movies are easy to empathize with and the protagonists learn about their goals and view points and work within those to solve the problem they originally set out to solve. I'd like to think people within a country are more like Ashitaka, San, and Lady Eboshi than Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine.
My own personal conviction would like to see more constructive action from everybody. I don't consider threatening people, screaming at others, demeaning them, or name calling constructive. I think if more people found thing they thought could make _any_ impact, and went and helped real people, a lot more would be done than by lamenting the current state of the universe. And unless you need help, don't talk about it, don't expect anything in return, and don't put down others for not thinking the areas you choose to focus on aren't as important as the areas they've chosen to focus on.
0 - https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind , https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...
However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it, respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things do opposing groups have in common and how can that be built on?
With the knowledge that I'm stepping into the deep end: many conservatives are convinced that life starts at conception and believe abortion is equivalent to murder. How would you react if your government was legally permitting selective death of a class of people who could not defend themselves?
Another group of people are convinced that separating children from families detained at the border is equivalent to putting them in concentration camps. How would you react if your government was allowing a class of people to be detained without charge?
For whatever reason, it seems many people choose to think one is OK and not the other (sure, there's nuance), but in both cases the outraged party has complete conviction that their view is correct and logical justification for why.
Calling the other group regressive, libtard, or any other demeaning name and showing disgust for them rather than understanding the perspective that their coming from makes it easier to treat the other with disrespect and dismiss their views no matter how sane or logical they may be. Both political cultures have deep contradictions. I see the current political climate as not dissimilar from Cowboys vs. Packers fans. Flip flop on issues all you want, as long as it means winning.
It may not seem like it, but there are very good and culturally healthy reasons to have conservative and progressive viewpoints. I say this outside of a political context.
this presumes all perspectives are equally as sane/logical. that's not the case: any group of people can choose to believe anything they'd like and structure their politics around those beliefs. that doesn't mean they're legitimate beliefs or politics.
i can understand why someone might believe the earth is flat and why that's a value for them, or why climate change isn't real and that's a value. that doesn't mean i'm going to try to compromise with either of these political identities.
I think most people would agree that the US healthcare system is overly-expensive, complicated, and excludes a vulnerable portion of the population. That doesn’t mean the right solution is federal health insurance or even single payer.
tl;dr I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
can you show me anything (other than your most charitable interpretation of the realization of that political identity) that suggests this is what they want?
>I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.
can you explain to me why we should operate this way? sure i can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for why environmentally friendly energy sources are good (solar jobs blah blah blah) that might be more amenable to climate-change deniers but why does it have to be this way?
how about anti-vaxxers and the like? how about birthers? how about sovereign-citizens? how many different narratives do i need to construct in order to get buy-in for something that's rigorously verified and people are simply obdurate with respect to? is the reason that that's how it is now because certain groups have as much power as they do?
>I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.
there are people with whom you do not have common cause. or maybe not you. but there are certainly peoples that are marginalized to such an extent that they do not have common cause with any in power. should they being playing these creative games as well?
In many of those cases, flat earth, birther, sovereign citizen - there is no obvious impact to me except maybe some Minor annoyance. I could see an argument for anti-vaxxers potentially being dangerous, but people should have control over what goes into their own bodies - and from what I know about them, it’s not the vaccine that’s largely a concern, but the other stuff which may or may not come with it.
Charity (and charitable interpretation) is a big portion of it. In many cases people have fears that aren’t being addressed and want to protect themselves and their families. In some cases there may be mental health issues that predispose certain types of thinking. But ultimately, we’re all humans with differing priorities. If another group is making a good faith attempt at pursuing their priorities, treating eahcother fairly and with respect should be the default.
If someone threatens to harm me or my family based on our differing beliefs, affiliations, or priorities, it only makes forward progress difficult. Based on my own family, I prefer to think communication is a more likely issue than 50% of the population being wrong and stupid.
The premise that there is a single, correct and uncontroversial interpretation of the Constitution that is both aligned with the original intent of the Founding Fathers (who were hardly united in their politics) and always relevant to case law in the 21st century is absurd.
What people tend to mean when they say they want "strict constitutionalists" and not "activist judges" is that they want judges who interpret the Constitution according to modern conservative and likely Christian ideology. It's not that they don't want judges to interpret the law - because that's what judges are supposed to do, they just don't want liberal judges to interpret it.
Whether or not this will "ruin the country" is, of course, a matter of debate. But people who want "constitutionalists" on the Supreme Court also tend to want the country ruined for certain segments of the population who believe in and depend on progressive ideals.