Fox News Signs Caitlyn Jenner (1 Viewer)

[Juxtatarot]

I’m trying to figure out her politics. It seems like she is a party line Republican with the exception of some LGBT+ issues. Is that right?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Come on, man. You know better than this.

If Jenner was part of a panel of four trans commentators with different perspectives I don't think it would be a problem.  But Fox viewers are going to be exposed to exactly one trans person, and that person's views are well outside the mainstream of trans views on a lot of issues that involve trans people.  Rather than Jenner's presence as one that will lead to acceptance, I think it may give a misleading impression to Fox viewers that is at odds with what most in the trans community actually want.

Here's  a Vox article from last year that summarizes some of the reasons I don't think that putting Caitlyn Jenner on Fox News is going to necessarily be a positive for trans people.  I recognize it is Vox and I'm not putting it out there as a news article.  But  I think it provides some background for people that are mystified about how this could possibly be seen as a bad thing for the trans community.  Trans people are dreading Caitlyn Jenner's run for governor.  A few quotes:

Though her coming out was momentous, Jenner did not arrive with trans-savvy talking points. Early into her transition, Jenner said she didn’t mind when people called her by her deadname, which most trans people generally consider a painful faux pas. She also complained about not being able to hang out with her male friends at the country club like she used to. Her problems — and public statements — were a natural outgrowth from her wealthy, privileged background and relative newness to trans issues.

In 2016, the hot political culture war was over bathrooms — specifically trans people in bathrooms. North Carolina had just passed HB2, a.k.a. the bathroom bill, triggering an uproar of protests and causing billions of dollars in revenue to leave the state after widespread boycotts.

In the middle of it all, and in the midst of a heated presidential campaign, Jenner posted a short video to social media showing her emerging from a women’s bathroom in Trump Tower.

The inference she was trying to illustrate was clear: Donald Trump supports trans people because she could use the women’s room in his building. Left unsaid is that Trump was (and still is) required by New York City law to let trans people use the bathrooms on his property according to their gender identity. It’s the kind of law that, incidentally, Trump and Jenner’s fellow Republicans generally oppose.

Jenner’s political naivety became apparent on her 2015–2016 reality show I Am Cait, which followed her and a group of trans activists, intellectuals, and celebrities as they traveled the country meeting with groups of trans people. A frustrating political discussion broke out between Jenner and the other trans women on the show, with Jenner insisting Republicans didn’t care about attacking trans people even as conservative states moved on bathroom legislation.

“These girls think that now that I’ve transitioned that everything has to change,” she said in an on-camera interview. “[They say], ‘You can’t be conservative anymore. You have to be a liberal.’ No, I don’t believe that. I think I can keep all of my views the same ’cause I feel in my heart that’s the best way to go.”

Now, I don't follow Jenner's every move, and maybe she will turn out to be a forceful advocate for trans issues. But I feel like my skepticism is warranted based on what I know about Jenner and what I know about Fox. 

 

[BladeRunner]

One is better than zero, and is a necessary step to get to two, three and four.  For folks like me who want to see societal acceptance of trans people, exposure and familiarity to segments of society that are currently prone to be less accepting of them is key.  Additionally, highlighting that trans people have diversity of thought is a plus, even if you happen to disagree with a particular person’s flavor of politics. 

I hope you learned something today.  This is how they respond to progress.

So when we say things like, "all they want is obedience", we ain't wrong.  They only thing that counts is The MessageTM.

It's all about agendas - it was never about so-called "equality".

 

[The Z Machine]

I wonder if folks also think that gay guys have to walk around in assless chaps all the time or they're not really the right kind of gay.  Because that would be news to a lot of gay right-wingers.

Assless chaps don't discriminate. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

They only thing that counts is The MessageTM.

I think this raises an important distinction I think is worth making.

I'm not opposed to people hiring Caitlyn Jenner for stuff.  I want her to have equality.  I don't think she should be blackballed due to her political views.  I think it's wonderful to have trans people in a wide variety of positions providing different viewpoints and exposing more people to them.

But I believe that Fox is putting her on air as something of a spokesperson for trans people.  And I think she is a bad choice to be such a spokesperson due to her idiosyncratic views.  When hiring someone to be a spokesperson for a community, I do think the most important thing is "the message."  That was my original point but I think it may have gotten lost in the clutter.

 

[BladeRunner]

I think this raises an important distinction I think is worth making.

I'm not opposed to people hiring Caitlyn Jenner for stuff.  I want her to have equality.  I don't think she should be blackballed due to her political views.  I think it's wonderful to have trans people in a wide variety of positions providing different viewpoints and exposing more people to them.

But I believe that Fox is putting her on air as something of a spokesperson for trans people.  And I think she is a bad choice to be such a spokesperson due to her idiosyncratic views.  When hiring someone to be a spokesperson for a community, I do think the most important thing is "the message."  That was my original point but I think it may have gotten lost in the clutter.

Yeah, okay. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

But I believe that Fox is putting her on air as something of a spokesperson for trans people

It’s more about ratings and money.

 

[bigbottom]

If Jenner was part of a panel of four trans commentators with different perspectives I don't think it would be a problem.  But Fox viewers are going to be exposed to exactly one trans person, and that person's views are well outside the mainstream of trans views on a lot of issues that involve trans people.  Rather than Jenner's presence as one that will lead to acceptance, I think it may give a misleading impression to Fox viewers that is at odds with what most in the trans community actually want.

Here's  a Vox article from last year that summarizes some of the reasons I don't think that putting Caitlyn Jenner on Fox News is going to necessarily be a positive for trans people.  I recognize it is Vox and I'm not putting it out there as a news article.  But  I think it provides some background for people that are mystified about how this could possibly be seen as a bad thing for the trans community.  Trans people are dreading Caitlyn Jenner's run for governor.  A few quotes:

Now, I don't follow Jenner's every move, and maybe she will turn out to be a forceful advocate for trans issues. But I feel like my skepticism is warranted based on what I know about Jenner and what I know about Fox. 

I say this respectfully, and with full understanding that you have thought about and considered these issues exponentially more than I have, so I concede that I may be way way off base, but I would consider the three blurbs that you just quoted as the “small picture” while what I am talking about is the “big picture.” 

I’ll put it another way, although my choice of words have some connotations that are not intended in the way they might be taken. I think it is a good thing to “normalize” being trans so that trans individuals can feel like they are an accepted part of society and just like every other member of the community. That is the outcome that will most positively effect “anti-trans” sentiment and purported “anti-trans” legislative efforts. In my opinion, one of the best ways to do that is to expose folks who may tend to hold such views to trans individuals in a context that is not adversarial.  Individuals who once held similar sentiments about gay people weren’t brought around en masse by people who were the most persuasive at advancing the gay agenda. They were brought around by getting to know gay people (family members, friends, co-workers) who came out and were not positioned as their adversaries. This may happen here as well, but the numbers of trans verses gay people are vastly different and so the opportunities to build such bridges are more rare. That’s why I think the Caitlyn hiring is a great thing. She stands a much better chance of building a bridge to those folks than hiring a die hard trans agenda advocate.  And I’m hoping that Caitlyn doesn’t spend much time on trans issues in any event. I would like her to be a general political commentator on Fox News that happens to be trans. Again, to serve the longer term goal I’m speaking of. 

 

[bigbottom]

We're still waiting for you to accept people who disagree with you.  That should be your first step.

I love how you "tolerant" types really are the most insufferable and intolerant people around.

This isn’t helpful. 

 

[quick-hands]

This isn’t helpful. 

Maybe not, but it's not incorrect.

 

[bigbottom]

I hope you learned something today. 

LOL. @fatguyinalittlecoat is my friend IRL. I’ve learned lots of things from him. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I say this respectfully, and with full understanding that you have thought about and considered these issues exponentially more than I have, so I concede that I may be way way off base, but I would consider the three blurbs that you just quoted as the “small picture” while what I am talking about is the “big picture.” 

I’ll put it another way, although my choice of words have some connotations that are not intended in the way they might be taken. I think it is a good thing to “normalize” being trans so that trans individuals can feel like they are an accepted part of society and just like every other member of the community. That is the outcome that will most positively effect “anti-trans” sentiment and purported “anti-trans” legislative efforts. In my opinion, one of the best ways to do that is to expose folks who may tend to hold such views to trans individuals in a context that is not adversarial.  Individuals who once held similar sentiments about gay people weren’t brought around en masse by people who were the most persuasive at advancing the gay agenda. They were brought around by getting to know gay people (family members, friends, co-workers) who came out and were not positioned as their adversaries. This may happen here as well, but the numbers of trans verses gay people are vastly different and so the opportunities to build such bridges are more rare. That’s why I think the Caitlyn hiring is a great thing. She stands a much better chance of building a bridge to those folks than hiring a die hard trans agenda advocate.  And I’m hoping that Caitlyn doesn’t spend much time on trans issues in any event. I would like her to be a general political commentator on Fox News that happens to be trans. Again, to serve the longer term goal I’m speaking of. 

Thanks.  I don't think I have any special expertise that makes my opinion on this particular issue more valuable than anyone else's despite my personal experience with having a trans kid.  Your perspective is definitely one that I respect and will give serious consideration.

With that said, I'm WAY less optimistic than you are about the Jenner hire being about representation and building bridges.  My suspicion is that it will provide more cover for anti-trans attitudes than understanding.  I'm anticipating stuff like this:

• "Those trans people are so sensitive if I use the wrong pronouns or name, Caitlyn Jenner says she doesn't care, so clearly the people that disagree with her have overly thin skin."
  
• "This whole trans athletes in sports thing is bogus and famous trans athlete Caitlyn Jenner agrees with me so anybody that disagrees is just not thinking through the issues carefully enough."
  
• "Liberals are the real anti-trans party because they don't like Caitlyn Jenner."
  

Obviously I could be wrong but the whole thing seems very transparent to me.  I have no reason to believe that Jenner was hired because she would be a great general political commentator.  Does she have insightful things to say about politics?  Does she have any understanding of historical trends or complex issues that she can use to help make sense of complicated things for viewers?  I think news organizations should be better than just hiring random people to be "political commentators" because they're famous and were on a reality show.  

 

[quick-hands]

Thanks.  I don't think I have any special expertise that makes my opinion on this particular issue more valuable than anyone else's despite my personal experience with having a trans kid.  Your perspective is definitely one that I respect and will give serious consideration.

With that said, I'm WAY less optimistic than you are about the Jenner hire being about representation and building bridges.  My suspicion is that it will provide more cover for anti-trans attitudes than understanding.  I'm anticipating stuff like this:

• "Those trans people are so sensitive if I use the wrong pronouns or name, Caitlyn Jenner says she doesn't care, so clearly the people that disagree with her have overly thin skin."
  
• "This whole trans athletes in sports thing is bogus and famous trans athlete Caitlyn Jenner agrees with me so anybody that disagrees is just not thinking through the issues carefully enough."
  
• "Liberals are the real anti-trans party because they don't like Caitlyn Jenner."
  

Obviously I could be wrong but the whole thing seems very transparent to me.  I have no reason to believe that Jenner was hired because she would be a great general political commentator.  Does she have insightful things to say about politics?  Does she have any understanding of historical trends or complex issues that she can use to help make sense of complicated things for viewers?  I think news organizations should be better than just hiring random people to be "political commentators" because they're famous and were on a reality show.  

I get your worry.

I'm going with Caitlin fits with fox because she is a conservative.

She is a conservative  that happens  to be Trans.   Not a spokesperson for trans.

 

[BladeRunner]

LOL. @fatguyinalittlecoat is my friend IRL. I’ve learned lots of things from him. 

Just to be clear here, I'm not talking about things you learned about his situation or from learning about trans in general.

It's the dogmatic "everyone else is a bigot if they don't agree and/or believe me and/or needs to remain silent" attitude and position.  

You knew THAT is what I was talking about, right?

 

[Zow]

Yeah, okay. 

WTF. 

You can disagree with his point but you really don't see the rationale behind his point? Seems clear, obvious, and well-reasoned (again, even if you disagree with it). 

 

[Zow]

They're all acting the same way - this new wokeism is certainly an offshoot of the same behavior and mannerisms the Russians of the early 20th centrury went thru.  The only thing missing- at this point - is the outright murder for those that don't agree.  But we've certainly seen the violence amped up over the years against those who "oppose" the cult of wokeism.

What exactly are you referencing his? Violence? When?

 

[BladeRunner]

I say this respectfully, and with full understanding that you have thought about and considered these issues exponentially more than I have, so I concede that I may be way way off base, but I would consider the three blurbs that you just quoted as the “small picture” while what I am talking about is the “big picture.” 

I’ll put it another way, although my choice of words have some connotations that are not intended in the way they might be taken. I think it is a good thing to “normalize” being trans so that trans individuals can feel like they are an accepted part of society and just like every other member of the community. That is the outcome that will most positively effect “anti-trans” sentiment and purported “anti-trans” legislative efforts. In my opinion, one of the best ways to do that is to expose folks who may tend to hold such views to trans individuals in a context that is not adversarial.  Individuals who once held similar sentiments about gay people weren’t brought around en masse by people who were the most persuasive at advancing the gay agenda. They were brought around by getting to know gay people (family members, friends, co-workers) who came out and were not positioned as their adversaries. This may happen here as well, but the numbers of trans verses gay people are vastly different and so the opportunities to build such bridges are more rare. That’s why I think the Caitlyn hiring is a great thing. She stands a much better chance of building a bridge to those folks than hiring a die hard trans agenda advocate.  And I’m hoping that Caitlyn doesn’t spend much time on trans issues in any event. I would like her to be a general political commentator on Fox News that happens to be trans. Again, to serve the longer term goal I’m speaking of. 

Also to help flesh this out, "normalize" doesn't mean "give them everything they wan with no questions asked".  That's not how it works for anyone else in society and it certainly shouldn't work that way for them. 

There is this nasty and absurd habit of classifying everything as "suppression" and "bigotry" simply because people don't want men competing with women.  Or it could be some other demand by <insert-group-name-here> who is being told "No" or who is getting pushback on some of those demands.

I can tell you with 100% accuracy that - THAT - is not bigotry or suppression.  People like me are a-OK with Trans, Gay, whatever.  I believe that people should live their lives how they want without persecution as long as they don't interfere with other people's lives.  That's how I see it for EVERYONE.

So to keep perpetuating this absurd notion that we either cave in to every demand and approve every request as a society simply because <insert-group-name-here> asked for it is going to end the conversation before it even started.

For a good part of our history we asked THOSE groups to conform to the majority and they finally responded with a hearty ####-you.  Now the shoe is on the opposite foot - they are expecting everyone to conform to them.

Is there any middle ground?

 

[Zow]

One is better than zero, and is a necessary step to get to two, three and four.  For folks like me who want to see societal acceptance of trans people, exposure and familiarity to segments of society that are currently prone to be less accepting of them is key.  Additionally, highlighting that trans people have diversity of thought is a plus, even if you happen to disagree with a particular person’s flavor of politics. 

FWIW, and that may be nothing, I think both you and @fatguyinalittlecoat make equally good points here. 

 

[BladeRunner]

WTF. 

You can disagree with his point but you really don't see the rationale behind his point? Seems clear, obvious, and well-reasoned (again, even if you disagree with it). 

I disagree with it.  I thought that was pretty clear.  

I'm not saying I don't understand the rational behind it, but I think he's rationalizing it that way because that's what The Message says he has to do.

 

[djmich]

I wonder if folks also think that gay guys have to walk around in assless chaps all the time or they're not really the right kind of gay.  Because that would be news to a lot of gay right-wingers.

I’m 50 and still giggle when I hear or read  assless chaps.

This seems like a good thing to me for trans people.  Maybe not for the overall liberal agenda, hence the dissatisfaction.  Agree same as the Larry Elder example.

 

[JIslander]

Pretty sure its ok to have Trans folks we think are ########.  I hear and appreciate what @bigbottom is saying about Caitlyn, but my thoughts are more in-line with @fatguyinalittlecoat   -- I mean, it doesn't help its the Jenner/Kardashian family of attention whores.  

 

[Zow]

I disagree with it.  I thought that was pretty clear.  

I'm not saying I don't understand the rational behind it, but I think he's rationalizing it that way because that's what The Message says he has to do.

What is "The Message"? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

What is "The Message"? 

Seems BR thinks there is a unified message that the entire left subscribes to.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Some good back and forth today, especially between BB and Fatguy.  

I think at the end of the day we won't 100% know Fox's motivations, but because it's Fox I will admit my bias and cynical stance come into play more.    I guess I don't know much about Jenner's stances on things besides people linking a quote from her saying she is against trans females competing with biological females.    But as others have pointed out or asked - was she hired for her conservative views on everything, or was she hired because that is a good feather in Fox's cap of having somebody like that against those athletes competing.  

I do get BB's point about this being an overall win because we have a trans person on a major outlet like that, and that will give people exposure.   I know somebody says she doesn't care about pronouns, but does that mean she isn't offended if people use a wrong one, or she doesn't think that should be important in general.    

One random thought I had that was a positive is that I like that Jenner can take a joke.  I've seen her on one of those celebrity roasts (  ) and she was onstage taking some bombs.   IMO it's healthy to have some balance and have people not get over the top offended by things.    

That said, I can hear fatguy's voice in my head saying that could turn negative in a hurry if it becomes normal for people thinking it's OK to say that #### to anybody just because Jenner sat there and took it and evidently thought it was ok.  I get that, and all we can do is watch how this plays out and hope it's a positive end result for the community.  

 

[bigbottom]

Some good back and forth today, especially between BB and Fatguy.  

I think at the end of the day we won't 100% know Fox's motivations, but because it's Fox I will admit my bias and cynical stance come into play more.   

Thanks KP. But I do want to clarify that Fox News’ motivations are far less important to me than what I hope will be the positive effect of the hiring, which could be completely unrelated to the company’s motivation to make the hire. 

 

[bigbottom]

I do get BB's point about this being an overall win because we have a trans person on a major outlet like that, and that will give people exposure.   I know somebody says she doesn't care about pronouns, but does that mean she isn't offended if people use a wrong one, or she doesn't think that should be important in general. 

Also, you already have the CEO of Fox News Media issuing a press release about the hiring using she/her pronouns for Caitlyn, and I expect all the talking heads on Fox News to do the same, which is likely to make doing so a more accepted practice for those inclined to be resistant. 

 

[Rockchild]

A trans person was just hired for an on camera position by freaking FoxNews. For folks who support societal acceptance of trans individuals, it’s hard not to see this as a total win. You may not believe she’s the ideal spokesperson for trans issues, but I think we need to be focusing on the bigger picture. 

I agree and it might help young conservatives who feel they are transgendered (did I phrase that right?) that it is okay and they are okay. I disagree with her politics and think she is bat-crazy but it took courage for her to transition especially later in life. If this helps someone else, I am all for it politics be darned.

 

[Van Dyman]

Nothing in actuality. We're all political commentators in this forum. For someone to reach the top of the profession, however, the aspirant should have extensive experience in the field or some years of study and commentary subject to review and criticism.

I'm not sure what kind of credentials Caitlyn Jenner has revealed to us. 

If guys like Don Lemon and Brian Stetler and Rachel Maddow have jobs in the industry, I'm guessing you really don't need that much.

  So "you really don't need that much" to be a political commentator...just be a Rhodes scholar with a Stanford degree in public policy and a doctorate from Oxford? Ok.

 

[BladeRunner]

  So "you really don't need that much" to be a political commentator...just be a Rhodes scholar with a Stanford degree in public policy and a doctorate from Oxford? Ok.

Yeah, right?  It didn't do her a lick of good when all she does is carry the water for the far-left. 

Remember when this Stanford Graduate and Rhodes Scholar was able to get hold of Trump's taxes and was going to "WE GOT'EEM NOW" type episode?  Only to have it blow up in her face on live TV?  Or this Rhodes Scholar and Stanford graduate who pushed the RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24/7 for four years on her show only for it to turn out it never happened?  

Yeah, me too. Great times. 

I'm sure Pravda is taking notes from her show. 

 

[Van Dyman]

Yeah, right?  It didn't do her a lick of good when all she does is carry the water for the far-left. 

Remember when this Stanford Graduate and Rhodes Scholar was able to get hold of Trump's taxes and was going to "WE GOT'EEM NOW" type episode?  Only to have it blow up in her face on live TV?  Or this Rhodes Scholar and Stanford graduate who pushed the RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24/7 for four years on her show only for it to turn out it never happened?  

Yeah, me too. Great times. 

I'm sure Pravda is taking notes from her show. 

Nice try on the deflection. You gaffed. It happens. Just own it, GB.

 

[BladeRunner]

Nice try on the deflection. You gaffed. It happens. Just own it, GB.

Sorry, pal.  In the end, Maddow's resume and "smarts" couldn't even save her from herself. 

Which begs the question "Is she really smart at all?"

You need to stop defending the ones that are purposefully dividing us and sowing discord.

 

[Van Dyman]

Sorry, pal.  In the end, Maddow's resume and "smarts" couldn't even save her from herself. 

Which begs the question "Is she really smart at all?"

You need to stop defending the ones that are purposefully dividing us and sowing discord.

I didn't defend anyone. I was pointing out that the example you provided contradicted the point you tried to make. I would love to say I don't know why you keep trying to repaint this as something it isn't but, unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I do know why that is. I'm not going to get into the weeds so, instead, let's just say I'm familiar with your work.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You need to stop defending the ones that are purposefully dividing us and sowing discord.

This is solid shtick.

 

[squistion]

Yeah, right?  It didn't do her a lick of good when all she does is carry the water for the far-left. 

Remember when this Stanford Graduate and Rhodes Scholar was able to get hold of Trump's taxes and was going to "WE GOT'EEM NOW" type episode?  Only to have it blow up in her face on live TV?  Or this Rhodes Scholar and Stanford graduate who pushed the RUSSIAN COLLUSION 24/7 for four years on her show only for it to turn out it never happened?  

Yeah, me too. Great times. 

I'm sure Pravda is taking notes from her show. 

Yeah, but you are misremembering. Check the MSNBC thread or the one about Rachel Maddow (if it still exists) to refresh your memory. I don't want to debunk this false talking point again for probably the 100th time. 

 

[BladeRunner]

I didn't defend anyone. I was pointing out that the example you provided contradicted the point you tried to make. I would love to say I don't know why you keep trying to repaint this as something it isn't but, unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I do know why that is. I'm not going to get into the weeds so, instead, let's just say I'm familiar with your work.

Yeah, okay.  You go with that if it makes you feel better.  It's all good. 

 

[BladeRunner]

This is solid shtick.

Hey, we all got one.  

The good news is you got the virtue "like" you were looking for, so there's that.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Hey, we all got one.  

The good news is you got the virtue "like" you were looking for, so there's that.

Oh ffs- I gave you a like on this post so you don't feel so left out.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Though her coming out was momentous, Jenner did not arrive with trans-savvy talking points. Early into her transition, Jenner said she didn’t mind when people called her by her deadname, which most trans people generally consider a painful faux pas.

I think not minding things is great, and she can be a positive role model for others in that regard.

Being gracious about honest mistakes should come naturally, I would hope. If people use the wrong name or pronoun on purpose, they are being jerks. But even then, not minding seems like a worthwhile superpower to cultivate.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think not minding things is great, and she can be a positive role model for others in that regard.

Being gracious about honest mistakes should come naturally, I would hope. If people use the wrong name or pronoun on purpose, they are being jerks. But even then, not minding seems like a worthwhile superpower to cultivate.

It’s not exactly the same but would you react the same way if Fox hired a black commentator who said “I don’t mind if people call me the N word?” That person would be a role model for all those people that get offended by being called the N Word?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It’s not exactly the same but would you react the same way if Fox hired a black commentator who said “I don’t mind if people call me the N word?”

I'd want some more context, but I think so. (The context I'd want would be to help me distinguish between "I don't mind being called the n-word because ugly name-calling is an acceptable form of rhetoric" and "When others call me the n-word, I know that they intend to hurt me, but I won't give them that satisfaction. Call me what you will: your ugly name-calling reflects only on you. It does not affect me.")

 

[BladeRunner]

It’s not exactly the same but would you react the same way if Fox hired a black commentator who said “I don’t mind if people call me the N word?” That person would be a role model for all those people that get offended by being called the N Word?

Are you trying to sabotage any type of progress?  Is that your goal?

Imagine that - a progressive who refuses to see progress?   Who would have thought that?  I guess Bill Maher was right - progressives ARE the only ones who can never see progress.

Don't let hate cloud your vision just because it's "the other side".