Pass the gravy.
And while you’re at it, pass the legislation that says someone’s son can’t use the bathroom at school. Pass the executive order that says your sister’s miscarriage isn’t an emergency. Pass the bill that says your neighbor’s marriage isn’t legal anymore.
Pass the potatoes.
And pass the laws that make my friends less than human.
Then smile. Then ask why you’re being so divisive. Then say we can disagree and still be friends.
That’s the phrase. Delivered over turkey. Delivered over text. Delivered by the person who voted for the politician who appointed the judge who signed the order that took your rights away. Delivered with a smile. Delivered like wisdom. Like maturity. Like the high road.
But the phrase isn’t about unity. It’s about compliance. It’s about making the person who objects to bigotry feel like they’re the problem.
The phrase treats all disagreement as equal. It treats “I think roads should be funded differently” the same as “I think trans people shouldn’t have rights.” Those aren’t the same. One is a policy disagreement. One is a denial of humanity.
Nobody says “we can disagree and still be friends” about tax rates.
They say it about whether Black lives matter. They say it about whether women are people. They say it about whether immigrants are human. They say it about whether queer people deserve to exist. The phrase is never used about actual policy. It’s only used when someone’s humanity is on the line.
And the rights being dismantled aren’t abstract. Abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson. Half the country lost bodily autonomy. Amber Nicole Thurman died in Georgia because doctors couldn’t act until her heart stopped. Josseli Barnica died in Texas because the fetus still had a heartbeat. Voting rights. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act. States closing polling places in Black neighborhoods. Purging voter rolls. Banning drop boxes. Trans healthcare. Over 500 anti-trans bills introduced in 2023 alone. Bans on gender-affirming care. Bans on trans athletes. Bans on trans people existing in public. Books. Over 3,000 book bans in 2023. Mostly about race. Mostly about queer people. Mostly about history. Education. AP African American Studies rewritten. Critical race theory banned. History redacted. Due process. Asset seizure. Civil forfeiture. The government taking your property without convicting you of a crime. Separation of church and state. Prayer in schools. Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws.
These aren’t opinions. These are rights. Being taken. Right now.
And the harms aren’t theoretical. The families separated at the border. Over 5,000 children. Some never reunited. The women dying from denied healthcare. The trans kids killing themselves. The Trevor Project reports 45% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year. The Black men shot by police. Tyre Nichols. Jayland Walker. Patrick Lyoya. The books banned from libraries. The history erased from classrooms.
These aren’t abstract. These are people. These are lives. And “we can disagree and still be friends” asks you to break bread with the people who are voting for you to choke on it.
The phrase shifts the burden of civility onto the victim. The person being oppressed is told to be nice to the oppressor. The person being denied rights is told to understand the person denying them. The person being targeted is told to make peace with the person targeting them. The victim is expected to perform emotional labor for the person who supports their oppression. The victim is expected to smile. To nod. To understand. To forgive. To be friends. The oppressor is expected to do nothing. The oppressor is expected to change nothing. The oppressor is expected to learn nothing. The civility is a one-way street. And it always runs toward the powerful.
This isn’t new. “We can disagree and still be friends” is the same argument used to defend slavery. The North was told to respect the South’s “way of life.” The same argument used to defend segregation. Moderates told civil rights activists to be patient. To be civil. To wait their turn. The same argument used to defend denying women the vote. The same argument used to defend internment camps. The same argument used to defend every atrocity that was later recognized as an atrocity. The people on the right side of history were always told they were being too divisive. The people on the wrong side always claimed they were just expressing an opinion. “We can disagree and still be friends” is what moderation sounds like when the stakes are someone else’s life.
“Both sides.” “Everyone has an opinion.” “We just see things differently.” No. One side wants rights for everyone. One side wants rights only for some. One side wants equality. One side wants hierarchy. One side wants democracy. One side wants authoritarianism. These aren’t disagreements. These are fundamentally incompatible worldviews about who counts as human. You can’t split the difference on someone’s humanity. You can’t compromise on whether someone deserves to exist. You can’t meet in the middle on civil rights. The middle is where people get crushed.
The divide isn’t political. The divide isn’t ideological. The divide isn’t about policy. The divide is about whether people have rights. One side wants you to have them. One side wants to take them away. That’s not a disagreement. That’s a war. And you didn’t start it. The people who want to take your rights started it. The people who support the politicians who take your rights started it. The people who vote for the judges who take your rights started it. The people who share the memes that normalize taking your rights started it. You’re not the one being divisive. You’re the one fighting back.
Civility is a tool of the powerful. Civility is a demand made of the powerless. The powerful don’t have to be civil. The powerful don’t have to be kind. The powerful don’t have to be friends. The powerful just have to win. And they use “civility” to make you stop fighting before you win. They use “friendship” to make you accept the unacceptable. They use “disagreement” to make oppression sound like a difference of opinion.
Pass the gravy. Pass the legislation. Pass the blame. Then pass the potatoes and ask why you can’t just get along.
But the table is set with the rights they took. The plates are filled with the lives they ruined. The wine is poured from the blood they spilled.
The dinner bell rings for the people they left for dead.
The phrase is a lie. The friendship is a trap. The disagreement is about whether you deserve to exist.
And that’s not something you can disagree about and still be friends.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Conservatives tend to be more open minded, tolerant and happier than liberals and can stay friends with people who have different political views.
“Data from 2025 indicated that 28% of self-identified liberals reported ending a friendship over politics, compared to 10% of conservatives. Another 2025 survey found that 58% of liberals thought it was acceptable to cut off friends over politics, compared to 16% of conservatives.”
“Studies have shown that Democrats/liberals are roughly 3 times more likely than Republicans/conservatives to block or unfriend someone on social media due to opposing views.”
Conservatives *self-report* higher levels of happiness. Guess what? There is no objective happiness machine that accurately reports happiness levels for various groups.
I have never met a conservative who wasn’t a miserable, complaining, hater of fellow human beings on some level. Who didn’t harbor some ignorant hatred of some segment of humanity. Who wasn’t worried that someone somewhere was getting something for free that they shouldn’t (even though that person getting something “for free” lived a much more difficult life than the Conservative would want to trade their cushy one for).
And regarding conservatives being more open minded and tolerant? 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣
Puh-leeeze. We all know that is not the case. Conservative brains are not wired to be “open minded and tolerant” and that has been studied for decades. In fact, just the opposite has been suggested by studies of meta-data (e.g. for just one example, the Psychology Today article linked here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/genius-and-madness/200809/is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity).
The data strongly suggests that key psychological traits predict political conservatism: “death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem. The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.”
So, please tell us how open minded and tolerant you and your fellow conservatives are of transgender people. Or Black people. Or non-believers. Or undocumented immigrants just trying to live their lives. Or other groups that conservatives routinely make the scapegoats in our society and ugly comments against whom I have seen by regular commenters right here on the Vanguard.
Just more ridiculous drivel.
As Matt’s piece pointed out, it is legitimate, and sometimes a survival mechanism, for liberals to cut off relationships with their conservative relatives or so-called “friends.”
Keith’s so-called data just shows that liberals have values and standards and character regarding who they want to share their lives with and conservatives don’t make the cut.
Oh well.
Thanks for proving my point.
You could not even have read the comment in that length of time. So you proved *my* point. People, you can’t make this stuff up! 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣 😂🤣
And I’ll let James Baldwin speak the words of wisdom that are relevant here and need to be shouted from the rooftops:
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
Baldwin said it perfectly
Also liberals/Democrats/Progressives tend to be more unhinged, extreme, and violent these days.
As for tolerance in the local Davis area, when’s the last time conservatives tried to shut down a liberal event at UCD? There are several instances of the left disrupting conservative events. Take the recent TPUSA rally and before that the Milo Yiannopoulos event where the left got unhinged and violent while trying to shut down free speech.
That’s not a credible argument in an era where the conservative Trump administration is punishing dissent…
Here are ten examples:
1. Mass revocation of non-immigrant visas, including cases tied to political expression or controversial speech.
2. Cancellation of student visas affecting activists and critics, sometimes based on minor infractions or political activity.
3. Use of automated or AI-assisted systems to scan social media and flag individuals for visa revocation or removal based on perceived views.
4. DHS subpoenas seeking identifying information from social media platforms tied to anti-ICE protest activity.
5. Compilation of protester databases using surveillance tools, including facial recognition, to track activists.
6. Filing of criminal charges against anti-ICE protesters, raising concerns about selective enforcement tied to political activity.
7. Federal investigations of elected officials for allegedly impeding immigration enforcement, partly based on protest-related statements.
8. Threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy military forces in response to domestic protests.
9. Closure of immigration courts and removal of immigration judges with high asylum grant rates
10. Expansion of aggressive deportation operations and detention practices, contributing to a broader chilling effect on dissent in affected communities.
“The phrase treats all disagreement as equal. It treats “I think roads should be funded differently” the same as “I think trans people shouldn’t have rights.” Those aren’t the same. One is a policy disagreement. One is a denial of humanity.”
One of those statements isn’t true (since no one says that). Can you guess which one?
“They say it about whether Black lives matter. They say it about whether women are people. They say it about whether immigrants are human. They say it about whether queer people deserve to exist.”
Can you guess which of these statements aren’t true (since no one says that)? Here’s a hint (since it’s sort of a trick question) – it’s ALL of them.
When those with extreme political views put forth lies such as these, there’s no reason for ANYONE to want to be “friends” with them – other than those whom align with their hate-filled views.
Good post Ron, you are 100% correct.
Ironically-enough, David’s latest arguments (in which he defends the YIMBYs) consists of him claiming that I’m not open to “introspection”.
And yet, he apparently doesn’t see the irony in regard to his defense of THIS article. An article in which the author and his supporters can’t even stand being in the same room with someone they disagree with – even if it’s a family member.
And you can probably be sure “who” would bring up politics in the first place, with a pre-existing chip on their shoulder.
Maybe it is better for those folks to “skip” Thanksgiving – I doubt that they’d be missed.