You’re absolutely right about how deeply the fear of rejection is embedded in us—it’s instinctual, a relic of survival. But here’s the thing: in our modern world, that same fear doesn’t protect us the way it once did. Instead, it traps us. It makes us bend and shape ourselves to fit into spaces we may not even want to be in, just to avoid discomfort.
The truth is, we all need connection, but the path to genuine connection isn’t through constant adaptation or hiding in safety bubbles—it’s through authenticity. When you stop worrying so much about how others perceive you and start living for yourself, two things happen: you begin to feel freer and more at peace, and your openness creates a magnetism that draws others toward you.
Awkwardness, rejection, and failure? They’re inevitable, but they also don’t define you. Each time you stop rationalizing avoidance and choose to show up as your full self, you break that fear’s hold on you. You discover what really matters: living authentically, for you, not for validation or social survival.
That’s where real strength comes from—not from being universally accepted but from no longer needing to be. And ironically, the less you care about how others perceive you, the more meaningful connections you end up making.
It’s true that symbols and gestures can have historical origins that predate their modern meanings. However, intent and context always matter. The Nazi salute, whether or not it had roots in an earlier Roman gesture, is now overwhelmingly associated with fascism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism. When a public figure—especially a political leader—uses a gesture that resembles it, people have every reason to question why.
Dismissing those concerns as “a stretch” ignores the reality that optics matter in politics. If a leader doesn’t want to be associated with fascist imagery, they have a responsibility to be mindful of what they do. The burden isn’t on the public to assume good intentions—it’s on the leader to avoid any association with dangerous ideologies.
As for the claim that Democrats are “closer to democratic socialism” and thus closer to Nazis, that’s a misreading of political history. The Nazis were far-right ultranationalists who used state control to consolidate power, suppress opposition, and enforce racial supremacy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, is about expanding worker protections and social welfare within a democratic system—not authoritarian rule.
Finally, while I agree that finding common ground is valuable, pretending that ideological divides are just trivial differences overlooks the very real stakes involved. Not all disagreements are just about policy—they’re about fundamental values, including democracy itself. If one side is leaning into authoritarianism, that’s not a “both sides” issue. It’s a problem that needs to be called out.