4 ms·

I'm a libertarian (small "l"). I'm liberal on most social issues but conservative on fiscal issues, so I tend to vote Republican. Do you know how many times med

by nhebb 14y ago

I'm a libertarian (small "l"). I'm liberal on most social issues but conservative on fiscal issues, so I tend to vote Republican. Do you know how many times media figures have implied that I'm a racist by proxy because of that? Calling someone a racist used to be a serious charge, but it's so over- and mis-used in this campaign season that I can't take it seriously anymore. Most of the time I just shrug it off, but when the Yahoo guy joked that Republicans delight in black people drowning, I was pissed. Really pissed. I'm really getting sick of being called a racist because I prefer a smaller, less intrusive government. If the Yahoo guy has such a binary vision of the U.S., he should seek out work in opinion journalism. And of course, Yahoo was right to fire him. He offended roughly half of Yahoo's potential customer base, and no sane organization wants that kind of PR nightmare.

corin_ 14y ago
The problem is that there's so few options to chose from that chances are whoever you vote for won't share lots of your opinions, and their party possibly even less. In most of life you can avoid having people as friends, or working for companies, and so on, based on these issues. You probably wouldn't find yourself defending a friend as "yes he's racist and homophobic, but he's also <good points here", whereas when picking a political party you end up with bad points. I get that not all Republicans are racist, but with your party having given voices to so many far-right wackos, it's hard not to tar you all with the same brush sometimes.
- nhebb 14y ago
  No, it's not hard at all. If you follow this simple mantra - I like people who are nice, and I don't like people who aren't. ... then it cuts through the political, racial, religious, sexual orientation, and other divisive issues that tend to fog people's vision of humanity.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    How do you define "nice"? Personally things not being racist fall into that, things like race do not. So... no, following that mantra doesn't change anything from what I said.
- anamax 14y ago
  > I get that not all Republicans are racist, but with your party having given voices to so many far-right wackos, it's hard not to tar you all with the same brush sometimes. Yeah, like Westburo Baptist Church, David Duke, and the Truthers. Oops, they're all Democrats. As are the New Black Panthers, who actually physically threatened folks at voting places during the 2008 elections. As are the "black bloc" folks. I'm not saying that there aren't far-right wackos, but there are just as many, if not more, wackos that are Democrats. And, Dem-affiliates are committing the majority of the political violence these days. Remember WTO in Seattle? Isaac kept this down during the Repub convention but the Dem convention won't be as lucky. Care to explain why Dems don't get tarred with that brush?
  - corin_ 14y ago
    My first answer is that it's because Democrats don't campaign on these things, stuff like homophobia. The wider answer is simply that people don't hear about these things as much. Maybe some Democrats do campaign with far-right policies, but... I'm not aware of them. Wesburo Baptist Church for example, I've never heard anything about their members being democrats, though I would query that claim given they aren't a political group, so even if some of them are, likely not all of them... not to mention Wikipedia tells me their general opinion is that Obama is going to hell for being "the antichrist". End of the day I've heard plenty of data points for Republican wackos, and few for Democrat ones, so that's where my opinion comes from. Maybe it's because I'm English that I haven't heard a different story, but plenty of Americans I know have the same opinion.
    - anamax 14y ago
      > My first answer is that it's because Democrats don't campaign on these things, stuff like homophobia. Oh really? A cite would be nice. The official Republican position on gay marriage is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's. Obama had that position until about six months ago. Are they anti-homosexual? > not to mention Wikipedia tells me their general opinion is that Obama is going to hell for being "the antichrist". The occupy folks have a similar opinion of Obama these days and no one suggests that they're not good democrats/leftists. Yes, there are some intermural arguments, but when it comes down to it, they're democrats, as are the Larouche folks and a bunch of other wackos. > The wider answer is simply that people don't hear about these things as much. ... End of the day I've heard plenty of data points for Republican wackos, and few for Democrat ones, so that's where my opinion comes from. That's a very different argument. (Data point - would you say that The Guardian reports everything of interest? Or, do they have a position that they argue?) While your opinion may be understandable, it isn't actually based on reality.

by nhebb 14y ago

corin_ 14y ago

The problem is that there's so few options to chose from that chances are whoever you vote for won't share lots of your opinions, and their party possibly even less. In most of life you can avoid having people as friends, or working for companies, and so on, based on these issues. You probably wouldn't find yourself defending a friend as "yes he's racist and homophobic, but he's also <good points here", whereas when picking a political party you end up with bad points. I get that not all Republicans are racist, but with your party having given voices to so many far-right wackos, it's hard not to tar you all with the same brush sometimes.

nhebb 14y ago
No, it's not hard at all. If you follow this simple mantra - I like people who are nice, and I don't like people who aren't. ... then it cuts through the political, racial, religious, sexual orientation, and other divisive issues that tend to fog people's vision of humanity.
- corin_ 14y ago
  How do you define "nice"? Personally things not being racist fall into that, things like race do not. So... no, following that mantra doesn't change anything from what I said.
anamax 14y ago
> I get that not all Republicans are racist, but with your party having given voices to so many far-right wackos, it's hard not to tar you all with the same brush sometimes. Yeah, like Westburo Baptist Church, David Duke, and the Truthers. Oops, they're all Democrats. As are the New Black Panthers, who actually physically threatened folks at voting places during the 2008 elections. As are the "black bloc" folks. I'm not saying that there aren't far-right wackos, but there are just as many, if not more, wackos that are Democrats. And, Dem-affiliates are committing the majority of the political violence these days. Remember WTO in Seattle? Isaac kept this down during the Repub convention but the Dem convention won't be as lucky. Care to explain why Dems don't get tarred with that brush?
- corin_ 14y ago
  My first answer is that it's because Democrats don't campaign on these things, stuff like homophobia. The wider answer is simply that people don't hear about these things as much. Maybe some Democrats do campaign with far-right policies, but... I'm not aware of them. Wesburo Baptist Church for example, I've never heard anything about their members being democrats, though I would query that claim given they aren't a political group, so even if some of them are, likely not all of them... not to mention Wikipedia tells me their general opinion is that Obama is going to hell for being "the antichrist". End of the day I've heard plenty of data points for Republican wackos, and few for Democrat ones, so that's where my opinion comes from. Maybe it's because I'm English that I haven't heard a different story, but plenty of Americans I know have the same opinion.
  - anamax 14y ago
    > My first answer is that it's because Democrats don't campaign on these things, stuff like homophobia. Oh really? A cite would be nice. The official Republican position on gay marriage is exactly the same as Bill Clinton's. Obama had that position until about six months ago. Are they anti-homosexual? > not to mention Wikipedia tells me their general opinion is that Obama is going to hell for being "the antichrist". The occupy folks have a similar opinion of Obama these days and no one suggests that they're not good democrats/leftists. Yes, there are some intermural arguments, but when it comes down to it, they're democrats, as are the Larouche folks and a bunch of other wackos. > The wider answer is simply that people don't hear about these things as much. ... End of the day I've heard plenty of data points for Republican wackos, and few for Democrat ones, so that's where my opinion comes from. That's a very different argument. (Data point - would you say that The Guardian reports everything of interest? Or, do they have a position that they argue?) While your opinion may be understandable, it isn't actually based on reality.