The mirror we fear

[Anomalism]

To say “I believe” that both sides engage in lots of projection is silly without some evidence. It kind of demands an explanation and maybe an example or two.

You really think that's not true?

I could put more effort into explaining, but you seem pretty closed off and highly combative.

Would you listen?

 

[BackAgain]

You really think that's not true?

I could put more effort into explaining, but you seem pretty closed off and highly combative.

Would you listen?

I don’t think you could put any effective effort into it. But since I noted its absence in the first place, it stands to reason I’d review whatever “evidence” you offer.

You are the one who wishes to stand above and apart from the rest of us with your supercilious attitude. So cut the shit. Sack up. And support your claims with facts, reliable links and actual logic.

 

[Anomalism]

I don’t think you could put any effective effort into it. But since I noted its absence in the first place, it stands to reason I’d review whatever “evidence” you offer.

You are the one who wishes to stand above and apart from the rest of us with your supercilious attitude. So cut the shit. Sack up. And support your claims with facts, reliable links and actual logic.

Projection is well-documented and recognized in the realm of politics. Studies consistently show that individuals and groups tend to attribute their own undesirable thoughts, motives, or behaviors onto others, especially in highly polarized environments such as this forum. Research demonstrates that political partisans are prone to perceive opposing groups as more biased or dishonest than their own, even when evidence suggests otherwise.

Political analysis routinely highlights mutual accusations of hypocrisy and misinformation as hallmarks of modern polarization. Organizations such as Pew Research Center have documented that partisans on both sides of the spectrum overwhelmingly view the other side as less honest and more driven by misinformation, while downplaying their own side’s faults. This reciprocal demonization erodes trust and prevents constructive dialogue, which aligns directly with my original post.

I deliberately aimed to highlight a systemic behavioral pattern rather than a singular event. Projection is not a claim about one party’s isolated action, but a well-established dynamic that affects political groups across the spectrum. To reduce it to mere opinion ignores decades of research and empirical evidence.

Dismissing these things shows either ignorance or active intent to shut down meaningful discussion.

 

[Votto]

One of the most corrosive features of modern political discourse, and it's deeply present here, is how often people project onto others what they fail to confront in ourselves.

Each side points to hypocrisy, misinformation, tribalism, or double standards in the other, while rarely asking "Are we doing the same? And if we are, do we care enough to fix it internally, or only when it’s someone else’s problem?"

What’s missing is self-accountability. The ability to pause and say “Maybe I’ve been too quick to judge.”, “Maybe my side does this too.”, “Maybe we need to clean our own house before criticizing someone else’s.”

Too often, the goal seems to be winning, not understanding. Defeating, not improving. We demonize rather than dialogue, and in doing so, we lose the chance to build anything better than what we claim to oppose.

The truth is, no movement or ideology matures until it can hold itself to the same standard it demands of others. If we can’t do that , if we only ever police the other side, then we aren’t seeking justice or truth. We’re just protecting our team.

It’s not weakness to examine our your own side. It’s strength.

Racist!!!

 

[Votto]

Projection is well-documented and recognized in the realm of politics. Studies consistently show that individuals and groups tend to attribute their own undesirable thoughts, motives, or behaviors onto others, especially in highly polarized environments such as this forum. Research demonstrates that political partisans are prone to perceive opposing groups as more biased or dishonest than their own, even when evidence suggests otherwise.

Political analysis routinely highlights mutual accusations of hypocrisy and misinformation as hallmarks of modern polarization. Organizations such as Pew Research Center have documented that partisans on both sides of the spectrum overwhelmingly view the other side as less honest and more driven by misinformation, while downplaying their own side’s faults. This reciprocal demonization erodes trust and prevents constructive dialogue, which aligns directly with my original post.

I deliberately aimed to highlight a systemic behavioral pattern rather than a singular event. Projection is not a claim about one party’s isolated action, but a well-established dynamic that affects political groups across the spectrum. To reduce it to mere opinion ignores decades of research and empirical evidence.

Dismissing these things shows either ignorance or active intent to shut down meaningful discussion.

The problem here is, you need to grow up.

If you want to talk about truth, go to the spirituality section.

But if you want to talk about winning and losing, talk in the politics section because that is really all that politics is about.

And no, nothing much is really ever fixed with politics in case you had not noticed. In fact, you can't even fix yourself aside from help from the Almighty as only with his help you can fix yourself and help those around you to do the same, assuming you ever see the truth for what it really is.

 

[Anomalism]

The problem here is, you need to grow up.

If you want to talk about truth, go to the spirituality section.

But if you want to talk about winning and losing, talk in the politics section because that is really all that politics is about.

And no, nothing much is really ever fixed with politics in case you had not noticed. In fact, you can't even fix yourself aside from help from the Almighty as only with his help you can fix yourself and help those around you to do the same, assuming you ever see the truth for what it really is.

That’s the problem. You’ve accepted a version of politics where truth no longer matters, only sides. I reject that. Politics at its best should be about mutual responsibility, not tribal wins. If nothing is ever fixed, maybe it’s because too many people approach it the way you just described, as a game, not a duty. And ironically, you’re calling me immature for pointing that out. I’d call that projection, but I don’t think you’ve looked into what that actually means.

 

[Votto]

That’s the problem. You’ve accepted a version of politics where truth no longer matters, only sides. I reject that. Politics at its best should be about mutual responsibility, not tribal wins. If nothing is ever fixed, maybe it’s because too many people approach it the way you just described, as a game, not a duty. And ironically, you’re calling me immature for pointing that out. I’d call that projection, but I don’t think you’ve looked into what that actually means.

You are right, that is the problem, always has been.

Politics is just about assembling groups of people to try and gain power over other groups of people. There is no time in history when this was not the case anywhere on earth.

Think about this for a second, if politics was about treating everyone equally, then what motivation would people have to send them money? What motivation would they even have to vote? People vote on the premise that if I don't, that group over there is going to cause me pain, suffering, or loss of some kind. Then when you join then other group to oppose them, you turn your head when the group you are a part of does "bad things" as a means of self-preservation.

Don't get me wrong, politics is humanity at its worst, but you at least need to grow up and understand what it is all about.

 

[Anomalism]

You are right, that is the problem, always has been.

Politics is just about assembling groups of people to try and gain power over other groups of people. There is no time in history when this was not the case anywhere on earth.

Think about this for a second, if politics was about treating everyone equally, then what motivation would people have to send them money? What motivation would they even have to vote? People vote on the premise that if I don't, that group over there is going to cause me pain, suffering, or loss of some kind. Then when you join then other group to oppose them, you turn your head when the group you are a part of does "bad things" as a means of self-preservation.

Don't get me wrong, politics is humanity at its worst, but you at least need to grow up and understand what it is all about.

I’m not denying politics often involves power struggles, but that’s exactly why truth and mutual responsibility matter. If politics is just a soulless power struggle and nothing else, then why do so many insist on moral posturing? If ethical considerations mean nothing, what’s the point of any political engagement beyond selfish gain? You're basically saying there is no depth to it at all, so why do partisans so often pretend that there is?

Also, I never mentioned equality. My focus was on the basic idea that politics should involve accountability and honesty within groups, not blind tribal loyalty. Shifting the goalposts to equality is a distraction from the original point, same as saying I need to grow up.

Meaningful politics requires more than winning; it demands reflection and integrity.

 

[Votto]

I’m not denying politics often involves power struggles, but that’s exactly why truth and mutual responsibility matter. If politics is just a soulless power struggle and nothing else, then why do so many insist on moral posturing? If ethical considerations mean nothing, what’s the point of any political engagement beyond selfish gain? You're basically saying there is no depth to it at all, so why do partisans so often pretend that there is?

Also, I never mentioned equality. My focus was on the basic idea that politics should involve accountability and honesty within groups, not blind tribal loyalty. Shifting the goalposts to equality is a distraction from the original point, same as saying I need to grow up.

Meaningful politics requires more than winning; it demands reflection and integrity.

There are moral components within politics as with everything else. For example, the Founding Fathers put their very lives on the line to break away from the tyranny of the British crown, so they engaged in a hard-fought bloody revolution to do just that,..................................only to turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that prevented American citizens from speaking out against government. Think of it, with the horrible memories of the revolution for freedom fresh in their brains that passed legislation that was far more oppressive than what the British crown had done to them. Luckily, Jefferson went nuts and swore he would win and get rid of them all, which he did for the most part, only to use certain aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts along the way to benefit himself. Oh, and what was left of the provision Jefferson was unable to get rid of, FDR used to detain innocent Japanese Americans during WW2, and act that everyone admits is unconstitutional and racist, yet everyone continues to declare him one of the best Presidents of all time.

Then there is flat out virtue signaling when you claim to care about a moral position but don't really care at all, just to gain votes. For example, the Left used to preach tolerance before gaining power. I remember when democrats would say things like, "I may not agree with what you have to say but I would die for your right to be able to say it." They claimed to be in love with free speech. But as time went on democrats turned intolerance into a virtue, to the point you can't even drive a Tesla safely in certain blue cities without being attacked. They then preach democracy but then mysteriously force a duly elected nominee for the President of the United States from office to place another who was not elected for nomination but give no real answer as to why as they continually said that if you don't elect her democracy will be gone forever in the US. What they should have done is admit Biden was not mentally fit to serve but instead removed him from nomination while keeping him in office for months even though he was not mentally fit. And when the voters reject that nominee that replaced Biden, the Left turned to unelected federal judges to try and block him every way they can, all in the name of protecting democracy that had just elected Trump? No, they did not give a damn about democracy, just more virtue signaling.

So, where is the accountability in all this? What happened to the people who passed the Alien and Sedition acts that violated Constitutional free speech? Nothing, other than losing an election. And what happened to the democrats as they openly hid Joe Bidens decline in a scandal that stinks to high heaven? Nothing, other than they lost an election. And whatever happened to FDR for violating the Constitutional rights of those Japanese Americans? Nothing, other than never losing an election as he ended up dying in office.

Part of the moral rot here is having zero accountability other than maybe losing an election. In fact, FDR is still a political god to the Left, the same was that Chinese praise Mao as a leader even though he arguably murdered hundreds of millions more people than any other leader in world history.

 

[Anomalism]

There are moral components within politics as with everything else. For example, the Founding Fathers put their very lives on the line to break away from the tyranny of the British crown, so they engaged in a hard-fought bloody revolution to do just that,..................................only to turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that prevented American citizens from speaking out against government. Think of it, with the horrible memories of the revolution for freedom fresh in their brains that passed legislation that was far more oppressive than what the British crown had done to them. Luckily, Jefferson went nuts and swore he would win and get rid of them all, which he did for the most part, only to use certain aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts along the way to benefit himself. Oh, and what was left of the provision Jefferson was unable to get rid of, FDR used to detain innocent Japanese Americans during WW2, and act that everyone admits is unconstitutional and racist, yet everyone continues to declare him one of the best Presidents of all time.

Then there is flat out virtue signaling when you claim to care about a moral position but don't really care at all, just to gain votes. For example, the Left used to preach tolerance before gaining power. I remember when democrats would say things like, "I may not agree with what you have to say but I would die for your right to be able to say it." They claimed to be in love with free speech. But as time went on democrats turned intolerance into a virtue, to the point you can't even drive a Tesla safely in certain blue cities without being attacked. They then preach democracy but then mysteriously force a duly elected nominee for the President of the United States from office to place another who was not elected for nomination but give no real answer as to why as they continually said that if you don't elect her democracy will be gone forever in the US. What they should have done is admit Biden was not mentally fit to serve but instead removed him from nomination while keeping him in office for months even though he was not mentally fit. And when the voters reject that nominee that replaced Biden, the Left turned to unelected federal judges to try and block him every way they can, all in the name of protecting democracy that had just elected Trump? No, they did not give a damn about democracy, just more virtue signaling.

So, where is the accountability in all this? What happened to the people who passed the Alien and Sedition acts that violated Constitutional free speech? Nothing, other than losing an election. And what happened to the democrats as they openly hid Joe Bidens decline in a scandal that stinks to high heaven? Nothing, other than they lost an election. And whatever happened to FDR for violating the Constitutional rights of those Japanese Americans? Nothing, other than never losing an election as he ended up dying in office.

Part of the moral rot here is having zero accountability other than maybe losing an election. In fact, FDR is still a political god to the Left, the same was that Chinese praise Mao as a leader even though he arguably murdered hundreds of millions more people than any other leader in world history.

You just gave a list of examples proving how power corrupts, how lies win, and how both parties abandon principle for control. You're right, but then you did exactly what keeps the system broken. You turned a diagnosis of systemic failure into a partisan rant.

You think you’re being critical, but you're still playing the game. You don’t actually hate corruption; you hate their corruption. That’s not integrity. That’s selective outrage. You recognize moral collapse, but still speak like one team deserves to win.

If lies, manipulation, and abuse of power are wrong, they’re wrong no matter who does it. Otherwise, you're not standing for truth. You’re standing for a different set of illusions.

You said the system has no accountability. That’s true, but it doesn’t just apply to your enemies. It applies to everyone, and every time you only call it out in one direction, you become exactly what you claim to despise.

You’re not resisting the rot. You’re participating in it by believing only half of it exists.

If every abuse of power you just condemned had been done by people on your side, would you be just as outraged, or would you be finding ways to justify it without even realizing?

 

[braalian]

I've examined the OP's Kumbaya statement and I have determined.....What a load of horseshit.

If you look in the mirror and don't see a person with resolve looking back at you then you are not looking at much.

Or you’re a vampire

 

[Votto]

You just gave a list of examples proving how power corrupts, how lies win, and how both parties abandon principle for control. You're right, but then you did exactly what keeps the system broken. You turned a diagnosis of systemic failure into a partisan rant.

You think you’re being critical, but you're still playing the game. You don’t actually hate corruption; you hate their corruption. That’s not integrity. That’s selective outrage. You recognize moral collapse, but still speak like one team deserves to win.

If lies, manipulation, and abuse of power are wrong, they’re wrong no matter who does it. Otherwise, you're not standing for truth. You’re standing for a different set of illusions.

You said the system has no accountability. That’s true, but it doesn’t just apply to your enemies. It applies to everyone, and every time you only call it out in one direction, you become exactly what you claim to despise.

You’re not resisting the rot. You’re participating in it by believing only half of it exists.

If every abuse of power you just condemned had been done by people on your side, would you be just as outraged, or would you be finding ways to justify it without even realizing?

I do not look for salvation to the GOP or Trump. They just passed a spending bill that would make a drunk sailor blush. It usually comes down to not being able to tolerate the genitals of children being mutilated while force feeding kids in school the notion in school that science tells us men can have babies, while at the same time knowing that the other party would have probably spent more money if not more than the GOP. I have also on more than one occasion noted that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the GOP actually accelerated abortion in the US as there were more abortions after the Dobbs Act than before. In no time the democrat party within individual states rose up and declared all abortion constitutional in many states, removing any and all regulations that was under Roe vs. Wade. Yet not a peep from the GOP about it other than shrugging their shoulders and saying it is the will of the people when they could easily have tried to at least return the regulations under Rose, such as outlawing partial birth abortions, but no. The GOP does not really care about it.

I have on more than one occasion here tried to push the Article V movement, which is state rising up to amend the Constitution to help remove all the centralized power within government. Teddy Roosevelt is known as the father of this Progressive move to centralize power to the Swamp, and he was a Republican. So what?

But I also know that the Article V movement is a Hail Mary on acid and will not likely come to fruition. The issue really is for man to turn to God because society has the choice of either regulating their own moral behavior or having the state do it for them. That is why only a moral people can be free and why our freedoms erode seemingly more and more every year.

 

[Anomalism]

I do not look for salvation to the GOP or Trump. They just passed a spending bill that would make a drunk sailor blush. It usually comes down to not being able to tolerate the genitals of children being mutilated while force feeding kids in school the notion in school that science tells us men can have babies, while at the same time knowing that the other party would have probably spent more money if not more than the GOP. I have also on more than one occasion noted that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the GOP actually accelerated abortion in the US as there were more abortions after the Dobbs Act than before. In no time the democrat party within individual states rose up and declared all abortion constitutional in many states, removing any and all regulations that was under Roe vs. Wade. Yet not a peep from the GOP about it other than shrugging their shoulders and saying it is the will of the people when they could easily have tried to at least return the regulations under Rose, such as outlawing partial birth abortions, but no. The GOP does not really care about it.

I have on more than one occasion here tried to push the Article V movement, which is state rising up to amend the Constitution to help remove all the centralized power within government. Teddy Roosevelt is known as the father of this Progressive move to centralize power to the Swamp, and he was a Republican. So what?

But I also know that the Article V movement is a Hail Mary on acid and will not likely come to fruition. The issue really is for man to turn to God because society has the choice of either regulating their own moral behavior or having the state do it for them. That is why only a moral people can be free and why our freedoms erode seemingly more and more every year.

You say you don’t look to the GOP for salvation, and yet every example you gave centers their failures as disappointing, while casting the other side as evil. You’re not neutral; you’re just disillusioned with your own team. You claim you want integrity, but your outrage is still selectively distributed. You’re furious at one side’s moral collapse and merely resigned about the other’s. That’s not moral clarity. That’s tribal grief disguised as discernment.

You talk about society needing to return to God, but isn’t that just another way of outsourcing the hard work of moral responsibility? If morality only matters when it's enforced by religion or government, is it really yours, or are you still relying on external authority to define your virtue? You say only a moral people can be free, but avoid asking the deeper question. "How much of your morality is inherited dogma, and how much have you actually chosen?"

The people on the wrong side of your outrage think you are the one who abandoned morality. They think you’re the problem. They quote God, history, logic, and the Constitution too. So what makes you so sure you're on the right side of any of it? Until you can admit that your beliefs were shaped by the same systems, the same fears, the same cultural programming as theirs, you’re not free. You're not righteous. You’re just reacting through a lens you didn’t build and calling it divine.

This isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about truth vs. identity, and as long as you're only willing to challenge one side of the story, you’ll never see the whole mirror, just the half that flatters you.

 

[Votto]

You say you don’t look to the GOP for salvation, and yet every example you gave centers their failures as disappointing, while casting the other side as evil. You’re not neutral; you’re just disillusioned with your own team. You claim you want integrity, but your outrage is still selectively distributed. You’re furious at one side’s moral collapse and merely resigned about the other’s. That’s not moral clarity. That’s tribal grief disguised as discernment.

You talk about society needing to return to God, but isn’t that just another way of outsourcing the hard work of moral responsibility? If morality only matters when it's enforced by religion or government, is it really yours, or are you still relying on external authority to define your virtue? You say only a moral people can be free, but avoid asking the deeper question. "How much of your morality is inherited dogma, and how much have you actually chosen?"

The people on the wrong side of your outrage think you are the one who abandoned morality. They think you’re the problem. They quote God, history, logic, and the Constitution too. So what makes you so sure you're on the right side of any of it? Until you can admit that your beliefs were shaped by the same systems, the same fears, the same cultural programming as theirs, you’re not free. You're not righteous. You’re just reacting through a lens you didn’t build and calling it divine.

This isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about truth vs. identity, and as long as you're only willing to challenge one side of the story, you’ll never see the whole mirror, just the half that flatters you.

But the democrat party is evil. Any party that can embrace Congressmen that refuse to condemn such acts as Hamas on 10/7, while admitting those Congressmen have said antisemitic things but still support them, is an evil party. Any party that celebrates abortion on demand in any and all circumstances and demands tax money goes to fund it is evil. Any party that promotes children mutilating their genitals and changing their sex before they can even have sex because they have not sexually matured, is evil. Any party that can allow biological men to enter women sports and dominate those sports based on the notion that all that natural testosterone has not given them a biological advantage before they had their sex change is evil.

Sorry, maybe you should start focusing on your moral shortcomings to actually recognize what evil is.

But it all comes down to what forms your morality, isn't it. From my vantage point, your morality of developed by your perceived authority figures and peers, whether it be your parents, your friends, the state, or your pastor, etc. But by in large I find people simply succumb to the morality of the state, like I think you have in many respects because you can't seem to identify evil when you see it. For example, before slavery was outlawed, the majority of America said that slavery was not ideal, but it was Ok. However, decades after it was made illegal, the general consensus is that slavery is evil in any circumstance. Abortion is the same way. Before it was made legal, the general consensus was that it was immoral, but decades after it was made legal the general consensus is that it is not ideal, but it Ok, much like how the population viewed slavery when it was made legal. The shifting morality of the populace based on what the state legalizes and what it makes illegal is proof positive that the human race are lemmings, or as the Bible puts it, sheep. Shrug, the Bible is correct yet once again.

 

[Anomalism]

But the democrat party is evil. Any party that can embrace Congressmen that refuse to condemn such acts as Hamas on 10/7, while admitting those Congressmen have said antisemitic things but still support them, is an evil party. Any party that celebrates abortion on demand in any and all circumstances and demands tax money goes to fund it is evil. Any party that promotes children mutilating their genitals and changing their sex before they can even have sex because they have not sexually matured, is evil. Any party that can allow biological men to enter women sports and dominate those sports based on the notion that all that natural testosterone has not given them a biological advantage before they had their sex change is evil.

Sorry, maybe you should start focusing on your moral shortcomings to actually recognize what evil is.

But it all comes down to what forms your morality, isn't it. From my vantage point, your morality of developed by your perceived authority figures and peers, whether it be your parents, your friends, the state, or your pastor, etc. But by in large I find people simply succumb to the morality of the state, like I think you have in many respects because you can't seem to identify evil when you see it. For example, before slavery was outlawed, the majority of America said that slavery was not ideal, but it was Ok. However, decades after it was made illegal, the general consensus is that slavery is evil in any circumstance. Abortion is the same way. Before it was made legal, the general consensus was that it was immoral, but decades after it was made legal the general consensus is that it is not ideal, but it Ok, much like how the population viewed slavery when it was made legal. The shifting morality of the populace based on what the state legalizes and what it makes illegal is proof positive that the human race are lemmings, or as the Bible puts it, sheep. Shrug, the Bible is correct yet once again.

You have walked straight into a trap of your own making, and your original response already carved out the precise structure needed to dismantle it.

You say it all comes down to what forms morality, and I agree, but then you reduce morality to outrage. You point at the most charged, sensational headlines and scream “evil” as if volume proves virtue. You don’t offer moral reasoning. You offer tribal shorthand, but here’s the thing...

If morality is just whatever offends you the most, then it’s not morality; it’s bias in moral costume.

You claim to stand on eternal truth, but your examples reveal how easily that truth gets politicized. You don’t speak about ethics with nuance or reflection. You recite a list. A list designed to trigger emotional reactions, not invite real discernment. Let’s test something. You call an entire party evil. Not misguided, not wrong, evil. That’s not moral clarity. That’s absolutism, and absolutism is just fear with a moral vocabulary.

You ask me to look at my own moral foundations. I have. Constantly, and that’s the difference. I don’t fear questions. I don’t pretend certainty is the same as wisdom. I ask where my convictions come from. I ask what they cost others. I ask how I know they’re mine, and not just someone else’s voice lodged deep in my psyche.

Can you say the same?

What you’ve revealed is not a defense of morality, but a confession of indoctrination. You say others are “lemmings” shaped by the state, but you don’t even consider the ways your own views have been shaped, by media, by fear, by outrage industry, by preachers more interested in politics than truth.

You invoke slavery. Fine. Then answer this. At the time, the defenders of slavery also quoted the Bible. They said it was natural. They said it was moral. They said God endorsed it. Are you willing to admit they were using the same structure of reasoning you’re using now?

Here’s what you’ve shown me. You don’t want a moral conversation. You want a purity test. You want to call something evil and walk away feeling righteous, but the world doesn’t bend to your labels. Truth doesn’t obey the lines your ideology draws.

So again...

If you only question one side, your morality isn’t truth-based. It’s team-based.

If you can’t examine your own tribe with the same scrutiny you apply to others, you’re not a moral thinker. You’re a loyalist pretending it’s virtue, and if your definition of righteousness requires the world to shrink until only your version of it counts as good, then your morality isn’t divine. It’s just small.

 

[Votto]

You have walked straight into a trap of your own making, and your original response already carved out the precise structure needed to dismantle it.

You say it all comes down to what forms morality, and I agree, but then you reduce morality to outrage. You point at the most charged, sensational headlines and scream “evil” as if volume proves virtue. You don’t offer moral reasoning. You offer tribal shorthand, but here’s the thing...

If morality is just whatever offends you the most, then it’s not morality; it’s bias in moral costume.

You claim to stand on eternal truth, but your examples reveal how easily that truth gets politicized. You don’t speak about ethics with nuance or reflection. You recite a list. A list designed to trigger emotional reactions, not invite real discernment. Let’s test something. You call an entire party evil. Not misguided, not wrong, evil. That’s not moral clarity. That’s absolutism, and absolutism is just fear with a moral vocabulary.

You ask me to look at my own moral foundations. I have. Constantly, and that’s the difference. I don’t fear questions. I don’t pretend certainty is the same as wisdom. I ask where my convictions come from. I ask what they cost others. I ask how I know they’re mine, and not just someone else’s voice lodged deep in my psyche.

Can you say the same?

What you’ve revealed is not a defense of morality, but a confession of indoctrination. You say others are “lemmings” shaped by the state, but you don’t even consider the ways your own views have been shaped, by media, by fear, by outrage industry, by preachers more interested in politics than truth.

You invoke slavery. Fine. Then answer this. At the time, the defenders of slavery also quoted the Bible. They said it was natural. They said it was moral. They said God endorsed it. Are you willing to admit they were using the same structure of reasoning you’re using now?

Here’s what you’ve shown me. You don’t want a moral conversation. You want a purity test. You want to call something evil and walk away feeling righteous, but the world doesn’t bend to your labels. Truth doesn’t obey the lines your ideology draws.

So again...

If you only question one side, your morality isn’t truth-based. It’s team-based.

If you can’t examine your own tribe with the same scrutiny you apply to others, you’re not a moral thinker. You’re a loyalist pretending it’s virtue, and if your definition of righteousness requires the world to shrink until only your version of it counts as good, then your morality isn’t divine. It’s just small.

Was the Nazi party evil? Hmm? Is it "tribal" and "falling into a trap to call them evil? Hmm?

Of course they were.

But why were they evil?

Let's start there.

As for slavery, the Biblical slavery was far different than the slavery of the Deep South for a myriad of reasons. It was apples and oranges.

Here is an interesting fact. There is now more slavery in the world today than at any other time in history, yet the DNC ignores it and talks about slavery that happened hundreds of years ago that we can do nothing about. They do it only to virtue signal.

 

[Anomalism]

Was the Nazi party evil? Hmm? Is it "tribal" and "falling into a trap to call them evil? Hmm?

Of course they were.

But why were they evil?

Let's start there.

As for slavery, the Biblical slavery was far different than the slavery of the Deep South for a myriad of reasons. It was apples and oranges.

Here is an interesting fact. There is now more slavery in the world today than at any other time in history, yet the DNC ignores it and talks about slavery that happened hundreds of years ago that we can do nothing about. They do it only to virtue signal.

You pivoted to abstraction the moment I forced direct moral introspection. That's a tell. When someone jumps from "I was justifying my outrage" to "Okay, but what about Nazis?" it means they’re scrambling for moral clarity by outsourcing it, reaching for universally accepted evils to avoid confronting personal contradiction.

You brought up the Nazis, and of course they were evil, but the very fact that we can name why, genocide, dehumanization, unchecked power, dogmatic loyalty to an authoritarian myth, is exactly the point. Evil isn’t a team label. It’s a pattern, and if you can only recognize that pattern when it’s wearing a swastika and marching under someone else’s banner, then you’ve missed the point of every moral lesson history tried to teach you.

The danger isn’t just in evil actions. It’s in the infrastructure of thought that justifies those actions before they happen, the groupthink, the fear-based purity, the refusal to question your side because “they can’t possibly be wrong.” That’s the trap, not because you're a Nazi, but because you fail to realize that not only Nazis are capable of evil. You think calling out injustice today is “virtue signaling” while insisting your side owns the moral high ground by default. That’s not vigilance. That’s historical amnesia, and you’re doing exactly what the people who defended slavery did, dodging. They also tried to justify it. They also tried to say “this isn’t the same thing.” They also changed the subject whenever the mirror was held up. “What about slavery today?” they would say, as if pointing away from the wound means it’s not still bleeding.

You want to start with “why were the Nazis evil?” Fine. Then here’s your real question: Are you willing to apply that same level of scrutiny to your own tribe, your own beliefs? If not, then you’re not seeking truth. You’re seeking insulation. and that’s how evil always begins. Not with monsters, but with men who are too loyal to look inward.

 

[Votto]

You pivoted to abstraction the moment I forced direct moral introspection. That's a tell. When someone jumps from "I was justifying my outrage" to "Okay, but what about Nazis?" it means they’re scrambling for moral clarity by outsourcing it, reaching for universally accepted evils to avoid confronting personal contradiction.

You brought up the Nazis, and of course they were evil, but the very fact that we can name why, genocide, dehumanization, unchecked power, dogmatic loyalty to an authoritarian myth, is exactly the point. Evil isn’t a team label. It’s a pattern, and if you can only recognize that pattern when it’s wearing a swastika and marching under someone else’s banner, then you’ve missed the point of every moral lesson history tried to teach you.

The danger isn’t just in evil actions. It’s in the infrastructure of thought that justifies those actions before they happen, the groupthink, the fear-based purity, the refusal to question your side because “they can’t possibly be wrong.” That’s the trap, not because you're a Nazi, but because you fail to realize that not only Nazis are capable of evil. You think calling out injustice today is “virtue signaling” while insisting your side owns the moral high ground by default. That’s not vigilance. That’s historical amnesia, and you’re doing exactly what the people who defended slavery did, dodging. They also tried to justify it. They also tried to say “this isn’t the same thing.” They also changed the subject whenever the mirror was held up. “What about slavery today?” they would say, as if pointing away from the wound means it’s not still bleeding.

You want to start with “why were the Nazis evil?” Fine. Then here’s your real question: Are you willing to apply that same level of scrutiny to your own tribe, your own beliefs? If not, then you’re not seeking truth. You’re seeking insulation. and that’s how evil always begins. Not with monsters, but with men who are too loyal to look inward.

Sure, let's use your metrics of evil to compare both parties

1. Genocide. Do both parties engage in genocide? Well, let's see, if you believe that abortion on demand is genocide, then only one party embraces it whole heartedly to the tune of over 60 million since Roe. So, there is that.

2. Dehumanization: Again, if the unborn is really human, which 9 times out of 10 they come out human, then referring to them as merely a glob of cells and not really human seems dehumanizing to me.

3. Unchecked Power: I suppose both parties embrace this because you see it in both parties every day.

But my beef with the democrat party is how the leadership within it seems to have gravitated towards the fringe. An example was when Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh was almost assassinated. First you had Chuck Schumer say threatening things if they dared rule on Roe vs. Wade the way he did not want them to. Then when they ruled the way he did not want things to go, you had left wing groups releasing the addresses of the conservative supreme court justices along with where their kids go to school and where they go to church while saying inflaming things in the media about them. Then they just sat back and waited for some loon to show up with a gun. And sure enough, one showed up at the address of Justice Kavanaugh to murder him and was apprehended. However, no leadership within the DNC condemned the attempted assassination. This for me was a first, a high-ranking person within the US Federal government was almost assassinated, and no one in the DNC condemned it when it happened. It took Joe Biden 2 whole weeks to finally condemn it, but the message of their silence was clear as to why it took them so long to do so. This was a first. Also, people began protesting at their houses, which is against the law, but the DOJ ignored the protests and allowed them to continue, even though a Supreme Court justice had almost been murdered at his house. You know there are loons on both sides of the political isle, but when the leadership of these parties stop condemning the violent actions of those loons, the country is in real trouble.

And this leads me to Hamas on 10/7 as they proudly boasted targeting women and children for torture, rape, and death, and the filmed it. Even the Nazi party tried to hide their genocide, but not Hamas. But what was most distressing was the fact the sitting Congressmen in the DNC could not condemn the act which is inexcusable. In addition, you have Left wing universities allowing students to proclaim genocide on the Jews, with sitting Presidents at these universities not condemning that either saying that it depends on the context of wanting genocide for the Jews. Um, no it doesn't. I never thought I would see this Nazi like fervor of hate towards the Jews at the respected institutions in the US that are training up the nation's future leaders. Sure, you see it on the fringe of any country and any political party around the world, but once it becomes mainstream you begin to understand just how much trouble the US is now in. You even had Jews at Columbia university hiding in attics, which is a little too Ann Frankish for me while those threatening the Jewish students were not expelled for doing so.

As for inciting violence like they did Justice Kavanaugh, you had the DNC do the same with Trump as they called him Hitler any chance they could. Again, you have those on the fringe doing this in both parties all the time, but there are no leading politicians in the GOP doing this to the DNC that I know of. Democrats are all in unison tell the country that unless Trump is stopped, America will become Nazi Germany. Sure enough, the loons come out of the woodwork to assassinate Trump on more than one occasion, with people dying around Trump as a result. At first, they seemed a little bothered how their rhetoric led to the attempted assassination as they shifted gears by saying how weird their political opponents were rather than calling them all Nazis, but after Kamala lost, they returned with the same fervor of calling Trump and anyone that supports him a Nazi.

The country is in real trouble.

 

[Anomalism]

Sure, let's use your metrics of evil to compare both parties

1. Genocide. Do both parties engage in genocide? Well, let's see, if you believe that abortion on demand is genocide, then only one party embraces it whole heartedly to the tune of over 60 million since Roe. So, there is that.

2. Dehumanization: Again, if the unborn is really human, which 9 times out of 10 they come out human, then referring to them as merely a glob of cells and not really human seems dehumanizing to me.

3. Unchecked Power: I suppose both parties embrace this because you see it in both parties every day.

But my beef with the democrat party is how the leadership within it seems to have gravitated towards the fringe. An example was when Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh was almost assassinated. First you had Chuck Schumer say threatening things if they dared rule on Roe vs. Wade the way he did not want them to. Then when they ruled the way he did not want things to go, you had left wing groups releasing the addresses of the conservative supreme court justices along with where their kids go to school and where they go to church while saying inflaming things in the media about them. Then they just sat back and waited for some loon to show up with a gun. And sure enough, one showed up at the address of Justice Kavanaugh to murder him and was apprehended. However, no leadership within the DNC condemned the attempted assassination. This for me was a first, a high-ranking person within the US Federal government was almost assassinated, and no one in the DNC condemned it when it happened. It took Joe Biden 2 whole weeks to finally condemn it, but the message of their silence was clear as to why it took them so long to do so. This was a first. Also, people began protesting at their houses, which is against the law, but the DOJ ignored the protests and allowed them to continue, even though a Supreme Court justice had almost been murdered at his house. You know there are loons on both sides of the political isle, but when the leadership of these parties stop condemning the violent actions of those loons, the country is in real trouble.

And this leads me to Hamas on 10/7 as they proudly boasted targeting women and children for torture, rape, and death, and the filmed it. Even the Nazi party tried to hide their genocide, but not Hamas. But what was most distressing was the fact the sitting Congressmen in the DNC could not condemn the act which is inexcusable. In addition, you have Left wing universities allowing students to proclaim genocide on the Jews, with sitting Presidents at these universities not condemning that either saying that it depends on the context of wanting genocide for the Jews. Um, no it doesn't. I never thought I would see this Nazi like fervor of hate towards the Jews at the respected institutions in the US that are training up the nation's future leaders. Sure, you see it on the fringe of any country and any political party around the world, but once it becomes mainstream you begin to understand just how much trouble the US is now in. You even had Jews at Columbia university hiding in attics, which is a little too Ann Frankish for me while those threatening the Jewish students were not expelled for doing so.

As for inciting violence like they did Justice Kavanaugh, you had the DNC do the same with Trump as they called him Hitler any chance they could. Again, you have those on the fringe doing this in both parties all the time, but there are no leading politicians in the GOP doing this to the DNC that I know of. Democrats are all in unison tell the country that unless Trump is stopped, America will become Nazi Germany. Sure enough, the loons come out of the woodwork to assassinate Trump on more than one occasion, with people dying around Trump as a result. At first, they seemed a little bothered how their rhetoric led to the attempted assassination as they shifted gears by saying how weird their political opponents were rather than calling them all Nazis, but after Kamala lost, they returned with the same fervor of calling Trump and anyone that supports him a Nazi.

The country is in real trouble.

You’ve spoken passionately about abortion as genocide and framed the issue in absolute terms, which I understand reflects deeply held moral convictions. I’m not here to contest that core belief, because I recognize that for many, including you, this is non-negotiable.

What I do want to challenge, however, is the broader posture this absolutism creates when applied as a litmus test for moral clarity. When it becomes the measure by which all other actions, parties, and beliefs are judged. You’ve named horrific acts committed by one side. Violence, threats, and hate, and contrasted them with what you see as moral failures by the other, but moral clarity cannot come from selectively spotlighting one side’s sins while excusing or overlooking the other’s. Evil isn’t a scorecard. It’s a pattern of thought and behavior that can, and does, take root anywhere, including within the movements we care about.

When one side insists on moral purity through the lens of a single issue, it risks defining the entire narrative around that issue alone. That focus, while sincere, can unintentionally blind us to complexities and contradictions within our own camp. It risks reducing nuanced human struggles into caricatures of good and evil.

You mentioned leadership failing to condemn violence quickly, and that’s an important criticism, but it’s only one piece of the puzzle. Equally important is whether the leaders, movements, and communities we support are willing to reflect on their own rhetoric and actions that fuel division, fear, and dehumanization. If not, we risk becoming what we claim to oppose.

This is not about relativism or watering down convictions. It’s about wrestling with the hard truth that none of us hold the moral high ground free from flaws or blind spots. It’s about moving beyond a zero-sum morality that leaves no room for growth, reconciliation, or genuine accountability. True moral courage is being able to hold your convictions, even the most sacred, while refusing to turn others into enemies or moral inferiors. It’s recognizing that the fight against evil begins with the willingness to look inward, not just outward.

If we can’t do that, we risk becoming trapped in the very cycle of fear and tribalism that undermines progress.

 

[Votto]

You’ve spoken passionately about abortion as genocide and framed the issue in absolute terms, which I understand reflects deeply held moral convictions. I’m not here to contest that core belief, because I recognize that for many, including you, this is non-negotiable.

What I do want to challenge, however, is the broader posture this absolutism creates when applied as a litmus test for moral clarity. When it becomes the measure by which all other actions, parties, and beliefs are judged. You’ve named horrific acts committed by one side. Violence, threats, and hate, and contrasted them with what you see as moral failures by the other, but moral clarity cannot come from selectively spotlighting one side’s sins while excusing or overlooking the other’s. Evil isn’t a scorecard. It’s a pattern of thought and behavior that can, and does, take root anywhere, including within the movements we care about.

When one side insists on moral purity through the lens of a single issue, it risks defining the entire narrative around that issue alone. That focus, while sincere, can unintentionally blind us to complexities and contradictions within our own camp. It risks reducing nuanced human struggles into caricatures of good and evil.

You mentioned leadership failing to condemn violence quickly, and that’s an important criticism, but it’s only one piece of the puzzle. Equally important is whether the leaders, movements, and communities we support are willing to reflect on their own rhetoric and actions that fuel division, fear, and dehumanization. If not, we risk becoming what we claim to oppose.

This is not about relativism or watering down convictions. It’s about wrestling with the hard truth that none of us hold the moral high ground free from flaws or blind spots. It’s about moving beyond a zero-sum morality that leaves no room for growth, reconciliation, or genuine accountability. True moral courage is being able to hold your convictions, even the most sacred, while refusing to turn others into enemies or moral inferiors. It’s recognizing that the fight against evil begins with the willingness to look inward, not just outward.

If we can’t do that, we risk becoming trapped in the very cycle of fear and tribalism that undermines progress.

If you lived in Nazi Germany, would you look at the world through a single lens of moral purity I wonder? Would watching an entire people be slaughtered by the millions risk defining the entire narrative for you I wonder? I would hope so. Are we then to not look at those engaged in such genocide as morally inferior? Again, I would hope so. Do I have moral flaws? Of course, but so what? Those people simply need to be fought and defeated. And as I said, I am watching the same pattern form all around me as it flourishes in one very strong and influential political party in the US. The less people that rise up against it, the more it grows.

But the people of Nazi Germany did not rise up and fight. Why? You should read a good book called "Hitler's Beneficiaries".

Hitler's beneficiaries by Götz Aly | Open Library

Hitlers Volksstaat by Götz Aly, 2007, Metropolitan edition, in English - 1st U.S. ed

openlibrary.org

It is a fascinating look into why the people of Germany had the moral failings that allowed the Holocaust. From my assessment of the book, Hitler essentially bought their moral souls. Hitler was terrified of the people rising up and revolting like they did during WW1 due to poor living standards thanks to the pressures of funding a world war, so he saw to it that Nazi Germany had a high living standard for the average German citizen, which they did. In fact, they had the highest living standards in the entire world, right up until the end of the war. How did he do it? He simply taxed the hell out of the top 4% of the wealthy in Germany and targeted the "rich" Jews in society as he took their money and sent them off to die. The people loved it because they covet the rich, especially the Jews who seemed to have the most wealth. Hitler also printed money out of thin air, and to diminish concern about the mounting debt he simply forbad the German government from ever passing a budget. Hitler basically burned all his bridges with the mounting debt as he used the money for both military conquest and socialistic programs to the point that it was either world conquest or economic destruction. It worked then so why would it not work again? And looking at the US, many things seem eerily similar.