I’ve cut those who rationalize torture, war crimes and murder out of my life

[Cyrano]

Over the past few years, I have refused to have contact with a few people who have been a part of my life. Some are relatives and some were friends.

They are all Republicans which is something I had always been willing to accept. But no more. Not after the recent past. With very few exceptions, just about every Republican I know is defending the horrendous crimes and atrocities that were committed in our name. They have found a way to rationalize torture, war crimes, murder, and, very likely, crimes against humanity.

Thinking about these relatives and ex-friends with whom I won’t speak and who won’t speak to me, I don't pretend to understand how they arrived at their conclusions. Yet, right or wrong, I have come to believe that they lack basic human decency. How else to explain their defense of the indefensible?

I sometimes wish I could be more tolerant as I miss my relationships with these people. But it’s hard to come to terms with those who believe in everything I’ve spent my life opposing. I refuse to tolerate their intolerance or their lack of basic human values.

[barbtries]

1. i'm sorry for your loss.

there are some places where i just don't go with some of my loved ones, and this is why.

[no limit]

2. Really? Why in the world would you do that?

There are plenty of misguided people in this world, I can't imagine cutting off someone that I care about because of politics. Seems a bit extremist.

[Cyrano]

4. Please reread my OP. It goes beyond politics. It' about basic human values.

[Echo In Light]

11. Exactly. Agreed, except my wife and I don't socialize w/anyone who agrees with it

...so it's non-applicable in that sense. But I completely agree with where you're coming from - I know that I rarely find common ground on any topic w/those who are mainstream/right-wing (the types who ARE right-wing even though they don't understand that they are since the views they're programmed with are strategically not labeled as such) so it's very simple to avoid such types altogether.

[Occam Bandage]

25. That's what politics is.

What are the great debates in American politics? Whether we torture. Whether we provide health care to all. Whether we tax the wealthy to pay for social programs. Whether we allow immigrants, and how many we allow. Whether we consider a fetus a person. Whether we consider all persons truly equal under the law, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexuality. Whether we consider religious faith a public or a private matter. Whether we believe it is better to protect the right to speech, or to protect people from harmful speech. Whether we kill foreigners to protect our economic interests.

A political issue asks, at its core, "who are we, and what our are values?"

[Cyrano]

29. Can't disagree. You've nailed the definition of politics that deals with "values."

[T Wolf]

7. I beg to differ. I cannot fathom why someone would continue an association with someone

who held such despicable views and values. Even if they are a relative or friend.

This feeds into the fallacy that there is no right or wrong, only different perspectives on any and every subject.

Slavery - it could(?) be OK or it could be wrong. There is not a clear truth? So we must accept all views.

Child rape - where is the middle ground on this? I am supposed to condone and accept my niece being raped at age two because the perpetrator was a relative and I certainly should not judge him nor cut him out of my life?

Sorry - but I just cannot accept everything as morally equivalent and therefore, not justifiable grounds for reaction.

[Echo In Light]

27. Yep, and it's that type of relativism that's often used by M$M: phony "objectivity"

[hfojvt]

35. which views are despicable though? And do certain views make PEOPLE despicable?

Since you mentioned slavery, therefore you would cut off all relations with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because those two scumbags actually owned slaves? It's not about accepting all views, it is about accepting all people, even those with wrong views. There is good and bad in everyone, not all virtue in Jets and all evil just in the sub-human, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Sharks.

I think that dehumanizing whole groups of people is one of the worst things that can be done, a root of many other evils, but I apparently associate with people who do it.

I think its wrong for Jets to only associate with Jets, just like I think it is wrong for Sharks to only associate with other Sharks and only be exposed to an echo chamber of associates in total agreement. Jets and Sharks need to be able to live together just like all territory folk need to stick together.

[Echo In Light]

38. Having disagreements re moral truths, and avoiding those who advocate the inhumane/intolerant...

...doesn't necessarily equate to "de-humanizing" those who flippantly de-humanize others themselves. It just means that I avoid such people, as some are beyond reaching, or finding common ground with, especially since most propagandistic appeals (the basis of their views) target emotion, and specific psychological proclivities.

Once an entire group is taken in by this uniform shuck n jive, they of course insist their position is "objective," and "fact based." Any contradictory, or dissenting, heterodox views are immediately assailed and relegated by such types as "crazy," something that occupies entirely too much of the national discourse already i.e. if you disagree with someone, than by default that other's view, and the ones espousing it, are somehow "crazy." It began on talk radio, and continues here online. Big time.

So, basically, my position involves avoiding those who believe in and support the most outrageous, easily disprovable lies of the corporate, Establishment powers. Online, those types tend to speak and denounce quite LOUDLY...as where face to face they haven't much to say, unless they're within a group.

Author/journalist Chris Hedges writes/talks of this phenomenon quite a bit, and I agree: there are times when preserving the open, tolerant society involves resisting and/or standing up to those who are intolerant.

Thus far I just tend to avoid the company of such people, who, given my very long hair and tattoos would likely find objection w/me on numerous grounds w/o my actually opining on anything that doesn't fit their authoritarian, M$M-induced background assumptions.

[T Wolf]

40. Seeing as they are both long dead - this is a BS example. Context (in time) has to be

taken into account.

I doubt that either GW or TJ would own slaves today.

[cali]

3. I just cut conversations about such things out of my relationships

with people who I don't see eye to eye with on these subjects. There are only a couple of people who fit that description in my life, but I love 'em, so I just don't talk about this stuff with them.

[Cyrano]

5. Please see post #4

On edit: Hi Cali: Although there are many subjects on which I agree with you, this is not one of them. I deeply regret the distance that now exists between myself and some of my relatives.

The thing is, there are just some basic values that we all have and that we cling to. There are just some things on which you cannot compromise.

In another era, the relatives of which I'm speaking might have been called "Nazi sympathizers." Those are strong and inflammatory words. Yet, I just can't find another term that so accurately describes those who justify torture, murder and crimes against humanity.

It's a sad state of affairs for me to see relatives in this light. Nonetheless, I just can't find any other description that accurately fits their beliefs and aims.

[tinkerbell41]

6. Maddening

I'm tired of them talking to me like I'm one of them. I think to myself, haven't I given you enough clues to know I don't support your crazy flag waving, racist, homophobic, war mongering way of thinking?? Yeah I really try to avoid them like the plague. Extreme? Maybe, but just like i choose
not to join a cult, I choose not to hang out with haters.

[dem629]

8. That's what bugs me, too.

That one of them will start talking about their views, just assuming you'll agree and when you don't...shocking! They can't believe you have an opinion. Oh the horror.

What is it with people who just assume you're going to think the way they do? Is it arrogance? Ignorance? Both?

[tinkerbell41]

14. I dont know

I have thought about it often, during these last few years. I'm okay with being looked at as an oddity. I think it's ignorance. For me relatives and friends, have never put themselves in anyone's shoes. I have walked in alot of shoes, by my own mistakes. For instance, my RW sister-in-law believes no one who made minimum wage should get unemployment, or welfare. I did welfare, when i had my child and had no insurance. It was no cakewalk, I wouldn't want to be humiliated like that again.
But in her mind, Freeloaders, Living the Highlife. Right, walk in their shoes. I carry my scars proudly i believe i am a better person for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Welcome to the club

fortunately that is one person in my case and a confirmed freeper

Yes, bona fide of that place called free republic

[liberalmuse]

10. I've cut Republicans out of my life because they are selfish assholes.

I'm sick to death of them. They cause so much pain. My daughter's father is the latest. He's an asshole who gets off on hurting my daughter. He ended up having two other kids and he only contacts my daughter when he wants to brag about the stuff he's done for them--stuff he won't do for her, like help with her college. He did invite my daughter to his daughter's quincenara. He spend tens of thousands of dollars on his other daughter, while my daughter has watched over the years my struggling to get the minimal child support from this asshole, who made tons of money, btw. I'm so glad I didn't marry him. I told him what I thought of his cruel games and hurting my daughter. Too many people attracted to the Republican ideology are despicable and soulless. I honestly hate these people.

[T Wolf]

12. You have described them perfectly and clearly shown why it is counter-productive to even

try and have a conversation with a puke.

Ant yet, some here will try and justify maintaining a relationship with those types.

I guess being accepting to some means accepting everything, even things that are obviously wrong.

The willingness of our side to accept the bad things done by the enemy is one reason we rarely win any battle with them. Polite just does not work in war.

[Arugula Latte]

15. It's much easier in some cases than others,though.

I've basically constructed a Republican-free life. I live in a very liberal area. Our friends are liberal. The parents at our kids' schools are liberal. I mostly work at home, so I don't have to deal w/ Republicans in the workplace. My husband works at a very liberal institution. My husband's family is liberal, thank goodness. My immediate family is liberal, and I basically have cut my nutbag fundy cousins out of my life (no loss there).

However, some people are surrounded by fundies and Repukes and Limbaugh Lovers in their immediate and extended family and all the places they work and go. It would be very difficult, I think to cut everybody like that out of your life if that was your situation.

[Echo In Light]

17. Plus it logically follows that people of such different mindsets don't have much in common anyway...

Especially in re to socializing, pastimes, interests, etc

[peace13]

13. I feel your pain.

I have had to cut myself off from family members and friends because of the fiasco over the past eight years. I have always thought that people who cut family members out of their lives were short sided and lacking in something, but now I know. Some things you do for self preservation. I simply could not face the hatred that they had for 'liberals' and their inability to see past their own fears. 'How else to explain their defense of the indefensible?', you ask. I think it is ignorance and fear coupled with a heavy dose of FOX news. I will add that all of my people were what they would call 'Christian' and this factored into the equation. Somehow my thinking was anti Christ / anti American. Interestingly enough, I have not encountered anyone in my world who is pro- torture so the initial cut must have taken care of that as well.

I too feel the lose and miss having family but I do not miss being judged. I do not miss the sickening feeling on hearing the words that come from their mouths. Best wishes to you. Peace, Kim

[valerief]

16. The older you get the less tolerance you have for utter assholes. nt

[Occam Bandage]

18. I'm sorry your life has been hijacked by politics.

I hope you manage to find a way to deal with people with whom you disagree over political issues.

[peace13]

19. It's not simply a disagreement about politics...

It is a fundamental difference in the concept of living. Don't oversimplify what you may not have encountered or do not understand.

[Occam Bandage]

22. That's what politics is.

Politics is not, at its heart, a series of arguments over actuarial tables and fiscal projections. It is an ongoing struggle over cultural identification. A reverberant and enduring political dispute is not one that asks, "how shall we allocate resources to solve this problem," but rather is one that asks, "who are we as a people?"

[T Wolf]

42. I would hold that you have the definition of politics exactly backwards. Politics IS deciding

how better to deal with an issue. Do we bail out the banks or funnel funding directly to those hurt by the banks? That is a political discussion to which both sides can bring rational and logical support (well, sometimes).

Thus, if I say save their homes and you say let the banks save them, that is a matter of approach and can be discussed in a vacuum without spilling over into every other aspect of a relationship.

It IS NOT mere politics to discuss whether we should allow children to be raped with no consequences.

If I say it is OK and that I like doing it and no one has any right to tell me not to - and you say it is wrong... that is an issue that reaches to, as others (and you) have said, the basic core of who and what we are as a society. Can you see yourself happily inviting me over to dinner and asking me to babysit your kids, simply because we have a difference of opinion on that issue?

[Occam Bandage]

45. I think that's a very narrow, specific view of politics, and one that ignores

the political history of this nation. Politics has always been groups of people with shared values fighting against each other for the soul of the nation. The great political battles in this nation's history have always been about who we are as a country and not about how we will solve particular issues. Look at any decade in history, and look at the most enduring political battles from that decade. Each and every one can best be understood as a fight for the nation's identity, and the individual issues only serve as points around which competing worldviews may collide.

The currency debates in the late nineteenth century were not over the particular merits of whether a gold or silver base would provide a more stable currency. Indeed, that debate is notable as one in which people would occasionally admit they did not understand or care about the fiscal arguments in speeches on the subject. The arguments, rather, were over whether we were a nation in which the economic engine ought be controlled by an elite core of East Coast bankers and traders (that is to say, the gold standard), or whether that engine ought be in the hands of individual laborers spread across the entire nation. Needless to say, gold won.

That is the same question that is being asked by the bailout example you give. Look at the posts here on DU. They have not been centered on sober fiscal analysis of asset valuation and credit availability; those are the realm of policy wonks and few bother to learn enough of the fiscal-wonk language to fully understand the issues at play. Rather, the complaints have been about Wall Street bankers getting handouts, about the people being screwed, about the masters pulling the strings, about cronies and buddies and insiders--about who holds the power, rather than what will help the nation's financial engine recover. And on the other side of the issue, it's the same thing. Santelli did not become famous by giving a reasoned explanation of credit and estimated rates of return for certain loans the government might issue; policy was beside the point for him, too. He complained about paying his irresponsible neighbor's mortgage. The Republicans have time and again claimed the problem was not Wall Street per se, but rather that poor homeowners have made bad decisions, and ought be left to their own devices.

The question over bailouts, then, is not anything related to sound policy. It is over a classic and recurring question in American politics:does economic power belong in the hands of the people, or should it be entrusted to the wealthy? Just as William Jennings Bryan in the 1890s, today we complain that East Coast bankers are predatory enemies of the people. And just as McKinley did opposite Bryan, the Republicans of today claim the problem is that the poor are simply irresponsible and cannot be entrusted with the keys of economic power.

You talk about child rape. Thankfully that is not a political issue, but there are many issues in politics that seem just as stark, and are over similar principles of boundary. Abortion is one. To pro-lifers, abortion is as flat-out evil as child rape; it is the murder of a child and nothing but. To pro-choicers, any attempt to control abortion is an attempt by the state to control the bodies of women--which would be enslavement, and under some proposed anti-abortion laws, which would in fact protect the fruits of literal child rape. Of course, abortion covers more than the question, who is a person?. It also involves the questions, what is the role of religion in society? and do people have a right to privacy?, accounting for its explosiveness. Few political issues encompass three distinct and important questions of our values.

[Karenina]

21. These are not "political" issues per se...

They are more CORE VALUE ISSUES.

[Occam Bandage]

23. See above. nt

[Cyrano]

24. This post isn't about politics. It's about human values.

It's about right and wrong. And it's perhaps even about "good" and "evil."

Take your pick. Choose your side. State your belief(s) if you'd care to.

But if you really think this OP and thread are about politics, you really missed the boat.

[Occam Bandage]

26. See #25.

[caty]

20. You have an obligation to yourself

to stay away from those who put you in an unhealthy relationship. Whether it is physical, emotional, or mental, if it causes you harm, you should stay away from those people. That does not mean you should be rude or hateful to them, because that would cause you unneeded stress, but simply stay away from them as much as possible. I don't accept invitations from people who upset me over politics or religion. With the aid of caller ID, I don't answer the phone if they call. But, if I happen to run into them somewhere, I am polite and I keep the conversation short and sweet until I can say that I have to leave for whatever reason. I realize that these people are not going to change their minds until something happens in their life that causes the old light bulb to go on, so they can wake up to reality and put some compassion and ethics in their lives.

[NNN0LHI]

28. I did that over 40 years ago

Long before Bush or I knew what torture or politics was.

When I was about ten I came across some older boys in the ball field doing to a garter snake what I now know is torture. I didn't know it was torture then. I just knew it was wrong. I got the snake away from them and let it get away and took an ass whooping over it too.

Anyone who thinks this is just a political issue has lost their bearings.

Don

[glitch]

31. Some people are born with it, some people have to grow into being human..

Unfortunately our country doesn't really encourage growing into it right now.
For that little kid who saved the snake: :hug:

[NNN0LHI]

44. My brother just wrote his two kids out of his will over this very thing

Them letting him know that they were in the pro-torture corner was good enough for him.

They will regret letting him know how they felt about torture some day. He didn't even argue with them. After they left he just called his lawyer and made an appointment to take care of it. He didn't bat an eye. He has no regrets either.

Don

[glitch]

47. Gosh. That must hurt "sharper than a serpent's tooth to have a thankless child"

I don't have kids so I don't really know how much but it hurts me just to have a brother and a niece who are Republican. To have kids who support torture must be a kick to the gut. My condolences to your brother and you.

[Creena]

30. I completly understand.

A former friend is a Republican, and while we disagreed on politics, we still got along great. Just like you, he recently began rationalizing torture, war crimes, and murder. That's where I drew the line. There is indeed a difference between policy disagreements and lacking basic human decency. I stopped talking to my father a few years ago not because he is a Republican, but because he's also extremely racist, homophobic, and every other disgusting trait known to mankind. I actually just found out he posts on Free Republic, so I suppose he's found a home for all the filth he spews. Anyway, I'm so sorry you lost contact with friends and family. Isn't it infuriating when you can't seem to get through to the ones you love?

[caty]

33. Welcome to DU, Creena!

:hi: :fistbump:

[Creena]

36. Thank ya much!

Still getting my bearings and learning the ropes, but everyone is so welcoming!

[noiretextatique]

32. Congratulations

life is too short to deal with people who don't share your values and ethics.

[mopinko]

34. right there with ya.

got a few nieces and nephews that i care about, but most of my family are either limbaugh loving a-holes, flag wavers, or, mostly, pro-fetus brain dead. the best i can say about any of my siblings is that they are ok. not worth the drive to go to family gatherings any more.

[harun]

37. Good for you. I am with yah. Repukes moved so far to the right

all that were left were fascists. And they showed their true face the last few years. Good riddance.

[gratuitous]

39. Yeah, I used to enjoy Bartcop

Was a pretty good contributor there, both online and financially. But Bart couldn't be moved off his position that in some instances, torture was a fine thing and we shouldn't handcuff ourselves (so to speak) by abjuring its use. I went back and forth with him on it over several weeks, and I finally quit cold turkey going to his site because I couldn't stomach seeing some paean to the virtues of torture. In certain circumstances. With really bad people. Who we knew had vital information.

Too bad, so sad, but my online experience is, on balance, just slightly better for it.

[glitch]

48. I stopped reading him years ago but I wonder how he feels now that it's out

that they weren't looking for information at all, just trying to fabricate a narrative by having some broken victims say Saddam was working with Bin Laden.

What do you bet Bartcop just loves "24"?

[gratuitous]

50. It's been a few years since I went there, too

But I suspect (not wanting to put words in his mouth) that he would say that the Bush administration was a bunch of fuck-ups, and it's no surprise to him that they fucked this up, too. But that aside, he still wouldn't cavil at smacking around a suspected bad guy in a "ticking time bomb" scenario.

I tried mightily to explain my thinking that the TTB scenario was nonsense, but he wouldn't budge off the point that somehow, somewhere, there was going to be an instance where torture (very amorphously defined as somewhere between asking someone to sit down to afternoon tea and putting them on the rack) would not only work, but actually be required. I tried to explain further that no matter how strictly the "exception" was drawn, sooner or later folks were going to try to squeeze practically any scenario into that exception template: How do we know there isn't a time bomb ticking somewhere, and that this guy might have knowledge about it? Could we live with ourselves if innocent people should die, and we didn't take the most extreme measures available to us to get that information out of this suspect/terrorist/really bad guy?

He may or may not love "24," but at least at that time, I think he still distinguished between a scripted Hollywood program and reality. Ah, well. :shrug:

[Odin2005]

41. Be prepared for a lonely life, People are only human, they are not perfect.

And people are not 100% good or 100% evil either. I have a coworker who is the most caring and compassionate person I know and yet is an evangelical who is opposed to gay marriage. Do I disagree with his views on gay marriage? Of course. Does that mean I think he is evil? Absolutely not.

[northofdenali]

43. I've added rabid religionists and anti-choice fanatics to the list.

My tolerance level for bullshit has reached an all-time low. I've also added teabaggers and other like-minded "patriots".

[Forkboy]

46. Life's too short and my blood pressure is too high to waste time being around people like that.

:)

[KittyWampus]

49. Ideally, liberals are about shining their light in the hopes to illumine their loved ones and not

about segregating themselves.

Your purity is a false one. Your moral high ground an optical illusion.

[Cyrano]

51. You've chosen to define the "purity" of my "high ground." Would you care to define yours?

[WhiteTara]

52. you'll feel better without the drag

on your soul. I can only imagine what the loss feels like to you, but in the time to come, you will be much happier. I promise.