Stole this from a friend but I think it really captures my feelings towards people I know still pushing for Trump:

Just for clarity, as some people still don’t get why people unfriend them over what they see as politics.

It is completely possible to reconcile political differences over tax policy or how many dog catchers to have. If you can’t be civil over policy issues, then the problem is internal, not external.
That said, most of the current GOP positions are really judgements on things that have a moral, not political landscape and most of them (gay rights, BLM, immigration, etc) all involve judging the validity of someone else
(is your marriage valid? Are you equally protected? Are you ‘legal’?).

These are moral judgements that aren’t the same class as policy differences. People aren’t really listening to the calls for civility coming from the same mouths that deny their validity as people.
Many Trump supporters like him because he deregulates or lowers taxes or some other reasonable policy choice, not his polemics on social issues. I get that.
But Pinochet got the Chilean economy going while throwing the opposition out of helicopters.
Stalin mechanized agriculture but ran gulags in Siberia for gays.
A lot of people really can’t see past the moral alignment problems in your support of a political candidate for policy or tax reasons. And they see how you value them, their validity and their role in your life and society in your vote.
Hope this explains the issue some of y’all seem to be struggling with when you call for “civility” and moving into better political discourse and get responses that are unfriending or unfollowing.
One other thought. I know a lot of you are well-meaning and have good hearts and really don’t understand why people they consider friends would disconnect from them.
From their perspective, they perceive the moral importance behind your political stance as clarity for them: you really don’t see the real “them” inclusive of their experience and identity.
If you can hold that moral position and claim to be their friend, one of those must be false to them, logically. In short, the evidence of your support for a candidate or party that have positions that are amoral attack on themselves requires them to assess your past
relationship as shallow and meaningless as you clearly didn’t connect with the real them if you can hold those political positions.

As a result, unfriending isn’t much of a controversial act.

More from Politics

This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇


It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.

So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.

Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.


Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.

You May Also Like