Sure, there are absolutely people who treat, say, political parties like sports teams.

But there are a lot of sincere people trying to right wrongs or improve our world out there too.

And there are genuinely evil people who seek only to further their own self interest, or power, or both.

Most people think they are sincere while promoting their own side good other side evil. All (not both!) sides do good and bad things both sides have evil people. However most people will overlook the bad someone on their side does because it is "a small thing", while jumping on the accusation bad thing someone on the other side does (often without any evidence, or minimal evidence that is played up).

At different points in history, different sides have been fairly objectively 'good' or 'bad' on various issues.

Slavery was bad.

Nixon was a crook.

Of course people are complicated and you have to look at the entirety of things, which makes it complicated, but still, I don't buy the "both sides" stuff either.

Have you ever read a serious defense of slavery or of Nixon? If not, perhaps that's a good place to start trying to humanize the other side?

Slavery: Yes. And they're remarkably unconvincing unless you already believe north-western Europeans are God's chosen (literally) or non-whites are universally similar to children and unable to rule their own affairs.

Nixon: Well, no, actually, but as far as I know, his foreign policy was reasonably decent and somewhat effective. The problem was his attempt to subvert the American democratic process and, primarily, his use of presidential power to conceal that attempt.

But you have a good point: the other side is never Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

On the slavery point, I would recommend broadening the perspective from just the recent history of white owners of black slaves to the greater history of slavery. For example, the example of ancient Rome and Greece. At least, if you're interested in a defense of slavery -as such- as opposed to just how Americans/Europeans did it.

Of course, Roman slavery still had plenty of problems but it's significantly easier to find examples of humane and (relatively) equitable treatment of slaves (who could be well-educated and own their own property) in Rome than in Europe/early America. And then there was the prostitution/torture/slave soldiers...

I don't know the details in Rome, but in much of antiquity, slavery was what would be considered a war crime now. It didn't need defending, any more than the other elements of warfare.

> the other side is never Snidely Whiplash,

Well put. But take it a step further - had you been raised in the antebellum South, or had you been Nixon's friend - would have arrived at the same moral conclusions? For the same reasons? It's easy to condemn "the alien other" - it's much harder to reflect on one's own beliefs and the peers that hold them.

Absolutely, I would likely have come to the same conclusions as my neighbors. But not because the arguments were convincing.

Also re: slavery I would agree with your characterization of most defenses of (American) slavery. The next natural question follows: what to do about it? Have you heard of the 1835 postcard campaign? https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-slavery-and-racism/

In that case, loudly and publicly condemning groups of people tends to cause them to circle the wagons and double down on their positions. I think there's a lesson for today there as well.

Yes I read it. It was still bad. I also seen Nazi propaganda movie and read their materials and guess what - it was still bad. I read communists articles aaaaand they were still bad. All those were humans, sure. But that does not mean I have to agree with them or see them as good.

Just because I see them as humans does not mean I have to ignore what they caused to other humans. Or that every human actions must be necessary been seen as good by me.

What is meant by a serious defense of slavery?

Wow, it's really messed up that you get downvoted for saying you are gay and people are quick to dimiss or fire people for being gay. And here people are dimissing you.

I agree with you, US Republicanism is completely incompatible with the healthy existence of gay and queer people as understood by the communities in for example San Francisco (where I am from). There must be gay republican communities in other areas, but I'm sure more west coast queer communities would consider those republican gay (prob not queer) communities to be repressive and unhealthy.

It's a shame people cannot relate to what you are saying, and plenty of evidence that even liberal Silicon Valley (assuming it has an outsized influence on this comment thread) has a lot of growth needed before queer people can really be appreciated in tech circles.

If you were an employer, would you fire an employee who was against gay marriage? Should the state protect the continued employment of such an employee?

That depends on how they express it.

In general, having opinions and keeping them to yourself is fine. Being shitty to your colleagues because of it is generally not. And publicly threatening or attacking others is not. It's not about your beliefs, but what you do with them.

And yet living in the south (US) in my LGBT circles I've run into some fairly right wing gay men.

You can be right wing, or conservative, while still not supporting the current Republican party. And if you look hard enough you might find any permutation of beliefs and support for various things in one person.

A fairly prominent LGBT person, Latrice Royale, at one point did not support gay marriage. That doesn't mean that I agree with that position, nor does that mean the majority of gay people do or should.