I’m always apolitical because when I try to be political, I sound like a douche and I value my kindness towards others more than I care about popular political topics.
Actually the last thing I argued about was a conservative talking point. But I do it for the sport, not for all seriousness. I just like debating things. But I get myself in trouble sometimes because I will look up all the talking points for my case and win and sound like a douche. So, I try to stay apolitical for awhile, not commenting on politics, because it feels mean. And usually IRL I am a kind person. But online I am a goblin of sorts. We are different than trolls, we debate, we don’t argue or joke around. We dabble in the art of rhetoric. It’s like some women who call themselves eclectic witches, never adhering to a religion but still practicing witchcraft only instead of witchcraft, it’s debate. I will pick the opposite angle just for the love of the game.
I definitely have morals, but I hide them. I hate forming strong opinions because I have schizoeffective and become indecisive. So I try to remain as unbiased as humanly possible. Opinions pollute. Questions aspire.
Why do you think it’s permissible to overlook intentional suffering of others to create a more cohesive cultural fabric?
A question about why you wouldn’t have an opinion on a pretty clear moral issue. Unless of course you think it’s permissible to which I would argue again: immoral or amoral.
I mentioned I have morals, I just hide them because I hate negative attention and arguing. When I go on Reddit or Lemmy, I am in relaxation mode. I think I mentioned I used to just debate for the fun of it. It got me in trouble making just one person mad, makes me feel bad. So, I like to keep myself open minded and I can see perspectives of other people. Many political issues don’t directly affect me, so it is easy to switch sides, not for convenience, but because I am very open minded. I may have misworded some things iny previous comment. So I will recant, I have political views, morals and the like but they change a lot with new information and others’ strong opinions. I see both sides of the coin and have trouble making a strong opinion on either side. Again this is because a symptom of schizoeffective is indecisiveness. If is partially my personality and partially my diagnosis. I mean no discourse.
Edit: who exactly is suffering and why am I to blame?
If you switch sides on moral issues like that, you are amoral.
If 11 people are sitting at a table making pleasant conversation with a nazi, there are 12 nazis at the table. I hope you don’t take it that far, but like… Yeah
You can have conversations with ppl without becoming what they are. Just because there are conflicting views between two people doesn’t mean they cannot just agree to disagree, so your argument that if 11 people are having a pleasant conversation with a Nazi, they are automatically Nazis are false logic. Here’s your logic: if you have a pleasant conversation with a Nazi, then you are a Nazi. Don’t you see the flaw with that logic? I can talk to a Nazi, have a pleasant conversation about baseball and not be a Nazi. Why I am having the conversation after knowing they are a Nazi is beyond the point. I know how to separate people from opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but no one wants to know about it. Icare about facts and association isn’t the same as assimilation.
I’m always apolitical because when I try to be political, I sound like a douche and I value my kindness towards others more than I care about popular political topics.
What a woke-ass liberal thing to say.
Actually the last thing I argued about was a conservative talking point. But I do it for the sport, not for all seriousness. I just like debating things. But I get myself in trouble sometimes because I will look up all the talking points for my case and win and sound like a douche. So, I try to stay apolitical for awhile, not commenting on politics, because it feels mean. And usually IRL I am a kind person. But online I am a goblin of sorts. We are different than trolls, we debate, we don’t argue or joke around. We dabble in the art of rhetoric. It’s like some women who call themselves eclectic witches, never adhering to a religion but still practicing witchcraft only instead of witchcraft, it’s debate. I will pick the opposite angle just for the love of the game.
Lotta people claim to be apolitical these days. If you’re US based, I would argue amoral fits better.
I definitely have morals, but I hide them. I hate forming strong opinions because I have schizoeffective and become indecisive. So I try to remain as unbiased as humanly possible. Opinions pollute. Questions aspire.
Why do you think it’s permissible to overlook intentional suffering of others to create a more cohesive cultural fabric?
A question about why you wouldn’t have an opinion on a pretty clear moral issue. Unless of course you think it’s permissible to which I would argue again: immoral or amoral.
I mentioned I have morals, I just hide them because I hate negative attention and arguing. When I go on Reddit or Lemmy, I am in relaxation mode. I think I mentioned I used to just debate for the fun of it. It got me in trouble making just one person mad, makes me feel bad. So, I like to keep myself open minded and I can see perspectives of other people. Many political issues don’t directly affect me, so it is easy to switch sides, not for convenience, but because I am very open minded. I may have misworded some things iny previous comment. So I will recant, I have political views, morals and the like but they change a lot with new information and others’ strong opinions. I see both sides of the coin and have trouble making a strong opinion on either side. Again this is because a symptom of schizoeffective is indecisiveness. If is partially my personality and partially my diagnosis. I mean no discourse.
Edit: who exactly is suffering and why am I to blame?
If you switch sides on moral issues like that, you are amoral. If 11 people are sitting at a table making pleasant conversation with a nazi, there are 12 nazis at the table. I hope you don’t take it that far, but like… Yeah
You can have conversations with ppl without becoming what they are. Just because there are conflicting views between two people doesn’t mean they cannot just agree to disagree, so your argument that if 11 people are having a pleasant conversation with a Nazi, they are automatically Nazis are false logic. Here’s your logic: if you have a pleasant conversation with a Nazi, then you are a Nazi. Don’t you see the flaw with that logic? I can talk to a Nazi, have a pleasant conversation about baseball and not be a Nazi. Why I am having the conversation after knowing they are a Nazi is beyond the point. I know how to separate people from opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but no one wants to know about it. Icare about facts and association isn’t the same as assimilation.