Chad Kimball- Page 11

[unclevictor]

Oh thank god, Chad kimball posted something new on his Twitter page!!!

[Islander_fan]

I don’t think it’s right to single out Osnes. There have been plenty of performers that have done shows, that have had, for lack of a better term, dry spells between closing one show and finding another one on Broadway. I mean, yes, her views are more conservative. But, at the same time, she’s always kept her views on her religion and political leanings to herself. Never once has she (and it would seem to be out of character for her, though that is a guess) openly spoke about her views. And, I am ok with that. 

 

Look, I am not a fan of those who openly make their negative views right out in the open for all to see. But, at the same time, there are plenty of people in my life, both friends and family, who have been important people in my life even though we have different strong political views. We agree to disagree about politics and just don’t talk about it knowing that there are more important things between us. And, we both won’t get politics to stand in the way. I personally can’t understand why people just cancel others in their lives out just because of political views. But, that’s just me 

[Alexander Lamar]

The Distinctive Baritone said: "As for Chad Kimball, I do find it strange how one tweet can change one's life forever. I will never join Twitter because I'm sure I'd tweet something really dumb one day and my life would be over. It's kinda scary."

“One tweet” is kind of a stretch, no?

[KKeller6]

Not a lot of Patrick Henry fans here. Or Voltaire fans.

[JBroadway]

Islander_fan said: "she’s always kept her views on her religion and political leanings to herself. Never once has she (and it would seem to be out of character for her, though that is a guess) openly spoke about her views. And, I am ok with that.

 

I do mostly agree with you here, at least from an audience standpoint. The only real value in "cancelling" a public figure is if they are actively using their platform to spread harm. And Osnes does not seem to be doing that. If she behaves more hatefully in the rehearsal room, then that's a different matter, but so far there has been no real evidence to suggest that. And even there were, that would be up to industry people to make the call of whether they wanted to re-hire her. It wouldn't really be left up to us. 

"I personally can’t understand why people just cancel others in their lives out just because of political views."

I'm not sure if this implied question is rhetorical, or if you're actually trying to understand the logic behind it. But there have been plenty of people in this thread who have explained why they hold this mindset. As ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said on the previous page: the whole "agree to disagree" excuse, while theoretically the more healthy and mature option, is indicative of a privileged, out-of-touch mentality. It's easy to "agree to disagree" when your rights, your livelihood, and even in fact you LIFE, are literally on the line. It's easy to "agree to disagree" when politics don't really affect you personally. If you're trying to understand why people on the left sever ties with people on the right, it's because they view voting for Trump as an immoral act, because they are lending support to the man who is (I believe Hogan used this term earlier in the thread) "the poster-child of immorality" 

Personally, I'm more torn on the matter. Because I recognize that in a country where almost 74-million people voted for Trump, this mindset isn't really sustainable. But I totally understand it on a person-to-person level. 

[HogansHero]

@JBroadway did I say that? Wow, I am better than I thought.

TBC, I do not advocate "cancelling" for any reason other than the one you state. I have spoken to a number of people who voted for Trump [within my blue bubble], people I have worked with, who are social acquaintances, etc. While I think they are all idiots, each had a reason (mostly misguided financial) for the vote. But none of them were advocating QAnon BS, or urging anti-science/faux constitutional rights reasons for endangering people. A good friend's small town, good Christian, uneducated Trump-supporting parents recently came down with covid after months of refusing to wear a mask and ranting and raving about dictators and the like. I am told the mother doesn't think as much of her fearless leader from the vantage point of a hospital bed. I hold the influencers, large and small, responsible for what has happened to people like that, and yes I would exact retribution on them if I have the chance, even though I know they will pay the ultimate price in the next life. 

[HogansHero]

dupe

[JBroadway]

HogansHero said: "@JBroadway did I say that? Wow, I am better than I thought."

 

I had moment of "it was Hogan, wasn't it?" so I went and checked. Page 3 of this thread! 

[unclevictor]

No canceling please!! If we cancel people then all we’d chat about here is beetlejuice and when it’s coming back to Bway!

[Owen22]

unclevictor said: "No canceling please!! If we cancel people then all we’d chat about here is beetlejuice and when it’s coming back to Bway! "

I know you're joking, but I don't quite understand this whole concept of "canceling". Or people being upset about "cancel culture". People act as if it's some kind of law. It is actually the most democratic of responses. No one is forcing anyone to ignore a person that has transgressed just because Twitter tells them to! We all make up our own mind. If people want to turn their back on someone en masse...well maybe that person should have people turn their backs on them. And if it doesn't stick and said transgressor escapes unscathed, then that's democratic as well. We're not talking doxxing here-- we're not talking a violent response. I know it seems politically incorrect to champion Canceling (is that an oxymoron?), but it's not as if it's a new kind of reaction. It is not a new concept. It just happens way quicker now because of social media.

[Owen22]

unclevictor said: "No canceling please!! If we cancel people then all we’d chat about here is beetlejuice and when it’s coming back to Bway! "

I know you're joking, but I don't quite understand this whole fear and disgust of "canceling". Or how "cancel culture" actually works. People act as if it's some kind of law. It is actually the most democratic of responses. No one is forcing anyone to ignore a person that has transgressed just because Twitter tells them to! We all make up our own mind. If people want to turn their back on someone en masse...well maybe that person should have people turn their backs on them. And if it doesn't stick and said transgressor escapes unscathed, then that's democratic as well. We're not talking doxxing here-- we're not talking a violent response. I know it seems politically incorrect to champion Canceling (is that an oxymoron?), but it's not as if it's a new kind of reaction. It is not a new concept. It just happens way quicker now because of social media.

[WestEndGal]

Owen22 said: "unclevictor said: "No canceling please!! If we cancel people then all we’d chat about here is beetlejuice and when it’s coming back to Bway! "

I know you're joking, but I don't quite understand this whole fear and disgustof "canceling". Or how"cancel culture" actually works. People act as if it's some kind of law. It is actually the most democratic of responses. No one is forcing anyone to ignore a person that has transgressed just because Twitter tells themto!We all make up our own mind. If people want to turn their back on someone en masse...well maybe that person should have people turn their backs on them. And if it doesn't stick and said transgressorescapes unscathed,then that's democratic as well. We're not talking doxxing here-- we're not talking a violent response. I know it seems politically incorrect to champion Canceling (isthat an oxymoron?), but it's not as if it's a new kind of reaction. It is not a new concept. It just happens way quicker now because of social media."

I don’t know, in theory maybe it’s the most democratic of responses, but the reality is far different when it almost always ends up being people joining in on mass shaming and cancellations basically for clout, because they know that if they don’t they’re cancelled too. I’ve seen this a lot on ‘theater twitter’ where you even see theater fans calling out other fans saying stuff like “if you don’t unfollow *insert person* then then you’re cancelled too” - that’s not democracy in my mind! Most of the people who join in in this cancel culture never take the time to first try and understand or even have a conversation. When everyone sits in their own bubble and never ventures outside then it’s no wonder this country feels so divided and full of hate right now. Obama said it best I think when he spoke about this topic .....

https://youtu.be/qaHLd8de6nM

And yes I get the argument saying that it’s easy to say this stuff when it doesn’t impact you personally (although I’ll point out that it does impact me personally because I am gay), but then there doesn’t seem to be any tolerance by a lot of liberals of views from the ‘other side’ either. Take someone who is very religious and staunchly pro-life and anti abortion. Whilst I am pro choice, I can accept that someone’s pro life beliefs could be a sole factor in someone choosing to vote republican, and one which could override everything else, even if I don’t personally get it. That to me doesn’t make them cancel worthy to me, and I don’t personally appreciate people assuming that because I’m gay and liberal In my views then I should automatically disassociate myself from people who don’t think exactly the same way I do. This isn’t a black and white Republican = bad / Democrat = good situation to me. People are way more nuanced than that. And truthfully, a lot of the people who let me down the most tend to be those who think the same way I do! 
 


 

 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

“ This isn’t a black and white Republican = bad / Democrat = good situation to me. People are way more nuanced than that.”

Under normal circumstances I could agree with you. This last election, however, is different. Every person who voted for 45 a second time actively used their vote to support complete bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

It doesn’t necessarily mean those people are all of those things - but those thing don’t matter to them, nor do the people who are affected by their actions. They are complicit.

[Owen22]

WestEndGal said: "People are way more nuanced than that."

No, earlier in your post you said, basically, that people are sheep. 

That they are "...joining in on mass shaming and cancellations basically for clout, because they know that if they don’t they’re cancelled too. I’ve seen this a lot on ‘theater twitter’ where you even see theater fans calling out other fans saying stuff like “if you don’t unfollow *insert person* then then you’re cancelled too”

I agree with your former statement. And it applies to cancel culture. People have always wanted to be "in".  We watch certain popular TV shows, for instance, not just for entertainment, but to not feel left out.  Or branded as "uncool".  Joining your voice into a wind that is pushing against someone is just another iteration of that.  A majority of people agree not to follow (or maybe vote for) someone.  That is the very definition of democracy, whether you like it or not. Whether it's good or bad.  Democracy gave us Trump, remember.

I WISH people were nuanced! 
 

 

[WestEndGal]

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "“ This isn’t a black and white Republican = bad / Democrat = good situation to me. People are way more nuanced than that.”

Under normal circumstances I could agree with you. This last election, however, is different. Every person who voted for 45 a second time actively used their vote to support complete bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

It doesn’t necessarily mean those people are all of those things - but those thing don’t matter to them, nor do the people who are affected by their actions. They are complicit."

That’s your opinion and I’m sure lots of people in the theater community and liberal circles agree. I just see things differently. I’m not going to disown someone who has a different political viewpoint to me and which I don’t agree with, but I can at least understand where they’re coming from. I’m of course not talking about truly awful people who are racist or homophobic etc and voted for Trump accordingly. I have zero time for people like that. I have a good friend for example whose faith is hugely important to her and is pro life, and she voted Republican on that one issue, it was that important to her. She dislikes Trump as much as I do. But she sees abortion as murdering babies. I disagree with her view but she’s entitled to that belief and to vote for republicans accordingly. Likewise she disagrees with me for being pro choice, but she would never disown me if I were to have an abortion. I’m still good friends with her because we have a lot more in common than not, and we accept each other’s differences. They don’t come from a place of hate. 

This is the issue I have though with this current toxic cancel culture. Twitter outrage or liberal outrage or Facebook far right Q anon craziness really isn’t indicative of ‘real life’, but it takes on greater importance because of the enhanced and visible platform it has on social media. And I don’t mean to be patronizing saying that, and no doubt people here will disagree. But when you get off the internet and outside your own bubble most people are just sitting somewhere in the moderate middle, wondering why in the world everyone is so angry and divided all the time. 

 

[yankeefan7]

"That’s your opinion and I’m sure lots of people in the theater community and liberal circles agree. I just see things differently. I’m not going to disown someone who has a different political viewpoint to me and which I don’t agree with, but I can at least understand where they’re coming from. I’m of course not talking about truly awful people who are racist or homophobic etc and voted for Trump accordingly. I have zero time for people like that. I have a good friend for example whose faith is hugely important to her and is pro life, and she voted Republican on that one issue, it was that important to her. She dislikes Trump as much as I do. But she sees abortion as murdering babies. I disagree with her view but she’s entitled to that belief and to vote for republicans accordingly. Likewise she disagrees with me for being pro choice, but she would never disown me if I were to have an abortion. I’m still good friends with her because we have a lot more in common than not, and we accept each other’s differences. They don’t come from a place of hate. This is the issue I have though with this current toxic cancel culture. Twitter outrage or liberal outrage or Facebook far right Q anon craziness really isn’t indicative of ‘real life’, but it takes on greater importance because of the enhanced and visible platform it has on social media. And I don’t mean to be patronizing saying that, and no doubt people here will disagree. But when you get off the internet and outside your own bubble most people are just sitting somewhere in the moderate middle, wondering why in the world everyone is so angry and divided all the time. "

Excellent post WestEndGal !!

[unclevictor]

Great post Yankeefan7! I agree with u!

[yankeefan7]

Unclevictor - I am sorry for the confusion but you need to give credit to "WestEndGal", I just quoted her post and said it was excellent.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I think this whole thing is just personal. I never partake in social media/Twitter mob acts, so maybe my opinion in supporting mass cancelations would be colored by that if I were more in-tuned with annoying mob acts. IMO, people have "canceled" people since the dawn of time, and honestly, fandom and purchasing power is the only power people really have to express their dislike or disapproval over a person's behavior, and I think it's legitimate and valid.

Now that I said that, I think individuals should make their own determination on when they can no longer support a person. We all have our lines. I used to be a lot more tolerant of the right.

In college, I was one of those liberal gays who understood where the other side came from, would listen to their rants, would be the "nice" person who offered conversation and "understanding". They would "reward" me by saying I'm not like "other gays" or I'm not like other "liberals" as if they were compliments and I gladly took those statements as such. I got off on being the "gay" token who conservatives, some of whom were homophobes prior to meeting me, could talk to and discuss things with. I think I sort of got off on it and thought of myself as "enlightened", "cultured", and "civilized".

Then as I grew older, I became less patient when I was not receiving the same treatment (or show of respect) back as I was given after years of letting crap or certain language or attitudes slide. In fact, I've "tolerated" such insults and lack of respect in the name of being cordial, polite, and "tolerant".

Then I started meeting a lot more people. And more people. Moved away and met even more people who were cut from the same cloth and noticed these people didn't grow at all or weren't actually willing to listen. Instead, they grew older too and got worse in their racism, sexism, homophobia in that their base reactions is to pretend these things don't happen and how much harder they had it. You start really knowing who they are, and what they're doing is mostly "sea lioning".

*See definition from Wikipedia. "Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "'ncessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate''".

I'm in my mid-30s now, and I don't have time for people with bad intentions anymore who still want to have friends but hold on to abhorrent ideas and wonder why nobody wants to talk to them anymore. I've also educated myself to a degree where I just can't force myself to go back down to their base level. That sounds elitist, I know, but I can't help it. If you interacted with the people I've interacted with, you'd feel the same.

I've seen this country shift more and more to the right. I've read it started with Reagan or Nixon with the "silent majority" crap. I myself am only old enough to see the effect talk radio, Fox News, and Bush (and the rightwing directed Supreme Court) has had on this country since the 1990s.

Then, through education, I learned about how we keep populist platforms and ideas down through a system of government and through new Jim Crow methods so the status quo can not only stay but enlarge in power despite increasing unpopularity with the populace. I also learned what the purpose and origins of many of the popular rightwing platforms originated from. Then I've seen tribalism rise. I've seen human rights abuses becoming increasingly normalized to the ghastly levels. The rise of Trump is a symptom of what has already been happening. So no, I don't think the left should be "blamed" for not being able to "agree to disagree" anymore. The other side has declared a cultural war on all things right and decent, and it's been that way for at least thirty years. The Dems in power have done everything they could to turn the other cheek and reach across the aisle. What we got in return was more shifts to the right, the tea party, total racism directed towards Obama (birtherism), and rising nationalism and white supremacy.

Sorry, not sorry, that I'm not as "good" as some of you who can tolerate more bull****. I tried that in my early 20s and I learned people don't have the same good intentions as you do.

Maybe if you've learned to be so tolerant of the right, then learn to understand why many of us aren't there anymore and are weary of the right you're so tolerant of, and how many of us learned to protect ourselves and our mental health by not being so "friendly" or "tolerant", and by being so open with our disdain, we are being more open with our support of those who really need our support...the very people those on the right you're so "tolerant" of have been attacking and dehumanizing via language, perpetuating a culture that victimizes and lessens their value, and/or using their position of power in government or law enforcement to institutionalize and formalize their hate and animus so that discrimination against said people and preventing them from being seen as equal members of society is not only legal but encouraged.  

[JBroadway]

Beautifully said, Scotty! 

With regards to WestEndGal's most recent post:

I do think that anti-abortion people who vote red based solely on that single-issue are....kind of....maybe....the exception to this. I am staunchly pro-choice, but I think there is a major problem with the WAY that pro-choice people debate abortion rights. The fact is that anti-abortion people think that abortion is murder, so no amount of shouting about "a woman's right to choose" is going to change their minds. Because the response will always be "a woman's right to choose doesn't include murder." The only way to change anyone's mind about abortion is to argue that it isn't murder, and pro-choice people rarely take that approach.

And so, while I say this VERY begrudgingly: I can sort of understand how someone might think to themselves "I'd rather have a racist president than a president who murders babies." Again, I disagree with that logic, and there are all kinds of hypocrisies built into it, but I can sort see how that makes sense to them. And in that case, I MIGHT be willing to concede that these people don't deserve to be ostracized the way other Trump voters do. 

HOWEVER, I would wager that a huge majority of Trump voters are not single-issue, anti-abortion voters. I doubt Chad Kimball is a Trump supporter solely because he's anti-abortion. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I never find that the act abortion is the ONLY thing you disagree with with a person. It usually comes with other attitudes as well. I think most people who are vehemently pro-choice are pro-choice because they came to that position after tons of research into the origins of abortion bans, they see reproductive rights as a part of a larger picture of women's rights, and are well-versed in how the history of western civilization has all been about controlling women's reproduction and valuing women based on their reproductive organs. So with that background, you'd find that anti-abortion folks at least have a totally different perspective/perception (or haven't thought about it) on the history of women, women's rights, and reproductive rights. I haven't even touched upon the class/race differences as well. IMO, the difference between a person who is pro-choice and anti-choice is really down to the core so it's not very simple to just think of it as one issue. It's actually very many issues in which they'll disagree with.

[HogansHero]

As the good discussion here reveals, this is a lot more complex than we want it to be. Just a couple of points. First, I don't think it makes sense to equate Trumpism and Conservatism. A lot of what the former advocates is decidedly not conservative. The Tenth Amendment is the First Amendment of Conservatism. You'd never know that by looking at Trumpism. Likewise, American Conservatism has long preached the preciousness of life. (Abortion, "death squads, etc." Trumpism (as manifested by anti-maskism etc) is decidedly anti-life.  Second, I don't think abortion is a driver for Trumpism. I think the biggest driver by far is racism. Let's also accept that fact that Trumpism is anti-intellectual whereas (despite my fundamental disagreement with it) conservatism is an intellectually-based philosophy. All of this leading to the fact that the "usual" rules of engagement do not apply. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

I think Trumpism is it's own unique brand, but I do think American conservatism has evolved in a way (away from intellectualism judging from the W. Bush era) that led to it. What's clear is that many Americans are much more comfortable with authoritarianism than we realized so long as the authoritarian is someone they like).

[JennH]

^^THAT. Frankly the last few replies are on point. But I'd also argue that those same people literally are ignorant of what authoritarianism is and what the signs are. Not that it's an excuse. 

Anyways reason I came here...is Osnes really a religious conservative? I'm not saying this as a knock or dirty word because it's not, even if I don't agree with conservatism anymore like I used to because of how it's been used to malign the "other" that isn't the majority, aka anyone non white. Frankly if so, she could have fooled me...but if she's a religious conservative who doesn't impose her beliefs on others or use it as a weapon (which she seemingly clearly doesn't), there's not much more one can ask for. 

[theatreguy12]

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I never find that the act abortion is the ONLY thing you disagree with with a person. It usually comes with other attitudes as well. I think most people who are vehemently pro-choice are pro-choice because they came to that position after tons of research into the origins of abortion bans, they see reproductive rights as a part of a larger picture of women's rights, and are well-versed in how the history of western civilization has all been about controlling women's reproduction and valuing women based on their reproductive organs. So with that background, you'd find that anti-abortion folks at least have a totally different perspective/perception (or haven't thought about it) on the history of women, women's rights, and reproductive rights. I haven't even touched upon the class/race differences as well. IMO, the difference between a person who is pro-choice and anti-choice is really down to the core so it's not very simple to just think of it as one issue. It's actually very many issues in which they'll disagree with."

That all may sound great on paper, and very understanding toward women, and "history" and "western civilization," but at the crux of it for those who are pro-life.....it's a life inside of that woman.  Pure and simple.  "History" and "western civilization" and how it pertains to women is irrelevant when it comes to the here and now, and the decision to end a life that has begun inside of her.  Unfortunately the fact that it is a life has been usurped and clouded by the word "choice" to somehow make the procedure more palatable.  And to those who see that as a life inside the woman, there is no "choice" involved.  You can't just end a life, born or not yet born, because it's an inconvenience.   It's a pretty big issue, and understandable why people make it a big part of their voting decision.'   

As for your other post, that is your perspective.  Your point of view based on your own belief system.

You say this country has moved further right.  No, it hasn't.  Look at the last 4 elections.  BO....BO....HC (who didn't win the electoral college but still took the popular vote), and JB.  Add to that a MSM that is largely liberal.  If you want the other point of view you have to go searching for it, because even Fox News has turned a corner in many ways.  In addition, the reason we have DT in the first place is because of the RINO factor in DC.  RINOs being Republicans who conservatives voted for but didn't come through, caved during the previous administration, and seemed more centrist (at best) than "right."  A lot of conservatives were done with them and, though a risk, cast a vote for DT thinking he might shake things up a bit.  So when you also have Republican who aren't towing a conservative load as they said they would, this country actually leans more left.

As for seeing yourself as the diplomatic friend, the bigger person, who put up with your friends who had views that differed from yours and became so obnoxious about it...which has now pushed you further left.....join the club.  The exact opposite happened with me.  Though I haven't moved further right.  I'm still the same person, I just don't see those friends as much anymore.  They always had differing opinions from mine.  But we respected each other's differences.  It was all great. They got exceedingly more pushy though the longer time went on too....to the point where we would go our separate ways.  I let it roll too for some time.....but then it wasn't worth it anymore.  I was the one quietly putting up with it, being flexible, letting it roll....and that's not a friendship.    So what you're describing happens both ways.   You just see it as especially bad because it happened to you....so everyone on the other side of the aisle must be just like that, while everyone on your side of the aisle is the put upon one.

Sorry to hear that your racist and sexist friends just got worse over time. It's understandable why someone wouldn't want to be around that toxicity.  

But those two terms, "racism" and "sexism" bring to mind a situation I had at a party, some 10 or 11 years ago.  The small group with whom I was conversing got onto politics.   BO came up.  I had the question directed to me about being a BO supporter.  I admitted that no, I actually didn't vote for him.   Some guy who I didn't even know asked if it had to do with the color of his skin.  I just looked at him incredulously, not only because he didn't even know me, but considering who I am, and my past, his comment was so far from left field all I could do was look at him like what in the hell are you talking about?  Who are you?  I just politely told him no.  I didn't vote for him because I knew very little about him.  And what I did know was that he had little experience to base any sort of vote on, especially considering it was for arguably the most powerful position in the world.  

And for the record, I didn't vote for DT either.  I didn't like the way he communicated his message and what research I did do on him found out he has supported both sides of the aisle in his past....so I had no idea what the guy stood for.

As for BO though, the irony with regard to what that dude at the party said, is my ex worked in the GWB administration and I had the honor of meeting Condi Rice on a couple of occasions. I was so taken by her.  I even asked my friend if she was ever going to run for president. He said, oh no.....not really an aspiration.  I was thinking too bad.

Did I bring that up to his guy at the party? No. It would have called him out on his nonsense (and proved I wasn't a sexist either), but I knew he would just try to save face by accusing me of trying to justify that I wasn't a racist.  Not at all. The reality was if you call me an unjustified name, especially if you're someone I don't even know, I'm not going to let that one roll.   He started it, with an ignorant comment.  Certainly bringing it up would have showed him up even more, but it wasn't worth it.  I had nothing to prove to someone like that.

But sadly that is not an isolated incident.  If you didn't vote for or support BO it was because you were a racist.  You heard that for eight years.  Even now.  Doesn't matter that you might like Condi Rice, or pull the level for Ben Carson, think Clarence Thomas is a good justice, vote for Tim Scott, agree with Candace Owens, Walter Williams or Larry Elder, if you didn't agree with BO you were just somehow labeled.  

If there is a white poster on here who doesn't like Larry Elder, or Ben Carson, do I consider him or her a racist?  No.   Just because a white Democrat doesn't like someone like Tim Scott doesn't mean they are a racist.  Now, if a Democrat calls a black conservative hateful names, like many do, you have to wonder.  But I don't automatically go there with that assumption. I give you the benefit of the doubt and figure it's just a political disagreement. 

That all being said, is there racism in this country?  Yes, there are definitely racists in this country.  And sadly there always will be. Racists will exist everywhere on this planet.  My old violin teacher who moved here from Poland ten years ago says it's a problem in Europe too.  Very judgmental people in Europe.  Why? Because we're dealing with human beings.  If your friends were truly saying racist and sexist things, that's a problem.  I wouldn't hang around with that type either. 

As for rightwing attempts at taking human rights issues to "ghastly" levels?  Well, there are those on the right  who would say the same about the other side of the aisle.  First off, that pesky little issue of abortion. There are those who would question how a party that purportedly stands for human rights would stand by and support that.  Especially when you consider what late term abortions look like.   And even more when you look at how many black babies are aborted. Pointing the finger at how unjust the "right" is when it comes to human and race-related rights doesn't give us the entire picture.  You point a finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you.  There will be those who question the consequences of votes on the left too.

Conservatives will also question candidates on the left who take money from countries that treat gays and women like second class citizens, yet finger point at all the "atrocities" of those on the right when it comes to human rights.  Now, is the right side of the aisle free from their own issues with this topic?  No.   And I have problems with it too.   But for the left to make it about the right without seeing their own foibles is pretty disingenuous. 

And interesting to see more and more black conservatives stepping up and calling out the Democrats on their policies that they see as hindering the upward movement of black citizens.  'Give us your vote and we'll take care of you.'  That's how they see it.  And they find it insulting.   Because being taken care of only means enabling in their views.   And enabling doesn't lead to autonomy and independence.  And their conditions don't get any better.  

I have a conservative black friend and this drives him crazy.  He was raised by religious, conservative parents who had their challenges growing up, and were raised by parents (his grandparents) who looked to government resources for help when they needed it, but it was in no way going to be a lifestyle.  They became successful, passed on that character to his parents, and this is why it really bothers my friend to see what happens when people are enabled and not empowered or encouraged.   Does he believe racism exists?  Of course he does.  And he knows he has probably had people judge him over the color of his skin.  But he chalks that up to ignorance and moves on.   I find him truly amazing.  I'm not sure I could have that kind of forgiveness, but that's just who he is.

So again, it's all about personal perspective.   The prism through which you see the world is not how everyone sees it.  And not everything you see that is kind and good about yourself, and your party, and your political representatives always lives up to that ideal you have of your party.  There would be others who disagree. 

Conservatives, Republicans, the "right" have their issues.  And I have a real problem with those issues and will not defend them when they occur.  But to pretend the other side is free from its own issues is again disingenuous. 

On a theater board I won't get any "likes" for this opinion. But it's what it was.  I call it the way I see it.  And both sides of the aisle have their issues.