You are voting for them, so I "defriend" you

[bex1218]

*Not totally sure where this should go*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kergan...usaolp00000009

I understand where this article is coming from. I would love to have my rights as a gay women, and also think Romney is a complete idiot, but..... I will never unfriend a person cause they have different political views than I. They still support me as a human, they are just more worried about the economy (IMO, still not the best choice). Now, if they were a raging bigot, that's different. I don't associate with people who think I deserve to die cause of who I am.

I can't wait till this election is over.

[the_std]

This election season, I have unfriended a few people, and all of them have had the same political affiliations as me. Why? They post political ad after political ad after political meme after attack after... You get the idea. It was pretty much all they were posting and it was flooding my feed. I did turn them to "important notification only" status, and then they started messaging me with it. It was two whole months of "OBAMA YAY ROMNEY NAY" crap, and even though I agree with the basic message behind it all, it was just... Inundating. I got so fed up that I unfriended them.

Want to know the best part?... I'm not even American, and neither was one of the three people I unfriended over it!

I can't wait for you guys to pick a new Supreme Overlord and be done with it.

[Rapscallion]

It's a shame that the tribal nature of US politics (My party, right or wrong) has taken hold this way.

That said, when the majority of campaign ads are "The other guy's more of a wanker than I am" then it's going to percolate into the public psyche.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

One related thing I've noticed: on Facebook, at least, the ones I see from Friends on the other side tend to be limited to vague cheerleading (or disparaging) while those I've seen on the side I agree with tend to be tied to specific facts.

Which is disappointing, really.

[mikoyan29]

So what else can be done to turn more people off the process?

[LewisLegion]

Raging or not, bigotry is still bigotry. Someone voting for Romney because of his stance on the economy IS very much saying, "I have no problem with you, but the economy is more important to me than your rights and the actual rights of entire families and a whole group of people'". That is, in fact, a bigoted statement.

You're obviously free to friend or unfriend whoever you want. I have a few family members who are very pro-Romney despite the fact that I'm gay. I just ignore them, but if they discuss it with me in person I will very calmly make it clear that they are in fact actually taking away my rights and keeping me a second class citizen by their own choice. I find it extremely hard to feel loved or even liked by these people when they would make such a decision.

You can't say I'm important to you and then turn around and do something that proves exponentially that I'm not. It doesn't work that way.

[BlaqueKatt]

*Not totally sure where this should go*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kergan...usaolp00000009

I understand where this article is coming from. They still support me as a human, they are just more worried about the economy.

I think you missed the point of the article.

While you may see your vote for him as one about the economy (and we can debate who'd be better for that until the cows come home), what you intend by your vote really doesn't matter. Your vote means that you are supporting someone who not only thinks I'm not equal to you, but who works vigorously to ensure my "less-than" legal status. Your vote for him means that you are totally fine with me being treated with disrespect.

[protege]

I actually think that the article in question is doing a disservice to the issue. It actually reminds me of the kid who takes his ball and goes home...when a friend isn't playing "correctly" on the playground. That's exactly what the guy is saying--either vote my way, or we're not friends now. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't take such threats seriously.

[bex1218]

Maybe I'm just to easy going. I get the point of the article. I just don't agree with unfriending friends or family. Especially when certain ones there is no changing their minds (I tried) but outside politics we are very close. Be different if we were just acquaintances. Well, I prolly just unsubscribe them.

[Peppergirl]

I find this incredibly annoying. I have friends whose timelines I've hidden because of this political BS, both democratic AND republican views.

Even the ones whose 'side' I'm get incredibly annoying and repetitive this time of year.

I don't go on FB to be politically enlightened. It's fine to post the occasional comment or story, but when that's ALL certain people post and it's every fucking 5 minutes, they really need to examine the amount of time they have on their hands.

[SongsOfDragons]

Happened to me a lot during the General Election back in 2010...so many unfriends, just because I said I wasn't voting Lib Dem - and then later even because I said I wasn't prepared to discuss my voting choices...

[bainsidhe]

This article and the suggestion that my vote somehow by default makes me for or against a particular topic is pretty offensive. Romney is pro-life. So if I vote Obama, regardless of my reasons, does that make me a baby-killer? Straw man anyone?

[Gravekeeper]

This article and the suggestion that my vote somehow by default makes me for or against a particular topic is pretty offensive. Romney is pro-life. So if I vote Obama, regardless of my reasons, does that make me a baby-killer? Straw man anyone?

Ironically, you just made a strawman argument. Bravo. ;p

You can be offended all you want, but it doesn't change the fact you're supporting all of the objectives of a given candidate. "Oh, sure he's evil, but he might be good for the economy!"? Right. You don't get to vote for the dehumanizing asshole without it reflecting on you.

[Andara Bledin]

Voting a particular way doesn't necessarily mean you agree with whatever that party stands for, but it does mean that what they stand for means more to you than what the other side stands for.

So, if you vote for Romney because of the economics, then you're admitting that you care more about financial issues than civil rights. And if you vote for Obama because he's pro-choice, then you care more about women's rights to choose more than what Romney's side can do for the economy.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

And if you vote for Obama because he's pro-choice, then you care more about women's rights to choose more than what Romney's side can do for the economy.

The caveat being Romney's side can do shit and all for the economy and anyone that thinks otherwise obviously has no idea how the economy works. Thus shouldn't be making major desicions based on it anyhow >.>

Obama has a better business investment track record than Romney, hilariously enough.