This came directly out of my Facebook feed today and I had to snag a screenshot because it actually made me smile. Not the subject matter, no, but that’s a different conversation. No, what I liked in this image are the two comments that happened to bubble up to the surface when I happened to see this post.

The back to back comments made me smile because I know that if I post this image to my blog or my Facebook page that I will immediately piss off everyone I know.

Unilaterally.

All of the people that I see on Facebook will immediately agree with the one of the two post and then be enraged by the other comment. After all, in today’s world, you have to agree with someone completely. 100%! No room for “I like some of what you said” – it’s all or nothing! Right or wrong! If you do opt to point out the flaw or gap in someone’s opinion, you’ll be lectured, shamed, cajoled, or insulted about whatever it is you pointed out even if you agree with the core opinion!  In today’s world, people look at A or B and then they have to prove that the other option is wrong.

Consider the recent speech by Meryl Streep at the Golden Globes. I agreed with her message. I agreed it was brave to use her time on stage to spark yet-another-political firestorm. I agreed it’s her right to do so. I agreed that Trump would post something idiotic on Twitter which would be the wrong response. I even agreed that the hosts of the show must have been OK with it because they let her stay on for 5 minutes and gave Casey Affleck the hook super quick – they left her on so they were OK with it. 

I did, however, point out on a thread that by being on a nationally televised broadcast that Meryl found herself in a place of power and that her telling someone else that they are abusing their power was ironic. Sort of like telling someone not to run with scissors while you’re running with a knife. Multiple people not only had to disagree with my assessment – missing the irony is how I think of it – but they had to ram Meryl’s message down my throat because I obviously didn’t get it. And that it’s OK if an actor wants to use an acceptance speech to make a political stand because actors can do that. While I don’t care what an award winner does with their speech, it’s still free airtime with a captive audience and that’s why free airtime to be a powerful position. 

Why did I get jump on?  Because I didn’t agree 100%.  Imagine if I brought up the idea that if I pulled this act where I work that I’d be sent to HR for not doing my job. Or that Meryl calls out Trump’s treatment of a disabled reporter while her industry has such a piss poor record of inclusive hiring. Or that while she’s hammering on inclusive behavior you got Mel Gibson in the audience being fawned over by his peers inspire of his past behavior. Nope, I pointed out irony which must imply a certain amount of disagreement. Whoo boy!

Take another example: illegal immigration. Illegal by definition means a law was broken. Democrats what everyone that’s here now to be given citizenship and work programs and training. That’s fine in principle, but I don’t agree with it all. We have had laws on immigration for a reason; in my opinion those should be followed. Do we have a glut of people here illegally? Yeah, so lets fix that by naturalizing the non-criminal; deport the criminal and tell them to apply for a visa. Then fix the laws to reflect what the people want.

Rational? Maybe – it’s my opinion. I’ve asked a friendly liberal about it; they looked at me like I was handing Trump bricks to build his wall. What the fuck was wrong? Support the laws, help the people that want help (in spite of the law), and deport criminals. Made sense to me. I got a dissertation about my ancestry. Hey, my fuckin’ people came through Ellis Island and did their paperwork, paid their taxes, and worked in the same industries the illegals do now. Doesn’t matter. As soon as I said “deport” I was labelled as a GOP lover.

What cracks me up is modern Democrats are just as closed minded as the modern Republican but they don’t see it in themselves. They think that because their goals are lofty, liberal, and socially aware that if make them better than the business-oriented, socially-oppressive, and generally shitty opinions of the GOP.  It could. It should. But because it’s so fucking rigid it never works that way. Sort of like “we’re liberal elitists so it’s OK!”

Why is it that no one realized that by excluding the uncolored masses when building their power base that it results in tidal pools of red or blue that both isolated and in the minority? Red absolutely does openly; Blue doesn’t seem to understand that they suffer from it too. I would have hoped that by losing an unlosable election to He-That-Is-Orange would be a lesson learned. Maybe time will tell but so far? Not so much.

Gone are the days when you can look at a dissenting opinion and allow it to exist or respect the opinion of another. If it’s not what you’re thinking it’s not only wrong but you must tell everyone else that they’re wrong.

Sadly, I think I should have cried instead of smiling.