"Middle Ground/Golden Means"

I believe I have just been majorly slapped in the face with the "middle ground" fallacy.

Youtube is launching a series of videos called Creators for Change. I went to see what all the hubbub was about when I found two certain videos that got my blood boiling. These two videos discussed whether or not Palestinians and Israelis, as well Trump supporters and immigrants, could compromise.

This greatly offends me as an autistic asexual panromantic because I have fought tooth and nail against a religious monopoly on who gets to sleep with who and who gets to raise children. It has to be clear by now that the Trump supporters, supporters of a fully blown Nazi, and Israelis, Zionist apartheid supporters, both want to completely obliterate the other two if not each other. I have been betrayed by many homosexuals who have bought into the idea of nationalism, I should also add.

It sounds to me like the only way to achieve a compromise is by accepting that I am a lesser human being who doesn't deserve the same quality of life as everyone else unless I conform.

This sounds like a Hasty Generalization. Trump supporters are not cut from the same cloth; some have different viewpoints. The same is true for immigrants, Israelis, and Palestinians. (One area where this is less true is that Palestinians have in their charter the goal of the destruction of Israel. There are still Palestinians who disagree with this notion, but it is a part of their identification.)

You are not a lesser human being. You are a different human being. For what it's worth, my son has Asperger's Syndrome. He also has many traits that I wish I had and I wish others had. Compromise involves asking your counterpart to relax some of his beliefs, and in exchange, you will relax some of yours.

People's opinions only affect you if they are codified into law. Believing one way, yet allowing others to act in a different way, is a cornerstone of the American ideal. I wish more leaders would see it that way.

See Dr. Bo's List of Fallacies:

Identity Fallacy
(also known as: identity politics)

Description: When one's argument is evaluated based on their physical or social identity, i.e., their social class, generation, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation, profession, occupation or subgroup when the strength of the argument is independent of identity.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes argument X.
Person 2 dismisses argument X because of the physical or social identity of person 1.
Example #1:

S.J. Sam: Asian people in this country are systematically passed over in the tech field for non-Asians.
Cindy: Actually, according to most research, employers are biased in favor of Asian technical workers.
S.J. Sam: Unless you are Asian, keep your mouth shut. You can't possibly know the struggles of the Asian community!
Explanation: S.J. Sam is making an empirical claim about a hiring preference for non-Asians. Cindy has refuted the claim that is independent of her physical or social identity (i.e., her ability to refute the argument is not dependent upon her being Asian). S.J. Sam rejects her rebuttal because she is not Asian. In addition, he pulls a red herring by changing the argument to "knowing the struggles" of the Asian community.