How is it besides the point? It is the point. These people are genuinely ignorant and uneducated, and their sources for information are very narrow and distorted. Their perceptive can only change when they’re directly affected because that experience is what gives them the change necessary to learn and grow. You’re implying that they’re all malicious and evil, but I disagree with that view. I don’t they all lack empathy, I think they’re good people who have been brainwashed by a handful of genuinely vile people who seek to manipulate them for their own personal gain by keeping them blind, poor, miserable, scared, and angry. Do I think this of all MAGA? No, but I do think it applies to a significant chunk.

What the hell are you even talking about? You can’t even follow your own statements. It’s like you’re mentally lost. This is what you originally said:

If the revolution ever comes, they should not be forgiven.

This clearly an implicit statement of vengeance. You’re definitely some sort of Marxist, and you think that when the revolution comes, people like her should be killed or at the very least be punished for the crime of participating in their society.

You could’ve been honest and owned up to it, but you chose to deny it and follow it up with this weird backpedaling take:

We must build a better world without their input or consent. we must have a world where everyone is free and have access to a dignified life. But that does not mean to forgive them let alone forget what they did. They should have access to the same lives everyone else have access to, but they will do so without friends, without family, with everyone spiting them

This is still clearly punitive in nature because your primary goal isn’t to make things better, but rather to make sure that they pay a price as a punishment. Which again is an act of vengeance.

I could’ve almost led this slide as some misguided view about not forgetting history or something along those lines, but you chose to add this at the end:

Do you think we should have pardoned everyone in the Nuremberg trials?

Really? This is the event you wanted to cite here? Not only does this demonstrate your astounding ignorance of these trails, what happened in them, and what the takeaways are, but it also shows that you’re seeking a form of collective punishment using guilt by association as the justification… which is precisely the opposite of what these trials hoped to achieve.

Now, once again, you’re denying previous statement and giving yet another weird backpedaling take:

where did I say to punish her? I’m only saying shes not to be trusted, and we shouldn’t work with her.

“not inviting me unconditionally after I intentionally destroyed the country is a cruel punishment”

Which takes us back to square one you can’t seem to comprehend the fact acceptance and vengeance aren’t opposites of each other. An actual pragmatic take would be that is simply idiotic to try to collectively punish a huge demographic like this, especially on the grounds of guilt by association, for the crime of them participating in their society within the context of their system. It is better from a strategic point of view to firmly acknowledge their mistakes while being open to cooperating with those who reach the same conclusion. Those who have disavowed their previous beliefs provide a strategic opportunity to create a coalition that gets to advance an agenda ends MAGA fascism and implements better policies faster.

Even if we don’t see eye to eye with these people on everything, it’s better to recognize that disagreements are a fact of politics and that it’s better to utilize this common ground to achieve common goals wherever possible, as opposed to not achieving them at all due to stubbornness. This is an infinitely better option than to seek eternal retribution or hold eternal grudges. Holding this view doesn’t mean that you endorse MAGA ideology or that you forget everything that happened, it just means that you’re practical in your aims. This view is the ONLY view of people who believe in democracy as a system of governance. Rejection of it for something more rigid, absolute, and violent just means that you’re an authoritarian.

It’s literally the opposite. I’m saying people like her are not MAGA, and they can serve to bolster a coalition that can help advance good policy… which is what’s most important at the end of the day. You’re myopic worldview limits your to only ever interact with people who 100% agree with you, and your only solution is revolution because you think that will lead to some purifying reset. You’re in a bubble dude, you lack the ability to be pragmatic in any meaningful sense.

I can agree with that, but being ignorant or uneducated doesn’t mean someone lacks empathy.

So it looks like I was spot on, you really are self righteous moral crusader with superiority complex.

Also, it’s not a matter of acceptance. It’s a matter of strategic opportunity. You can’t ever achieve anything at all if all you ever do is gatekeep, run endless purity tests, and operate in absolute extremes.

But you’re making the assumption that it’s inevitable to gain an understanding. I think you’re underestimating the sheer levels of ignorance that people like this live under. Some people are so ignorant that their only sources of information are Facebook and Fox News, and so they only ever see one perspective, and that perspective is their truth. Their perspective, their truth, is basically whatever Trump says taken at face value and regurgitated by right wing media.

I think its true. Think about it, a big part of right wing ideology, at least in the US, over the past decade or so is the idea that there’s global network of powerful individuals who influence how the world is run, who are discretely working together to run a child trafficking ring. This idea has spanned quite a few conspiracy theories from pizzagate to Q anon to the Epstein list. A very large chunk of the right not only believe this, but it is the basis of their political beliefs.

The reason why this part of the right gravitated towards Trump to begin with is because he’s the only one who entertained the idea. While all the other politicians ignored or denied these conspiracies, Trump used them to gain support. In 2016 Trump claimed that he was going to go against the establishment, expose their crimes, and drain the swamp. In 2020 he claimed that the powerful elites were conspiring against him because he was close to exposing them and they’re trying to steal the election to keep him out. In 2024 he claimed that he will release the Epstein files the first day he’s in office again.

A lot of people genuinely believed that he would do this even though he himself is a powerful elite, has close ties to the people who ran the pedo rings, and there’s allegation that he even participated… but then again, we’re not talking about the most critically skilled bunch. Regardless, these people supported Trump because he promised to deliver what they sought, and so in that sense they’re more loyal to their belief in their conspiracies then they are to Trump himself.

When the Epstein list turned out to be a real thing, their long running conspiracy theory has finally been validated, and they pinned all their hopes on the one guy in the political sphere who promised to bring it all out to light on day one. So when that time came and Trump started his second term, nothing happened. These people started getting antsy and they started putting more and more pressure on Trump and his admin to explain the delays, especially after Bondi explicitly stated that the files were on her desk.

So when Bondi and Trump suddenly did a 180 and not only refused to release the Epstein files, but straight up denied their existence, that’s when the spell was finally broken on some of these MAGA types who hitched a ride just for these files to be exposed to the public. This was doubly so when he publicly disowned any supporter who even entertained the idea of its existence. At that point even the most dimwitted MAGA who joined the movement for the truth saw that Trump was not only not going to deliver on his promises, but he basically just admitted that he’s guilty. He’s one of the elite they were trying to go after all this time.

This portion of MAGA is what became disenfranchised, they’re no longer see Trump as a fit leader for the movement even if they believe a lot of what he stands for. You don’t hear about them or see them as much, because they’re not really a part of MAGA anymore. They’ve been banned from all MAGA spaces virtual and irl the moment Trump disavowed them, and they’ve been rejected as being liberals by the more brainwashed MAGAs who are still in the movement, in fact these ultra brainwashed MAGAs are the movement.

This may ironically be a conspiracy theory on my part, but I firmly believe that this rift is real. I have never, ever seen the comment sections on Fox News, ONN, Brietbart as well as the Twitter, Truth Social, and the right wing youtube space turn as heavily against Trump as that moment. I think this was the last straw for a lot of them, and I assure you that Trump and his MAGA candidates are going to be shells of themselves in terms of performance in every election from now on.

Sure, but let me give you the same example but in a different context.

Let’s suppose that instead of “let’s lock up everyone from this ethnic group”, a politician says “let’s stop illegal immigration”. Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly rational, reasonable, moral stance to have. If someone hears the latter phrasing, they might take it at face value even if the politician really means the former. Thus, this individual has come to indirectly support the former even though they think they’re supporting the latter. The end result is the same because the politician’s intentions never changed, however, the morality of this individual is no longer as black and white as in your example.

You say politics shouldn’t be about self interest, but you’re condemning someone for not showing solidarity in the past while refusing to acknowledge that they might have it now. That’s not principled, that’s punitive.

You’re demanding empathy from others while showing none yourself. If someone changes their views because they’ve experienced harm, that’s not selfish. That’s how people grow. If you actually believe in solidarity, you should welcome people who come around, not gatekeep it.

Otherwise, you’re not defending empathy. You’re using it as a weapon to feel morally superior. That’s hypocritical.

Do you think we should have pardoned everyone in the Nuremberg trials?

This level of ignorance just proves my original point. The Nuremberg trials are as famous as they are because they intentionally went out of their way to only prosecute specific leaders and individuals who were responsible for Nazi war crimes. The original Nuremberg trial only prosecuted 24 individuals, and the broader series of trials prosecuted less than 200 individuals. Despite all these individuals having some connection to the Nazis, all of them were given fair trails and some of them were even acquitted.

The single biggest takeaway from these trials is that you can’t persecute a society. As these trails proved, even among the ranks of the leaders, not all of them were convicted. If you were to go after the common man just for participating in their society then that’s not only guilt by association, but it’s also collective punishment… which is the very thing that made the Nazis bad in the first place.This is of course, one of the most extreme examples in history, we don’t live in a time or society that’s as extreme. As vile and damaging as Trump and MAGA are, unironically thinking they’re the same as the Nazis is dangerously ignorant.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we become generous and assume the same general premise for them anyway, then these very trials that you cited go against everything you’re advocating for. If there were similar trials, you would go after individuals like Trump himself, Kevin Roberts, or JD Vance… you don’t go after random people because they supported them at one point or another. Keep in mind, Trump voters aren’t a few individuals, they’re demographic that consists of tens of millions. These people are society. There’s no future where what you’re advocating for turns out to be a net positive. What you’re wishing for is breeding ground for a revolution, and it’s not going to be one you daydream about, it’s going to be one led by them for them.

The point isn’t to convert, politics is not religion. The point is to use common ground to establish coalitions and utilize diplomacy tactics (compromise and cooperation) to advance practical policies that seek to benefit the greater good. You’re not going to see eye to eye with everyone, and it’s wrong to think that you should only ever work with people who do. If people like her share a common stance with us, it would be foolish not to capitalize on it.

But that’s a matter of perspective. Empathy as a concept is vague, subjective, and fluid.

The thing is that a there’s actually a pretty big divide among MAGA now. Ever since Trump and his admin refused to release the Epstein files like promised, there’s a very big chunk of MAGA who went in uproar and rejected Trump. That chunk of MAGA which I would say is maybe around 1/3 of the base is disenfranchised because while they’re still MAGA in their beliefs, they no longer view Trump as a prophet like the rest of the base.

Is this not normal? If you treat people kindly and with respect, they’re more likely to respect you back and treat you kindly. This common courtesy establishes a level of trust where others are more willing to listen to what you have to say. This is the only way people can ever change their minds.

I have never seen any instance of anyone changing their minds because others were demonizing them and making fun of them. I feel like the people who advocate for others to be dicks to people like this guy tend to be major assholes themselves, and these people are big part of the problem. Yet that views is becoming more and more common. So props to you for treating this guy like person, you might think much of it, but your interactions with him might very well be the reason why he even has the chance of coming around.

See a normal person would see this as opportunity to bring this person over to their side. This could be an opportunity to explain to this person that this is how other people feel too, that her she’s not alone in her rejection of Trump, and that she’s better off joining everybody else in the fight for everyone instead of just for some.

However, a deranged person would see this as opportunity to mock and belittle this person for changing their view because they view people as inherently evil.

Maybe, but there is a genuine shift among the right where they’re turning against Trump. Trump has been relevant in politics for a decade, and I have never, ever seen a bigger uproar against him within the right than when refused to release the Epstein files. That was the very first time that I thought “oh shit, this is different”

This is the case for most people. People change their opinions when they’re personally affected because first hand personal experience is as real as its going to get.

The reason why history closed the chapter of tankies pretty firmly in the 20th century is because it became apparent to people all over the world that the revolution is fueled by hateful, spiteful, and ignorant individuals like you who seek vengeance, destruction, and misery under the guise of dreamy ideals. In other words you and Trump aren’t too different in this regard.

I mean better late than never. Though it should be pointed out, that her rejecting Trump doesn’t mean that her beliefs changed, just that she’s Trump for the liar that he is.

That’s literally how politics is supposed to work. People are a product of circumstance, and since there are a lot of people with different circumstances that constantly change, there’s going to be a competition of power. Democracy, as a concept, exists to facilitate this competition peacefully. People vote for their best interests, and politicians compete with each other to convince voters that they understand their circumstances and will do what’s in their best interest. If a voter feels like a politicians isn’t representing them anymore, they move to a different politicians that represents them better.

You have to be some type of authoritarian to embrace the idea that people are inherently evil or their politics is immutable. If you reject the notion that people can change their views, compromise, or cooperate with each other then you’re fundamentally at odds with democracy, and YOU are the problem.