- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I love the virtue signaling the OP triggered haha
The real question: how do they make it past the dating stage?
I was raised a combination of atheist (mom) and Quaker (dad) - the atheism definitely won, though I did internalize a decent amount of the Quakerism… I was engaged to a Catholic girl in my mid-20s. We discussed things early on, I said I’d respect her beliefs if she’d respect my lack thereof, and for a while it worked out nicely, we’d talk about spiritual stuff, but neither of us was trying to convert the other, it was more of a “how do you feel about x” or “how do you explain y”… But after a while, she decided that since I was “preventing” her from going to church some Sundays (I wasn’t, I was fine with her going without me, she just didn’t want to if she had the option to stay in bed and fool around with me, and why on earth would I turn her down?) that she wanted me to go with her the next Sunday whenever she skipped one. In retrospect, this was the first nail in the coffin of our relationship, but of course I didn’t recognize it at the time. It took us moving in together permanently for me to see how controlling she was, and how mean she could be if she didn’t get her way…
She was a church-going catholic, wanted you to go too, but was living together before marriage (mortal sin), fooling around (mortal sin) and engaged to an atheist (not a sin in itself but frowned upon)? I mean yeah, just the sheer contradiction of these is a red flag, no wonder the girl ended up being messed up later on
Sometimes you don’t know. Or think it’s not important.
There’s this thing basically (you’ve probably heard about it), “I don’t like X people, but you’re good because you’re not like them”. X can be race, gender, any other things. When you are with that kinda person as long as they like you, you won’t feel how they are, they’ll treat you nice but it’s an exception not the rule. But when they don’t like you, they revert back to treating you like the X group. They’ll even go “I knew X would be like this” and all.
Now in many cases if they were vocal about it from the beginning you’d notice and might get away. But in many cases they won’t be vocal, or they’ll talk about it with some extreme examples which you might feel is justified and you know you’re not like that so it’s fine. And in those cases you yourself might hate those subgroup for ruining your reputation so you might even bond over that.
They start out aligned, but then one person’s ideology changes over time (perhaps even after marriage).
deleted by creator
No shit
It’s good to challenge and confirm common sense scientifically. There are many examples where common sense wasn’t as sensible as originally thought.
Why date someone who actively votes against your family’s best interests?
“She wont fuck me any more because I started sucking Charlie Kirk’s cock!”
Ben Shapiro?
Was my first thought too.
Couples with opposing views on many things face higher risk of separation, is this a surprise to anyone?
Why would anyone marry a person who openly hates women, minorities, LGBTQ+, and anybody they deem different?
Because one or the other person in the relationship isn’t being honest which happens quote frequently. People in relationships lie by omission all the time.
In a relationship, sure. In a marriage? Can’t help to fault them for not finding out.
My wife lied about who she was and what she wanted from me for 20 years before she started fucking another guy… She even managed to hide that from me for a few months, and continued to try to hide it as I figured out what was going on… I ended up having to talk to the guy (because of course it was someone we both knew) to get confirmation- and I thought it had only just started, he’s the one who told me it had been going on for months. He said she told him we were already separated, just living in the same house to keep things stable for the kids… He seemed genuinely distressed and apologetic to find out that wasn’t true, and from my wife’s change in demeanor afterwards, I think he broke it off with her, though she was still trying to stay close to him, under the guise of letting our kids play together… But I suspect even that’s stopped now, based on what I hear from our daughter… Sounds like she’s latched onto another guy she works with… Which is how we met way back when… And she still hasn’t filed the divorce papers, she started working on it back in March… At this point I’m going to beat her to it, I’ve been talking to a couple lawyers…
Are you trying to imply that the people you disagree with politically - presumably those to the right of center - all fit into the cartoon caricature you just painted? The things you listed aren’t even political issues but social ones.
You’re right, there is a huge chunk of right of center people who hate women and minorities but keep their opinions behind closed doors. How could OP have lumped them with those who are open about those opinions!
Zealots have zero appreciation for nuance in life.
Everyone who has an opinion that doesn’t match theirs 100% is a Nazi that should put into a fema camp staffed by Obama death panels. That’s the only solution tbh
I cant imagine marrying a fascist
deleted by creator
I couldn’t imagine marrying someone with totally opposing political views. Disagreements on some issues sure, but totally opposing political views is essentially like having totally opposing values, morals and ethics to a degree, etc. Base things that play a role in determining compatibility.
Dating someone with opposing views is the easier of two situations people can find themselves in.
The harder situation is when you date and marry someone with similar views to yours, but then 5, 10, 15, etc years into the marriage they get radicalized by family members or YouTube. And suddenly their opinions change overnight and you are legally bound to an angry, hostile stranger.
The good old dehu-Manosphere. Malignant, cancerous trash run by grifters and signal boosted by insecure mysognists.
Edit: I see we have some fans of Joe Rogaine, Jordan Small-Peterson, and or Andrew T-hate on here.
I thought I was going crazy when this person I went on a couple dates with told me she was gonna pursue the other guy. She had said he was a Trump supporter and was offended at some things he’d said to her. Must have had she face of a movie star and a genius in bed. I was pretty offended, but whatever.
Sounds like you dodged a massive bullet lol.
My partner is a refugee who escaped a regime that locked her up for advocating for democracy, so I clearly won.
Some women never grow out of their “bad boys” phase, so there’s that.
Yeah, if my wife didn’t think other people deserved the right to exist it would put quite the strain on our relationship.
Who is funding this calibre of research, they also found dogs are more likely to bite if you kick them in the head.
In the western scientific model, this is how we differentiate truths from anecdotes and assumptions. Not sure why this needs to be repeated in every thread about the results of research.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research, what is questionable in this case is that the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis. The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research
In your original comment, it seemed like you were questioning why the study was funded, then compared it to another obvious cause-effect about kicking a dog. Did I misunderstand?
the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis
The conclusion might have confirmed your personal hypothesis, but we don’t assume that any conclusion “naturally follows” a hypothesis without measuring it.
The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
The way you phrased it is a tautology, but the study didn’t measure antagonism. It measured whether couples broke up or not.
Something something floor made out of floor
This sounds like something I would tell my friends as a “joke” when we where all very tired.
Several comments on here read like prime examples of “anyone who opposes me is a fascist”. Of course in conservative forums it’s similarly “anyone who opposes me is a lunatic Marxist”. Try having a relationship across aisles in this climate!
The study took 30 years to conclude but I wonder whether the current political climate makes it even more unlikely that people across political divides can form really any kind of relationship. I know I have found it difficult to maintain a relationship with anyone staunchly conservative even if political leaning has never been a main criterion for me in mate selection or in friendships.
The current political climate is different than before. It not falls along the lines of empathy. I don’t see how marriages survive that in a healthy way.
That isn’t to say they’ll all divorce. Divorce rates are very tightly coupled to economic well-being and children. But I do think a lot more people are staying in horrible marriages if their partner has no empathy.
GOOD
Unless your a true progressive, leftist, socialist, ACAB, ANTIFA outside the 2 regressive parties your views are mostly the same as they preserve cancerous capitalism .
Who would anyone be so dumb to marry /be with someone in any relationship configuration of opposite mind?
This study was a waste of money that could the have gone community and medical care because its that DUH alread established knowledge!!!
Your graphic is WAY out of date since trump’s second term started.
