I have been having an ongoing discussion with a self-styled Social Justice Warrior type of Facebook. I posted this on my page, but because my page isn't public, I'm afraid I might not get a wide enough perspective. Strangely, the current flap on Bariatric Pal vis-a-vis the banning of a contributor kind of triggered the thoughts. Please feel free to comment:

Should you dump a FB friend who is a bigot?

Before you answer so quick, I'm talking about anti-intellectual left/Social Justice Warrior bigots.

I'm noticing a bad trend where people are embracing their victimhood, which gives them justification for violence and rejection of facts because reality doesn't sync with their feelings.

I don't want to live in an echo chamber world where only one side talks to others of like mind.

There are facts and perspective which can be legitimately different. Honest discussion can expand understanding of all parties. But when one side has an attitude of entitlement because of perceived victimhood, all they have is name calling which results in the dehumanization of their opponent.

The most extream results of this were seen by the Communists, the greatest mass murders of the past century. Anyone who disagreed with the party line was an enemy of the state and needed "re-education" and then sent to forced labor camps, or were just simply killed for having their own thoughts.

This goes back to the original question. By unfriending or just ignoring the idiocy and other passive responses are we hastening the end of real discourse?

Did anyone really vote FOR someone in this election? Or against someone?

@@Cander - this is the first election I can remember where the vast majority would have gone with a none of the above option.

To paraphrase a comical quote. "Politics, it comes from the Latin root "Poli" meaning many and "tics" meaning blood sucking creatures".

@@Odie - I'm not a Trump apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm getting a little tired of the vitriol against him before he has even taken office.

I hear some version of this quite often, but do feel compelled to point out that a lot of the vitriol against him is based on his actual actions (tweets, press conferences, etc). Much of it isn't theoretical, based on what he MIGHT do in office, but critical of things he is currently doing/saying.

Personally, I can not stand the man. I am afraid of what damage he may do given his history of being very thinned skinned and verbally reactionary.

However, that is no way means I want him to fail. In fact, the opposite. There is nothing more i would like than to be completely wrong on this guy and have him be the greatest president in American history. We all win in that scenario. No one wins if it goes the way I imagine it will.

But getting back to your original point - I'm not sure it matters. Even when discussed rationally and intelligently, I have almost never seen anyone actually change their mind on a political topic. We live in an age where confirmation bias seems to be at an all time high. Unless I can find it on Fox News or Drudge, I can not find a source to quote that will ever seem to satisfy my friends on the right (this goes for the left too, I just am generally arguing with them less). If I post something from what I consider a reputable news source (CNN, Forbes, Politico, NPR, BBC, etc) they always scream that these are biased liberal media sources and therefore they reject the argument.

Unfortunately, this has recently been reinforced by our president elect. In his first news conference since the election he called CNN "Fake News". I believe this to be dangerous rhetoric as suppressing the media will not serve us well in the long run.