I asked her to take the Political Compass Test and below are her results:

Compare to my results:

I was shocked! As you can see we are near-perfect mirror images of each other, though she is a little farther left than I am right, and I'm a little more Libertarian than she is.

According to the following chart, this clearly means she is in the Antifa, Anarcho-Communist, SJW camp:

Of course there were signs... The multicolored hair should have been the first tipoff, but I liked it, and we just clicked on every other level so well, and our relationship was just so perfect, that I guess I was simply too in-love to notice.

Then it became unavoidable...

We Nearly Broke Up Over Trump Getting Elected!

And I didn't even vote for Trump! I voted for Gary Johnson, (the third-party Libertarian candidate) while she voted for Hillary Clinton. But something about my reaction to the results of the election didn't sit right with her. Every critique I made of Hillary was interpreted as support for Trump.

Even though I absolutely detested Trump from the very beginning!

It took time and considerable effort, but I was eventually able to explain to her that I was not a white-supremacist, sexist, Alt-Right, immigrant hating, Nationalist Trump supporter in disguise.

Once she saw that I really was just a card-carrying Libertarian through and through, she tentatively acquiesced.

But then...

She Supported Canada's Compelled Pronoun Law!

I couldn't believe it. When the news came out about Jordan Peterson's refusal to use compelled pronouns in Canada, we were on complete opposite poles of the debate.

I explained that I thought it was wrong for the State to tell people what words they have to use, and I was ecstatic that Jordan Peterson was standing up for these basic freedoms. I mean, wouldn't it be wrong for white-supremacists to pass a law forcing people to call all white people, "Master," or something?

I believed that no one should be forced by law to use certain words, regardless of who is forcing whom.

But her position was that Jordan Peterson was a privileged white-male in a position of power, and he was in no position to cry crocodile tears about "his rights". Transgendered people are literally killed and harassed on a daily basis just for being who they are, and she was in support of insuring these people's dignity and right to exist be protected by the State.

She believed that no person has the right to disrespect vulnerable people's identities in that way.

We decided to drop the topic, realizing that we were not going to come to any sort of agreement.

But then...

She Supported Evergreen College's White People Ban!

When I learned about Bret Weinstein's refusal to leave campus when Evergreen State College held an event requesting all white people to remain absent for a day, and about the violent and aggressive reaction from the students that resulted, I thought this was a straightforward and clear issue. I was convinced we would be on the same side, but boy was I wrong!

She was furious with me for taking his side!

I explained that for me it is always wrong for a group of people to be singled out by their skin color and told to stay off campus, especially when there are threats of violence attached. I was genuinely shocked that she didn't agree.

If brown skinned people told black skinned people not to show up to campus for a day, and then chased them with bats if they refused, this would be obviously wrong, and I would be equally appalled and in support of those black people who stood up against the racist request.

She explained that the historical oppression inflicted by white people onto black people must be taken into account, and Bret Weinstein, another privileged white-male in a position of power, was in the wrong for refusing to comply for just one day.

She found it appalling that he was crying crocodile tears about "his rights" when these people had experienced unimaginable oppression for centuries, and systemic racism even to this day. She felt it would do some good for privileged white people to feel what they feel for once in their lives.

An Unreconcilable Difference?

In both cases, she was saying that there is no way that these wealthy white guys were genuinely experiencing an iota of what minorities and vulnerable groups have gone through historically and continue to face every day.

Yes, the law and the "Day of No White People" were technically wrong and had scary implications, she conceeded. But the respective Professors were not credible "outcry witnesses" in her eyes. With so many other serious civil rights violations going on around the world, it seemed like these guys were making a mountain out of a molehill, and making themselves look bad while doing so.

And in both cases, I was saying that these demands were wrong, and should not be tolerated regardless of privilege or victim-status, or even history. Right and wrong do not turn on the axis of social status!

It seemed that we would never see eye-to-eye on any of these issues.

But The Other Night We Made A Major Breakthrough!

After taking the test, it became clear: we are political mirror images of each other. We were both concerned about our inability to find any common ground in politics, and were trying to dig down to the root of the problem, fearing it might lead to later ramifications in our relationship.

I had long since decided that the fundamental disagreement was one of Logos vs Pathos, after a discussion we had once had about the limitations of logic.

I was a arguing from Logical Consistency, and perhaps even Ethos(Ethical Consistency). Her position was that historically, Logic and Reason have been used (albeit a warped and corrupt version) to impose unfair laws (some with horrific consequences, such as Eugenics programs that allowed for forced sterilizations of Native Americans) and take advantage of or outright oppress minority and vulnerable populations. While Logic has an important place in any argument, lack of emotion and lived experience, along with sociological, historical, and cultural realities means the argument can veer towards being cold, emotionless, and heartless.

We were looking at one another from across a structural divide, it seemed.

But it was she who articulated this fundamental divide much more clearly:

She said we were coming from two different "Operating Systems."

She said that in my "Operating System" the judgement is made purely according to right vs wrong. If we agree it's wrong to single out one race and tell them not to show up or else, then it is wrong to single out any race and tell them not to show up or else.

And she said that in her "Operating System" the judgement is made purely according to the underdog vs the overdog. If there is conflict between those who are in a position of power and those who are marginalized or historically oppressed, then those who are not in the position of power deserve and need to be supported. Especially those who are routinely or historically harassed, assaulted, and systemically oppressed.

And thus we were able to discover why we could never seem to agree.

Miraculously We Were Able Find Some Common Ground

While I was saying, "The underdogs are wrong here! The privileged white-male in a position of power is right!"

She was saying, "You are supporting the oppressive, status-quo upholding, privileged white-males in positions of power! And why aren't you supporting the historically oppressed and victimized underdogs?"

It Really Is A Matter Of Different Operating Systems

I feel that being in support of obviously wrong actions can never lead to a good result. But on the other hand, she feels just as passionately that being in support of the historically oppressive "overdogs" will never lead to a good result.

If nothing else, it's a starting point. And I think the key realization is that we are both ultimately looking for a way to arrive at the good result. What we disagree about is how to get there.

The "operating system" we have chosen to use is a strategic choice designed to ultimately lead to that good result.

Hurrah! We Found A Point Of Agreement!

It is dirty and hard work, but I think having such difficult conversations is incredibly important. It is so easy to focus on the differences, but I am proud to say that we were able to find a place of agreement.

We have come to agreement about what both of us are doing, and how we are interpreting situations that lead us to our vastly different conclusions.

I think what we learned is that we do not have to be antagonistic towards each other. We don't have to cut people out of our lives and discard people with opposing views as lost causes. We can work together.

In this heated political climate, I think there is a tendency to demonize those who have a different political perspective. I think it is important to try to remember that we are all just people doing our best. Unless we are able to remind ourselves of this, I don't see how we will ever be able to see past our differences and achieve what we are all really after: the best possible future for humanity.

• KG

(Title Picture by Anete-Lusina for Unsplash)

P.S. If you've got similar story, be it with a significant other or family member or close friend, please share in the comments below!

P.P.S. Don't forget to up vote and follow me! I'm working hard to write clearer and more consequential posts once a week. Upvotes let me know I'm on the right track.

P.P.P.S. Thanks for reading. I truly appreciate it.