I was raised with manners. As a child, the importance of fostering an inclusive environment was drilled into me. That’s why, when I play hopscotch, I invite kids of every race to join as well as the extremely racist kids. It’s called tolerance; look it up!
If that sounds problematic to you, you would be right. This situation would result in violence. If I had to choose between inviting the people of color or inviting the violent racists, I would choose the people of color, obviously. The bigots pose a clear threat to the marginalized people. It’s an easy choice. It’s a boring dilemma because it is so clear which option is correct.
This is why I hate using social media on days that follow elections, debates, or Supreme Court decisions, because I know what awaits me. There will be an influx of comments saying something along the lines of “I disagree with you, but respect your opinion!” to one another. This is a lie, and it’s painful to see.
A hot-button issue this election season is abortion and female healthcare as a whole. While President-elect Donald Trump plans on leaving the legality of abortion up to individual states, which already harms women in red states, and he has ties to Project 2025, which directly proposes the elimination of abortions even in the case of an emergency. In these situations, medical professionals would risk a criminal charge for performing a life-saving procedure. This is a violent proposition that will not only kill women and girls, but will also kill the fetuses that are supposedly so valuable. Unfortunately, these restrictions are only a relatively small part of a large plan that aims to restructure our government. Abortion is just an example of an affected freedom that I chose to examine due to its relevance in policy since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Despite the Trump campaign attempting to distance itself from Project 2025, conservative commentators such as Matt Walsh are making cheeky X posts saying “Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda. Lol.”
On the flip side, I’ve seen several conservative internet users trying to make peace with liberal voters in comment sections. Unlike Matt Walsh, these people don’t have platforms. They’re typically ordinary people saying that, despite voting for Trump, it isn’t personal, and that they respect opposing opinions. I don’t believe it, and neither should you. If they respected Kamala Harris voters or the lives of others, they would not have voted in favor of violence. Of course, there’s always the possibility that somebody is misinformed in their politics, but that doesn’t matter when the politics threaten life. If somebody appeared in my bedroom in the dead of night holding a knife, it’s completely irrelevant whether the person has come to kill me or if they’re sleepwalking—they are a hazard either way. My goal in such a situation would be to live. There is no mutual respect or meeting in the middle when your safety is at risk.
By spreading the notion that politics are impersonal, Trump voters can paint right-wing values and left-wing values as two equally rational and neutral opinions that just happen to be different. This is centrism, and it serves the right. The acceptance of this idea discredits those who get emotional or passionate about politics. What kind of crazy person would end a friendship over an election? Politicians and political commentators will be loud and divisive on both sides. Us regular folks on the other hand? Well, we need to forget about our differences and embrace the fact that politics are 100% arbitrary, of course!
Under this logic, the only level-headed thing you can be is a centrist. All you have to do is ignore the fact that the political “middle” you reside in benefits the Republican party by presenting dangerous policies to be only as extreme as the opposing party.
Generation Z has often been forecasted to be the generation that changes everything. While I do think that the generation will break new ground, it’s not going to happen spontaneously. Many left-wing members of Gen-Z seem to think that they have an innate claim to activism just on the basis of being young. I believe that too many of us are conflict-averse for that to be true. In fact, I think it’s taught to us.
I remember the little conflict resolution exercises they would have us do in elementary school. It never did matter what the conflict was, but both parties would have to talk and apologize. If the kids were really ticked off at each other, the teachers would sometimes have them write letters of regret. It makes sense that this is how it works. Children need to learn to talk about their problems, provided that they’re inconsequential issues. I’ve had to sit through quite a few of these as a kid. There was a specific time that stuck with me. I can’t even remember the context anymore, but it was recess time, and I was in a petty argument with one of the boys. We were bickering pointlessly until he started mocking me, saying that if we worked at the same company, he would get paid more than me for the same job. I think it’s funny what kids bring up to win fights because he definitely didn’t understand the depth of the issue he was describing. Yet he was describing an issue, and that’s what made me so angry. At that moment, he was imagining misogyny (admittedly on a surface level) and he was laughing. So I yelled at him and used swear words at him. Obviously. I was in trouble—so was the other boy. Talking to him, however, did not help at all. I had no interest in making up with him because the situation felt heavy and serious. Boys have always teased girls, but you have to understand how weird it felt to have this boy make fun of you over a social issue he heard of on the news.
Maybe that was just a trivial childhood experience, but I don’t think it is. It told me that we value surface-level peace over combatting harmful ideas. I shouldn’t have been cussing, but I think that the boy’s misinformed thoughts on the pay gap were probably a more pressing issue to address as educators at an elementary school. Again, I know that I’m not the first girl to be made fun of for being a girl. I also got mocked for coming from another country, being mixed, and eating my “ethnic” foods at lunch. I also got mad in these cases, and I would similarly have to “talk it out.” By treating bigoted ideas and the anger in reaction to bigoted ideas with the same significance, we influence kids to be little “centrists” in their interpersonal relationships.
I see this problem now that I’m in high school too. No, administrators don’t get involved every time a bad word is used—they would never go home to their families if they did. I mean that I am seeing ideas lose their weight. An example that left me feeling strange was when the genocide in Palestine was first getting attention. I saw lots of my classmates posting bright infographics on their Instagram accounts about the importance of boycotting Starbucks. However, I noticed that some of the people who posted the infographics were surrounded by friends who had Starbucks drinks every day. These kinds of infographics usually use pretty strong words. Words like “solidarity.” I think it’s interesting how you can make loud declarations online, but then not mention the same things to your good friends. I suppose in this situation if you say something to your friends and they aren’t receptive, the ball is in your court. Will you start ignoring it and continue being friends? It’s okay if so, but then you must also admit that you really aren’t standing in complete solidarity with the movement. Returning to the idea of interpersonal centrism, by being friends with the Starbucks drinkers, you establish that neither boycotting nor ignoring the boycott will impact your relationship with someone. Either your Instagram post was over-selling your level of care for the movement, or your aversion to conflict is preventing you from fully engaging with your beliefs.
I’m not targeting anybody in particular, because I’ve noticed a lot of people in this situation. I just use Instagram too often to the point that I pick up on these things. It also helps that our community is so small.
It’s a problem, though. The example of Starbucks might seem strange, but we are so easily able to make posts online strongly condemning the consumption of the drinks only to surround ourselves with Starbucks addicts. It’s a major oversight! Even if this issue stems from your social anxiety or awkwardness, it makes you come across as flaky—like your beliefs are frivolous to you. I encourage you to work on this if it sounds like I’m describing you.
If you wear jeans on Denim Day to raise sexual assault awareness, consider not extending an olive branch to the kids who sexually harass their classmates. If you post pride infographics during pride month, you don’t need to go out of your way to talk to that one super transphobic person in class. It shouldn’t be arduous if you actually believe what you are advocating for.
If Shorewoodians want to be a catalyst for change in the future, we must learn to mean what we say. To say what we mean. This is especially important in the time that follows a major election. Do not become used to compromising your ideals, even in a seemingly low-stakes interaction. It will become a habit. By acting wishy-washy about your values on a smaller-scale personal problem, you lend yourself to centrism for larger issues that concern tangible policy.