Dear son of a right-winger...

[EricKei]

Courtesy of Andrew W.K.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't know, I'm with the son on this one. ;p

Andrew's response has too much naive false equivalency for all its well meaning and he clearly doesn't have a relative of this nature.

[EricKei]

Well, you could always read the title as a nice loud curse: "Sonofarightwinger!"

[TheHuckster]

Politics have become so polarized it's hard to say who's being unreasonable here. It's possible that the father is truly a wretched type of right-winger who believes in white supremacy, eliminating welfare programs, making homosexuality illegal, and all of the other things people associate with extreme right-wing ideologies. For those people, there is no "middle ground" or any kind of compromise you can propose to make peace.

On the other hand, as someone who associates with a more moderate viewpoint, I've been called a "crazy right-winger" for merely having a criticism of democrats, believing in Christianity, and siding more with privatization than socialist policy. Most of the people who call me so are on an ideology people associate with extreme left-wing.

So, either the son is an extreme left-winger, the father is an extreme right-winger, or both.

One thing someone once told me was compromise and respect for others' view points are only possible if the end goal is the same. If your goals are to end poverty and bigotry, or improve education and the environment, and the only thing you're disagreeing on is in the means to that end, then you're able to have a good discussion.

But, if one side is saying their end-goal is to end bigotry while the other's is to end homosexuality, to cite just one example, then there's no hope for a compromise there. And that's what I'm seeing happening between the two major political sides. This means, among those moderates whose goals is to end bigotry, they might favor that political side, but are stuck with, perhaps, a means that they don't like (such as a hypothetical situation where that side decides to invade everyone's privacy to identify bigots who are conversing through private channels).

This is what I got out of the letter. At least one person in this problem is unreasonable thanks to an extreme viewpoint, and I don't have enough information to say who.

[BlaqueKatt]

Politics have become so polarized it's hard to say who's being unreasonable here.
This is what I got out of the letter. At least one person in this problem is unreasonable thanks to an extreme viewpoint, and I don't have enough information to say who.

and you missed the entire point of it, people are *more* than their beliefs, they're people.....demonizing groups that think differently than you makes you no better.

[Gravekeeper]

and you missed the entire point of it, people are *more* than their beliefs, they're people.....demonizing groups that think differently than you makes you no better.

And that's along the vein of the sort of false equivalency I was talking about. You can't say both sides are the same if one side is demonstrably much worse. One side is also demonstrably doing a hell of a lot more demonizing than the other and its a systematic, concentrated effort. Not a one off opinion of some random extremist.

Andrew's response has the same problem. He didn't even really read what was sent to him, he just used it as a soapbox to present a simplistic feel good speech that ignores the facts and complexities of the issue.

I mean his opening statement is:

"Go back and read the opening sentences of your letter. Read them again. Then read the rest of your letter. Then read it again. Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn't one."

Which is legitimately stupid. Both because there is no real reason for him to separately refer to his dad as a human being, person or man when his primary means of identifying him is as his father. Also, the letter writer did refer to his dad as a person. Unless the word "people" suddenly doesn't count when referring to human beings.

[TheHuckster]

and you missed the entire point of it, people are *more* than their beliefs, they're people.....demonizing groups that think differently than you makes you no better.

If the guy's father is truly spouting hatred and extremist viewpoints, then I wouldn't blame the son for having a bad relationship with his father and even distancing himself from his father for those beliefs. And it's hard to describe those beliefs without demonizing them.

Again, we don't know just what the father is saying. We just know that, from the son's point of view, he's becoming a "monster" for his views, and the validity of that statement depends on exactly what the father is saying, because you can have extreme views that can be demonized. His son could very well be overreacting or have extreme viewpoints of his own which might make him believe more moderate viewpoints are "demonizable."

The only thing I would say to the son is that, no matter how different their viewpoints are, and no matter how extreme either of them is, you can't magically convince the other side that their point of view is right. It sounds like, from what's going on here, both the son and father are equally stubborn in their views.

So, I do think the son is incorrect in what he's asking Andrew advice on. The son isn't asking how to make amends with his dad, but how to change his mind politically. Which isn't the correct question to ask. If he is having a problem with his father's political views, no matter how extreme or different they might be, then his question should be "how can I maintain a relationship with my father if we have these differences?"

[Rageaholic]

I don't know, I'm with the son on this one. ;p

Andrew's response has too much naive false equivalency for all its well meaning and he clearly doesn't have a relative of this nature.

I think part of the problem is that the LW didn't give any examples of how his fathers right wing views are causing rifts. He's just saying that he's a progressive and his fathers a far right nutcase. That's not a whole lot to go on (even though I can think of plenty of ways far right people can cause rifts).

I'm not saying that I like Andrews response. He's preachy and seems to take the fathers side without knowing any more, but without any concrete examples, it's easy to assume that both sides are being assholes.

[Gravekeeper]

I think part of the problem is that the LW didn't give any examples of how his fathers right wing views are causing rifts. He's just saying that he's a progressive and his fathers a far right nutcase. That's not a whole lot to go on (even though I can think of plenty of ways far right people can cause rifts).

Thats where the false equivalency comes in though. The extreme right wing has a much larger width and breadth of causes that are genuinely assholish. And they're the side actively trying to manipulate media and information. Its possible they are both stubborn, yes. But it sounds like his father is actively preaching said politics and driving away more than just his son. The undercurrent of the American super conservative right winger is anger and paranoia.

I've heard more than a few stories of people in their 50-60+'s falling into the paranoid sink hole that is Fox News and the like. Much to the dismay of their families. I mean there's a documentary about it.

I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about their asshole far left dad that's always preaching about gay marriage and weed. -.-

[TheHuckster]

I don't think I've ever heard someone complain about their asshole far left dad that's always preaching about gay marriage and weed. -.-

That's not far left, though. Far left are people who support eco-terrorism, preach hate for anyone who believes in a deity, and believes anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

And, yes, they do exist, and not all of them are trolls who just say that stuff to provoke a reaction.

[Gravekeeper]

That's not far left, though. Far left are people who support eco-terrorism, preach hate for anyone who believes in a deity, and believes anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

That is not far left at all. Far left is the counterpoint to capitalism and aims for the dismantlement of capitalism and wealth concentration ( wealth redistribution ) in favour of socioeconomic equality. Eco-terrorism doesn't have any one political philosophy and actually runs counter to far left politics. It has more to do with anarchists.

Your remaining two examples are just silly.

[Hyena Dandy]

That's not far left, though. Far left are people who support eco-terrorism, preach hate for anyone who believes in a deity, and believes anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

I wouldn't consider that far left, even. Far left in my experience has been "Kill every Israeli, destroy the class system, don't vote because it prevents change from occurring." Except the religion one, those are more standard left, but dickish about it.

[TheHuckster]

That is not far left at all. Far left is the counterpoint to capitalism and aims for the dismantlement of capitalism and wealth concentration ( wealth redistribution ) in favour of socioeconomic equality.

Very well. And as history has shown, there were plenty of assholes, Lenin and Stalin to name just two, who held that viewpoint.

Your remaining two examples are just silly.

Silly how? There are people out there who call for more than just secularism and wish to eradicate all religion because religion has some bad apples. And, yes, there are people who believe those who disagree with Obama have racist motivations. It's an extremist viewpoint that vote for democrats.

[Gravekeeper]

Silly how? There are people out there who call for more than just secularism and wish to eradicate all religion because religion has some bad apples. And, yes, there are people who believe those who disagree with Obama have racist motivations. It's an extremist viewpoint that vote for democrats.

You're comparing a handful of nut jobs on the Internet to a systematic effort that involves the majority of US media. Its a false equivalency. As for Obama and racism, obviously not everyone that disagrees with Obama is a racist, but there has been more than an alarming share of racism directed his way. Holding that opinion is not "extremist" though.

Also, the US has a binary political system with only two choices. So "vote for Democrats" is not a useful measure. There is zero reason for an Atheist to vote for the current incarnation of the Republican party. Regardless of what they think of the Democrats or if they even vote at all. Given the low voter turn out in the US.

Plus Atheists make up what? 0.7% of Americans?

[Gravekeeper]

I wouldn't consider that far left, even. Far left in my experience has been "Kill every Israeli, destroy the class system, don't vote because it prevents change from occurring."

Kill every Israeli? Thats an odd one. Its true that there's a direct correlation between how religious someone is in the US vs how likely they are to be sympathetic to Israel. However, the % of Americans that are sympathetic to Palestine is pretty small in general. ( 17% ).

While Israel has an obvious appeal to the more religious, I don't see why Palestine would have appeal to left wingers ( Unless its just to spite the super conservatives? ). A full third of Americans don't actually favour either side.