• 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 months ago

    To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

    mao-wave

    It does take skill, effort, and patience to talk about major points of disagreement (and actually go in depth on them) without blowing up a friendship. But that’s valuable stuff to develop anyway, and if you can’t talk to a friend about topics like this, how are you supposed to have the same conversation with strangers?

    • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      When a liberal says something like “just remain their friend and don’t get involved discussing these issues and show them love. Just say you disagree if they bring up politics”, I wonder how much of that response comes from them knowing very little about what they actually believe. Like, could they really explain how they arrived at their opinion or why they believe the things they do in conversation?

      Or is it just like taking medication - “I don’t know how it works but this is what I was prescribed”?