Political breakups of friendships, relationships, and family ties

[Seattle]

No bias, just fact. Ask many USA citizens who have had the misfortune to fall seriously ill and in some cases, needing to sell their homes to compensate.

What does that have to do with capitalism? It also doesn't imply "an non-existent" healthcare system. It might imply an imperfect system and who would argue otherwise?

 

[Roosters for ever]

What does that have to do with capitalism? It also doesn't imply "an non-existent" healthcare system. It might imply an imperfect system and who would argue otherwise?

Faulty memory? You said.

Capitalism isn't perfect. It's just the only one that's scalable enough to work well.

I said....

You think so?
The Nordic countries are considered to have the world's most stable and transparent political systems. They frequently top global rankings for democracy, low corruption, and quality of life. There democracy is a robust, universal welfare state, with high taxation, and a free-market economy.
There generally "cradle-to-grave" social safety net, with high taxes, and a tripartite, corporatist system where unions and employers negotiate wages and policies with government mediation, seems to work well.

Most sensible, reasonable people would not mind a "high tax regime" if from that tax, genuine empathetic care for all citizens is the goal.

you then waffled.....

Those countries are capitalist. Apparently, you just don't understand capitalism and use that term pejoratively for whatever you don't like.

I corrected you....

Apparently, once again, what you claim I say is invalid. (This is the third, maybe fourth time?)
Perhaps your problem besides being so bloody pretentious, is that you are ignoring the possibilities of democratic countries like Australia, also using the Capitalist system in part, as do the Nordic countries that I have shown you. You know, using the best of both systems.
My criticism, along with the majority of the world's criticism, is of the USA under the dictator Trump, and his authoritarian-style, neo-isolationist, challenging long-standing alliances and engaging directly with adversaries. Couple that with the lies, dishonesty, and criminal charges he has against his person, and it becomes obvious that mine, and the world's disapproval, criticism, and disrespect, of Trump is warranted and even appropriate.
You, are obviously trying to protect and deny that criticism.

The bone of contention is again, you do not like being corrected, doubted, shown to be wrong, or questioned on your opinion. End of story.

 

[w1z4rd]

A free market system is about as efficient as you can get.

I havent experienced that. Capital colludes. Cartels and and then monopolies form. They become very inefficient over time. Unregulated free market is like an unregulated system of predators. Its not going to end well. Open trade with good regulation to promote competition is way better imo.

 

[Seattle]

I havent experienced that. Capital colludes. Cartels and and then monopolies form. They become very inefficient over time. Unregulated free market is like an unregulated system of predators. Its not going to end well. Open trade with good regulation to promote competition is way better imo.

That's still a free market. Open trade is a free market.

 

[w1z4rd]

That's still a free market. Open trade is a free market.

Okay, as long as its well regulated to control the predators and promote competition and break up monopolies/collusion, then Im happy. Im used to people using the term "free market" at its most fundamental level. Implying there should be no state intervention. If you are using it to include smart regulation then we are in agreement.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, as long as its well regulated to control the predators and promote competition and break up monopolies/collusion, then Im happy. Im used to people using the term "free market" at its most fundamental level. Implying there should be no state intervention. If you are using it to include smart regulation then we are in agreement.

There also needs to be regulation for such aspects as safety (both of the products and of the employees) and control of pollution hazards and environmental impact.

But in some industries, the free market often doesn't work well. Examples include public transport and utilities.

 

[w1z4rd]

There also needs to be regulation for such aspects as safety (both of the products and of the employees) and control of pollution hazards and environmental impact.

But in some industries, the free market often doesn't work well. Examples include public transport and utilities.

Yeah, not everything that is good for humanity is a profit making opportunity for someone.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, not everything that is good for humanity is a profit making opportunity for someone.

The issue with transport and utilities is they are by their nature monopolies as far as the customer is concerned. You have only one water pipe and electricity cable to your house. Your local railway station or tram stop is on one line and your neighbourhood bus routes are only a handful at best. The customer can't shop around, or not easily. This has been partly overcome with telecoms and electricity by hiving off the provisions of the actual wires to a commonly funded organisation. But the UK experiment with trying that with railway track has been poor, and with water it has been a shocking disaster.

 

[Seattle]

There also needs to be regulation for such aspects as safety (both of the products and of the employees) and control of pollution hazards and environmental impact.

But in some industries, the free market often doesn't work well. Examples include public transport and utilities.

That's why we have government.

 

[Tiassa]

Apparently the successor to old religious denomination squabbles and incompatibilities.

K.T. Nelson (2017)↱:

In the era of Trump, Breitbart, and the MAGA set, it seems as if familial cordiality is becoming a thing of the past for many. America has always been ruled by political tribalism to some degree or another, but the divisions have been kicked up to 11 since the 2016 election, with no signs of being cranked down anytime soon.

The evidence of this is (of course) on social media. On Tuesday, popular pro-Trump Twitter account @Education4Libs tweeted out, "I just saved a bunch of money on Christmas presents by sharing my political views on Facebook," a sentiment that subsequently went viral, with more than 2,700 retweets. Obviously the original post was meant to be (at least partially) satirical, but as beloved cool guy of online @RandyGDub pointed out, it precipitated thousands of replies from @Education4Libs's fellow Trumpers, many of whom seemed gleeful that their breathless support of America's big wet leader has alienated them from their loved ones ....

.... There are a surprising number of replies like this, most of them incredibly sad. Political tribalism (particularly the "worth it to own the libs" brand of tribalism) has become so ingrained in our psyches that it seems normal to purposefully start fights with loved ones out of a misplaced allegiance to a deluded and vicious game show host who wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire ....

.... During the campaign, Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose voters." I used to think that statement was hyperbolic, but it seems more and more likely to be true. Fuck, he might just do it to prove himself right. (I can hear him now telling Steve Doucey he's never even been on Fifth Avenue.) I never had many Trump-supporting friends on Facebook to begin with, but the few I did have spent the last year systemically antagonizing everyone they knew, almost challenging them to sever ties. By way of a fun example, here is the kid who sold a bunch of my friends pot in high school ....

.... Imagine trying to have this kid (now an adult, despite the nature of the above post) to Thanksgiving dinner. How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care if their aggressive political stances upset you, but wants you to get upset―someone for whom "this makes people upset" is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?

Conservatives are of course not the only guilty parties here―many on the left have consciously uncoupled from relatives and friends following the election of America's Special Guy. (I personally cut ties with an old co-worker who sent me a bunch of racist stuff on election night as a way to gloat.) But the gleeful attitude of some of these Trump supporters is still a hell of a thing to see. It's supposed to be sad when we can't bring ourselves to sit down to a meal with people we disagree with. Politics isn't supposed to be this toxic.

(boldface accent added)​

Even before then, Robert Jones Jr. explained, "We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist." The quote is frequently misattributed to more famous personage, but what stands out, these years later, is that some people still just don't understand.

• • •​

For instance:

And then there is the sexual liberation stuff, e.g. promotion of gay lifestyle, the recent noisy trans agenda and so forth. [pause here for @Tiassa to start foaming at the mouth, haha. ]

Oh, heavens, no, there's nothing new about that sort of obsession; we've long known about the people who just can't get by without fantasizing about other people's sex lives and, more recently, children urinating. Couldn't tell you what the fuck is wrong them, but, no, their kind of danger isn't anything new.

And while I know history isn't the sort of thing you respect, please do remember that a lot of the transgender question was already settled a few years before J.K. began her celebrity revival campaign.

Toward your lamentation about uppity women and sexual liberation, homosexuals, transgender, and the longer view of history, see "On bigots and the censorship of bigotry" #61 (2025)↗¹; there's over thirty-five years of history, including the misandry of the present anti-trans noise and panic. On reactionism, see, "Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]" #191 (2025)↗: "If we consider that he was about seven, or so, when women started getting uppity in a certain way, and they just haven't stopped, since, maybe it's not surprising if he turns out to sympathize with a particular traditionalist crackpottery seeking to regulate women."

Meanwhile, sure, your denial of their humanity and disagreement with their right to exist are probably going to make it harder for your transgender neighbors to get along with you.

• • •​

It's not that progressivism is directly responsible for Christian anything (other than a push back to traditionalism) and it's the same with nationalism.

I might have mentioned before↗ that blaming liberals for religious polarization in the United States because Democrats failed to properly reject atheism and atheists is literally the subject of Ben Sasse's dissertation. That stands out because the conservative Christian comes right out and says it. If a feminist explains it, like Faludi did in Backlash, traditionalists will push back. But Sasse was a Republican U.S. Senator and a Christian university president, so his suggestion of conservative backlash isn't something conservatives can easily brush off as liberal hoopla.

It's also worth noting, in this thread on "political breakups" and relationship disruption, that it's not the billionaires, corporations, and ossified institutional values that people actually disagree about. It's one thing that "common sense" is not a reliable metric, but reality has swung too far toward equality for some people. Even here at Sciforums, we find that science is too noisy, and some have met their threshold, and refuse the science that informs differently than their preferred superstitions.²

While many have suggested other reasons and motivations driving Trump voters, the enforcement of traditionalism we might also consider the results of history. If, for instance, conservatives just deal with reality, perhaps you can explain the amount of make-believe in their politicking, whether fantasizing about schoolchildren urinating, speculating about what's wrong with black people, or inventing American-dream generalizations about Cuban refugees. If it's about other issues, perhaps someone can explain why the supremacism is the enduring appeal, the durable value, for conservatives.

It's been, like, sixty years, man; we believe them. When it comes to political breakups and relationship disruptions, maybe give some thought to the part where "common sense" swings too far toward recognizing people's humanity and right to exist, and why it's so important for conservatives to just say no.
____________________

Notes:

¹ (formerly of the Rowling thread↗)

² "Ms. Rowling …" #191:

「We might wonder how many times I can do the bit about when science informs differently than superstition, but inasmuch as progress is always a buzzkill for someone↗, what we learn in times and discussions like these is who has met their threshold.」​

Nelson, K. T. "Trump Fans Are Owning Libs by Losing All Their Friends". Vice. 22 November 2017. Vice.com. 29 May 2026. https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-fans-are-owning-libs-by-losing-all-their-friends/

 

[Seattle]

K.T. Nelson (2017)↱:

In the era of Trump, Breitbart, and the MAGA set, it seems as if familial cordiality is becoming a thing of the past for many. America has always been ruled by political tribalism to some degree or another, but the divisions have been kicked up to 11 since the 2016 election, with no signs of being cranked down anytime soon.​

​

The evidence of this is (of course) on social media. On Tuesday, popular pro-Trump Twitter account @Education4Libs tweeted out, "I just saved a bunch of money on Christmas presents by sharing my political views on Facebook," a sentiment that subsequently went viral, with more than 2,700 retweets. Obviously the original post was meant to be (at least partially) satirical, but as beloved cool guy of online @RandyGDub pointed out, it precipitated thousands of replies from @Education4Libs's fellow Trumpers, many of whom seemed gleeful that their breathless support of America's big wet leader has alienated them from their loved ones ....​

​

.... There are a surprising number of replies like this, most of them incredibly sad. Political tribalism (particularly the "worth it to own the libs" brand of tribalism) has become so ingrained in our psyches that it seems normal to purposefully start fights with loved ones out of a misplaced allegiance to a deluded and vicious game show host who wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire ....​

​

.... During the campaign, Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose voters." I used to think that statement was hyperbolic, but it seems more and more likely to be true. Fuck, he might just do it to prove himself right. (I can hear him now telling Steve Doucey he's never even been on Fifth Avenue.) I never had many Trump-supporting friends on Facebook to begin with, but the few I did have spent the last year systemically antagonizing everyone they knew, almost challenging them to sever ties. By way of a fun example, here is the kid who sold a bunch of my friends pot in high school ....​

​

.... Imagine trying to have this kid (now an adult, despite the nature of the above post) to Thanksgiving dinner. How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care if their aggressive political stances upset you, but wants you to get upset―someone for whom "this makes people upset" is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?​

​

Conservatives are of course not the only guilty parties here―many on the left have consciously uncoupled from relatives and friends following the election of America's Special Guy. (I personally cut ties with an old co-worker who sent me a bunch of racist stuff on election night as a way to gloat.) But the gleeful attitude of some of these Trump supporters is still a hell of a thing to see. It's supposed to be sad when we can't bring ourselves to sit down to a meal with people we disagree with. Politics isn't supposed to be this toxic.​

​

(boldface accent added)​

Even before then, Robert Jones Jr. explained, "We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist." The quote is frequently misattributed to more famous personage, but what stands out, these years later, is that some people still just don't understand.

• • •​

For instance:



Oh, heavens, no, there's nothing new about that sort of obsession; we've long known about the people who just can't get by without fantasizing about other people's sex lives and, more recently, children urinating. Couldn't tell you what the fuck is wrong them, but, no, their kind of danger isn't anything new.

And while I know history isn't the sort of thing you respect, please do remember that a lot of the transgender question was already settled a few years before J.K. began her celebrity revival campaign.

Toward your lamentation about uppity women and sexual liberation, homosexuals, transgender, and the longer view of history, see "On bigots and the censorship of bigotry" #61 (2025)↗¹; there's over thirty-five years of history, including the misandry of the present anti-trans noise and panic. On reactionism, see, "Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]" #191 (2025)↗: "If we consider that he was about seven, or so, when women started getting uppity in a certain way, and they just haven't stopped, since, maybe it's not surprising if he turns out to sympathize with a particular traditionalist crackpottery seeking to regulate women."

Meanwhile, sure, your denial of their humanity and disagreement with their right to exist are probably going to make it harder for your transgender neighbors to get along with you.

• • •​

I might have mentioned before↗ that blaming liberals for religious polarization in the United States because Democrats failed to properly reject atheism and atheists is literally the subject of Ben Sasse's dissertation. That stands out because the conservative Christian comes right out and says it. If a feminist explains it, like Faludi did in Backlash, traditionalists will push back. But Sasse was a Republican U.S. Senator and a Christian university president, so his suggestion of conservative backlash isn't something conservatives can easily brush off as liberal hoopla.

It's also worth noting, in this thread on "political breakups" and relationship disruption, that it's not the billionaires, corporations, and ossified institutional values that people actually disagree about. It's one thing that "common sense" is not a reliable metric, but reality has swung too far toward equality for some people. Even here at Sciforums, we find that science is too noisy, and some have met their threshold, and refuse the science that informs differently than their preferred superstitions.²

While many have suggested other reasons and motivations driving Trump voters, the enforcement of traditionalism we might also consider the results of history. If, for instance, conservatives just deal with reality, perhaps you can explain the amount of make-believe in their politicking, whether fantasizing about schoolchildren urinating, speculating about what's wrong with black people, or inventing American-dream generalizations about Cuban refugees. If it's about other issues, perhaps someone can explain why the supremacism is the enduring appeal, the durable value, for conservatives.

It's been, like, sixty years, man; we believe them. When it comes to political breakups and relationship disruptions, maybe give some thought to the part where "common sense" swings too far toward recognizing people's humanity and right to exist, and why it's so important for conservatives to just say no.
____________________

Notes:

¹ (formerly of the Rowling thread↗)​

​

² "Ms. Rowling …" #191: ​

​

「We might wonder how many times I can do the bit about when science informs differently than superstition, but inasmuch as progress is always a buzzkill for someone↗, what we learn in times and discussions like these is who has met their threshold.」​

Nelson, K. T. "Trump Fans Are Owning Libs by Losing All Their Friends". Vice. 22 November 2017. Vice.com. 29 May 2026. https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-fans-are-owning-libs-by-losing-all-their-friends/

I think the short answer is "agency". It's not about having too much "equality". "Conservative" also can mean anything so it's easy to swat down. One person argues for agency and another says "what about Trump" or "school children urinating". It's silly.

 

[Peeples]

A UK perspective: I really couldn't see politics breaking families apart over here, at least until the last 10-15 years. Maybe I'm just more aware of such matters generally, or maybe it is increasing. We've had our fair share of political powder-kegs, with families on opposite sides of Brexit, for example, and now Reform are sticking their wedge into that gap.
It's certainly not just a US thing, though: https://www.mpg.de/24863744/couples-with-opposing-political-views-face-higher-risk-of-separation