It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.
One problem with nuance is that it can be weaponized to pedantry, not that I am accusing you of doing this, but a common tactic I see among conservative talkers is to focus so much on nuance that they intentionally/inadvertently (depending on the person) avoid the topic all-together. It is clear what the person you are replying to is saying, and it is clear that nuance exists. It doesn’t reinforce your point to point out that nuance exists in everything, of course it does.
That said, I warn you to look for occasions where nuance is meant to obscure the core ideas from being discussed.
Their point is that, in a time where a political party is actively banning books, pushing stochastic terrorism, and continues to put forth people who say and do despicable things openly, it is reasonable to reject all people who can’t or won’t stand up to these actions, under the assumption that the rejecter finds these actions despicable.
Or, put a simpler way, using a completely made up example. If I were to require a wheelchair to live, of course I won’t date anyone in the “eliminate wheel chair ramps” party, and it would be silly for you to pretend not to be able to see my perspective in that.
I agree that books shouldn’t be banned, but also probably not all books belong in schools, but should still be purchasable (which I believe is the case you’re referring to in Florida)
I don’t agree with the coercion and censorship that took place during covid, which is why I would lean away from being left. That being said, women (and everyone else) should have full autonomy of their bodies, which is why I would lean away from being on the right.
Nuance can also be something that brings us together, because I think most of us do have some common ground somewhere.
I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”
I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.
To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.
Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.
It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.
Even the hygiene example can be nuanced.
Is it that they don’t trim their toe nails often, but shower daily?
Is it that their nose hairs are long, but their hair on top of their head is well kept?
Where does this black and white line get drawn?
Everyone from different cultures (micro and macro) will have different answers.
We can all be stuffed into boxes for one thing or another. But I don’t think it’s so black and white.
One problem with nuance is that it can be weaponized to pedantry, not that I am accusing you of doing this, but a common tactic I see among conservative talkers is to focus so much on nuance that they intentionally/inadvertently (depending on the person) avoid the topic all-together. It is clear what the person you are replying to is saying, and it is clear that nuance exists. It doesn’t reinforce your point to point out that nuance exists in everything, of course it does.
That said, I warn you to look for occasions where nuance is meant to obscure the core ideas from being discussed.
Their point is that, in a time where a political party is actively banning books, pushing stochastic terrorism, and continues to put forth people who say and do despicable things openly, it is reasonable to reject all people who can’t or won’t stand up to these actions, under the assumption that the rejecter finds these actions despicable.
Or, put a simpler way, using a completely made up example. If I were to require a wheelchair to live, of course I won’t date anyone in the “eliminate wheel chair ramps” party, and it would be silly for you to pretend not to be able to see my perspective in that.
Great response, and I see your point.
I agree that books shouldn’t be banned, but also probably not all books belong in schools, but should still be purchasable (which I believe is the case you’re referring to in Florida)
I don’t agree with the coercion and censorship that took place during covid, which is why I would lean away from being left. That being said, women (and everyone else) should have full autonomy of their bodies, which is why I would lean away from being on the right.
Nuance can also be something that brings us together, because I think most of us do have some common ground somewhere.
I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”
I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.
To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.
Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.
Fair enough, it’s not an issue if you think blanket statements are good enough to be deal breakers.
I just hope that kind of black and white way of thinking doesn’t lead to any resentment, and leaves room for individualism.