If in the past I haven’t been clear about what I require in a personal relationship, I intend for this entry to correct any ambiguity. I require a baseline of core values in each person with whom I voluntarily associate.

Background

I “cut off” several friends and family members during the heated 2016 election season. At the time, I explained my reasons, or thought I did, both on social media and on my blog, in full view of those people. Later, in private exchanges (both via email and on the phone), I more fully expressed my reasoning to a handful of those people — when they asked about it. Then, recently, one of them (to whom I had already explained) sent me a letter, the thrust of which was: “We are all wondering why you seem to be cutting yourself off from the whole family.” (Note the usage of “we”, “all”, and “whole”, arrayed against the singular “you”.) The letter also included attempts at gaslighting and guilt trips, but the quoted sentence above was the theme.

So, in case I have hemhawed in previous communications, beaten around the bush in the hopes of avoiding offense, or in some other way been unclear, please read the following paragraphs.

A Very Short List Of Values We Should Share

In order for me to voluntarily engage in a personal relationship with someone — friend, family, or otherwise — I require agreement on a very short list of common values. Primary among those values is support for human rights, though others include a defensible morality, and a bent toward rationality.

For example, someone who actively promotes bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia) is not someone I will call my friend, nor will I be comfortable in that person’s presence. Note: refusing to acknowledge the existence of those societal ills definitely counts as “actively promoting”.

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

attribued to Martin Luther King Jr.

Note that anti-bigotry isn’t the only tenet here; I used it as an example.

Yes, I am confounded that anyone needs this spelled out. I made the mistake of assuming that most people in my circles shared these values and so I was stunned to learn — mostly in the months leading up to the 2016 elections — how uncommon they were among people I counted as relatively close to me. In addition to advocating bigotry of various sorts, they promoted torture, war crimes, false news, and harm against people I love. It didn’t surprise me as much when many of them promoted Christian theocracy, but that too is abominable.

And yes, I realize those are very broad categories; there is room for disagreement on specifics, means, and definitions. What there is not room for (in my life) is people who advocate the opposite.

Specific Examples

When I said “there is room for disagreement on specifics”, that begs for clarification. I certainly don’t mean someone can disagree on whether a specific right should exist; only on how to specifically define that right or how it should be specifically protected. For example, take the issue of women’s equality. That friend or family member must agree that women and men deserve equal rights under the law. But it’s okay if she disagrees with me about which presidential candidate will get us to equality more efficiently, which version of an equality-enforcing bill has a better chance of passing, how to implement those rights, and so on.

Acceptable:

• “I disagree that Elizabeth Warren is our best bet to ensure women’s rights in this country; I’m leaning toward Kamala Harris.”

Not acceptable:

• “A woman’s place is in the home. Feminism is crazy.”

See how that works? On the first point, we can discuss the whys and why-nots (if we feel like it), agree to disagree, and remain friends. The second opinion, though, means that you and I are fundamentally incompatible and have little reason to carry on any type of relationship with each other. But the second form turned out to be extremely common among many people of whom I had expected better.

Note that I used women’s equality here as an example; it is not the only slice of human rights that’s important to me, nor is it the only one on which there are stark disagreements between me and the “whole family” mentioned above.

Another specific example, drawn from the heated 2015/2016 political rhetoric prior to my trimming friends/family lists, was the question of the bigotry explicit in Donald Trump’s campaign. Listen, there is plenty of room for disagreement on specifics here. There is room for discussion, arguments, schisms, and a multitude of viewpoints. You and I can argue whether Speech A or Slogan B is a better case to highlight in public discourse. We might disagree on the best course of action for countering the bigotry (for example, I might say “vote Democrat” and you might say “post about it on social media”), and that leaves us still friends. But if you disagree with the basic tenet that there was overt bigotry in the campaign or the general idea that one should vote against it, then you and I are not only on different pages, but in different books.

Acceptable:

• “Wil, I disagree with your stance that the news media should have called out the bigotry more often and more loudly; I think they should have focused more on specific policy.”

Not acceptable:

• “I hope he does ban Muslims!”
• “[Long list of entirely fabricated stories about the Clintons.]”
• “Now that you’ve pointed out he’s being supported by the KKK for obvious reasons, I’ll still probably vote for him.”
• “Any news that’s negative about Trump is probably fake.”
• “But gay people shouldn’t have the same rights we do.”

Yet the latter views turned out to be rampant among people I once considered close. Again, not only on this particular topic, but running the gamut on human rights, basic decency, and what I had once considered a shared morality.

‘Wait. We’re Not Entitled To Our Views, But YOU Are?”

Some will respond (and a few already have responded) to my “basic shared values” idea with a non sequitir like “why can’t we each have our different views?” I don’t know why it’s so difficult to grasp this simple distinction:

You are entitled to your views; you are NOT entitled to an audience or to my friendship.

At least a couple posted screeds about “leftists” and “the intolerant left” trying to “stifle free speech”. To do so, they must ignore that free speech and tolerance are among the tenets I value. However, neither free speech nor tolerance require my ongoing effort to maintain a relationship. There is absolutely nothing I can do about family members or former friends holding one abhorrent view or another; but I can control which ones have access to me.

‘Blood Is Thicker Than Water’

Most of us have a passing familiarity with the idea that family is, or should be, more important than non-family, when it comes to selecting relationships. I’ve heard it all my life but eventually realized it boils down to a set of non-proven assumptions.

Life is not pleasant if one binds oneself to the family-loyalty idea at all costs and without reason. The idea only makes sense if a large enough portion of the wider family shares core values. If they do not share one’s values, and if the family isn’t required for some other reason (such as survival), then it makes sense to separate oneself.

(Here, it’s safe to ignore the idea of “kin selection”, the evolutionary strategy whereby an organism favors the reproductive success of its own relations, due to sharing so many like genes with those relatives. Because we’re not talking about evolution, gene propagation, or survival of the species; we’re talking about someone wanting a relationship with me against my will.)

I also have repeatedly heard that the phrase “blood is thicker than water” might very well be based on a longer proverb: “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” — which means nearly the opposite.

Types Of Relationships

As have most people (I assume), I’ve given a lot of thought to types of interpersonal relationships, how they arise, what they’re for, and so on. It’s a complex topic with plenty of causes and effects. Over time, I have distilled and simplified my idea of relationships into a fairly simple code: “If we don’t like each other, why spend time with one another?”

It’s a privilege, yes. Not everyone can cut loose — for financial reasons, usually. The hope of a safety net if something goes wrong. Fortunately, my current situation allows selectivity when it comes to friends, and when it comes to spending time with extended family.

There are relationships where we have less choice. For example, when it’s a coworker or neighbor — someone we can’t actually avoid — we do our best to put up with them, keep conversations bland and superficial (“sure is warm today!”), and exit as soon as socially acceptable. But when it’s anyone else — anyone I can avoid — I do. Simple.

“Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.”

Proverbs 21:9 (NIV)

Despite the misogyny inherent in the above Bible passage, it holds a core of wisdom: most of us prefer privation to dealing with difficult people, or people who are fundamentally, diametrically opposed to our value systems.

This makes me wonder, as I said in my response to the aforementioned letter, why they want to spend time with me. If a relative thinks it’s important to put up factually inaccurate monuments celebrating the Confederacy (this is a real example), and I think it’s important to tear them down — and we both think this is important enough to talk about, then why on Earth do they want to see me at Thanksgiving?

Politics Is Personal

The suggestion has been made that “we can put politics aside”, recognize that we each hold different views, and come together as a family. I once was so blinded by privilege that I consented to such sentiments. Now it’s painfully obvious that the only ones who can put politics aside are those actively benefitting from it — or at least not being actively oppressed. To everyone else, politics hits closer to home.

Politics is personal. Our political views are shaped by our personal views (and vice versa, to some extent), and the two cannot be truly separated. Politics — the art or science of governing — is tangible and has real-life effects on real people. It isn’t a hypothetical or a detached idea. Sometimes, it can be relatively neutral — a choice between spending a city’s surplus on repairing streets, purchase of emergency vehicles, or upgrades to the waste treatment facility. We can discuss those questions theoretically, argue our pet peeves about the odor of the water or potholes, and none of us will be hurt by it. But when politics does touch on issues of human rights, and the policies being considered will certainly change lives — often of large groups of people — it becomes personal. So many of the hot-button issues are this kind, the kind that’s bound to hurt someone.

So when a person holds political views that oppose, harm, oppress, marginalize, or otherwise target real life humans, then they also oppose me personally. Because the results of those political views actually harm (or help) other humans. It feels sinister to me when that person pretends such oppositiion is somehow outside our personal relationship and “we can just be friends” or “spend time as a family”.

If They Ignored Previous Statements, Won’t They Ignore This One?

As soon as I began to write this, I asked myself whether the intended audience will ignore this blog entry, knowing they ignored all previous attempts to explain my position. My answer is: “probably, yes.”

But again, I write this more for me than for you or them. It’s online for anyone curious enough to see what I’m thinking, but also I put it here as a “receipt” of sorts. Kind of like the reason people make photos of themselves in front of famous landmarks or while holding up concert tickets — as a marker of that time I did that thing. So it’s here now, dated and published for anyone to see. At least no one will be able to say I never laid it out.

No, This Isn’t (Only) About Trump

A few discussions I attempted (circa 2015-2017) seemed to devolve to arguments over the corrupt and incompetent GOP president, as if that was the crux of everything. It took me some time to realize that these were red herrings — distractions. Because the issue isn’t that “oh, they voted for the opponent of my preferred candidate”. That IS a dumb thing over which to sever ties of friendship or familial bonds. The issue is that the candidate in question publicly, overtly, and repeatedly embodied the opposite of my core values, and that it didn’t bother the friends/family of which I speak. Some vocally jumped on the bandwagon while others remained silent. Some claim they didn’t vote for him, or were disappointed in him, but then began supporting him later (which is somehow even worse).

Listen, voting for (or actively supporting) Trump is not itself the offense, just as displaying a piece of dyed cloth does not in itself hurt anyone. But just as the Confederate flag is used as a symbol of the heritage of pro-slavery and racism, so voting for Trump became a symbol of supporting bigotry of all kinds, sexual and financial scandals, fraud, bullying, incompetence, division, dishonesty, anti-reason, and oppression.

In 2020, when the incompetent, racist GOP president tweeted a video of his supporters shouting “white power” (and Trump called them “great people” in the tweet) — I was reminded of this blog entry. I was reminded of the other incidents (thousands of them now, including the lies, brutal insults to journalists, sexist remarks, xenophobia, racism, etc.). In 2016, I could have been convinced in individual cases that someone was simply duped or uninformed when they voted for Trump. But no longer. Today you can’t convince me these people are still being tricked or just don’t have enough information. Today, anyone announcing support for the GOP president, or even failing to oppose him, is doing so as an overt symbol that they stand for hate, violence against Black people, dishonesty, corruption, and more.

Also, someday when Trump isn’t around to function as that symbol anymore, it should be clear that the topics on this page will still be important to me just as they were before him. “Trump’s gone now! Can’t we be friends again?” is something that I fully expect someone to say to me in 2021 or later. The answer will be no.

Conclusion

Very little of the above is anything I ever thought I’d need to articulate. I had always thought it self-evident that people spend time together due to shared interests, shared values, or (in the cases of neighbors, co-workers, and schoolmates) shared locations. Not everything must be in common, because that’s silly, but something must be. Especially the important things.

I welcome (and value) differences of opinion — on almost any particular — but this isn’t about that. This is about blanket opposition to my core values while at the same time insisting on entitlement to a relationship with me. I will always have a difficult time understanding those who demand a relationship when the other party isn’t interested.