Better Conservatives? Where?! (A response to Coffeecat)

The BBQ Pit
441

Hamlet:

I said that capitalism encourages one to take Nazi gold, which is a way of saying that capitalism encourages one to deal with mass murderers. I say this specifically to offset the Statement I made that about it also encouraging one to take money from all creeds and races.

From this you conclude that I am ‘idealizing’ capitalism and painting it as a ‘savior.’

I literally self-godwinized my own argument.

I cannot even begin to see how you consider this as idealizing it.
Similarly you seem to misconstrue my comments on the restrictive commerce aspects of the Jim Crow laws, and beleive that I am stating that this was the primary intended purpose of the Jim Crow laws in general.

This is my fault, and I will accept the blame for it. I was not perfectly clear and I can see where you could think that was what I meant. Since I don’t actually think and didn’t mean to suggest that all Jim Crows existed to stop people from selling things to blacks, And instead believe you are misunderstanding me (again, my fault) I am not providing to back up something that is not true, that I don’t believe.

442

What do you mean, “ridiculousness”? Landmark federal cases have been made out of issues as trivial as where somebody gets to sit on a bus, for heaven’s sake. Or how old somebody has to be in order to buy beer.

A lot of profoundly important constitutional judgements have sprung from what seemed at the time to many people like ridiculously trivial acts of discrimination.

443

You made my day. Thanks!

444

Well, I should kind of hope so, since this was in fact what you said:

I accept that you’re not defending this position and maybe didn’t think carefully enough about it while making your argument (and maybe weren’t fully aware at the time of some of the specific history of Jim Crow that I quoted in that big honking article excerpt), but what you wrote there definitely does come across as supporting Hamlet’s interpretation.

(And note, by the way, that one of the recurring features in that history of Jim Crow is that it was the business interests and industrialists who were largely behind the Jim Crow laws, since splitting up the working class interracial “fusion” political alliances benefited them by decreasing populist initiatives to collect and spend tax revenues to help ordinary working Americans.)

445

Yes. I agree.

One of the fundamental civil rights cases in history is fought over who gets to sit in what seat on the bus. Perhaps Rosa Parks could have saved us all a lot of bother If she had called ‘shotgun.’ Fighting over seats on the bus is how we decided to settle civil rights?

Similarly, gay rights is being battled over cake?

Are we all still in the 2nd grade?

Without deprecating the underlying important issues, is it unfair to point out the silliness of how we are debating them, the battlegrounds that get chosen?
What’s next? Is the defining landmark case over gender issues going to get litigated in the Supreme Court because somebody forgot to put the seat back down?

446

Kimstu:

I don’t think that I was wrong, but I certainly accept that I did a poor job explaining what I meant, and because of this the misunderstanding is my fault.

Part of my excuse for that poor explanation is that I only took a sentence or two to define my argument because it was a small point, and I didn’t feel it merited a lengthy digression.

That the anti commerce portion of the Jim Crow laws targeted merchants who were happy to take the money of blacks, is a pretty uncontroversial statement.

May I go to sleep with my conscience clear, or do I need to have prescient nightmares about having to beat this dead horse in the morning?

447

Surely “Capitalism…is only as good as the people who are using it and the society it is used in.” is the very point Scylla’s making?

The only part I really disagree with is his belief that the system will auto correct, suggesting the invisible hand will take care of things such as bigotry and prejudice. Unfortunately I see no evidence to suggest that is the case.

448

I don’t know that it’s necessarily “unfair”, but it seems pointless and potentially counterproductive. If a particular type of discrimination is possibly unconstitutional, and somebody wants to push back against it via the courts, then whether or not the subject of dispute is perceived as “silly” is beside the point. I think it would be a bit, well, un-American to declare that rights infringements shouldn’t be challenged unless their circumstances meet a minimum dignity requirement.

Dunno about the seat, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a landmark case on transgender rights, say, was eventually litigated on the subject of who gets to use which toilet. You can consider that childish or silly if you want to, but I will not join you in being miffed about it.

Sorry, I cannot arbitrate for either your conscience or your potential sleep disorders, but I can reassuringly remind you that you don’t ever have to post on the Dope if you don’t want to.

449

You think it’s silly, I think it should hurt your fucking soul.

Here’s a person preparing for a wonderful, life changing event, a celebration and acknowledgement of their love for someone. An event, mind you, that was completely barred from them not so many years ago*. This person then gets told that their event is too odious for a shopkeeper to provide products to.

That doesn’t bother you?

These sorts of incidents, the everyday, minor transgressions, reinforce the idea that someone is lesser than everyone else, inherently, deeply, unequal.

Does your argument defending the baker come from hatred or bigotry? It doesn’t seem so, but boy, it sure does protect the religious shopkeeper a lot more than the gay customer. It tends to be a theme in conservative circles. Defend the religious bigot, let others fend for themselves.

*By the way, don’t think that your conservative friends aren’t waiting for an opportunity to overturn Obergefell. They are, and defending this cake “silliness” emboldens them. It reminds them that religion is more important than equality, and that you’ll be behind them when they take away the right to marry. You may not intend it to, but it does. You’re not going to be the one passing the law, and stacking the court, you’ll be voting for the person who does.

450

Cheese, Kimstu:
I’m here to argue big ideas. I go along on nitpicks and digressions because I don’t wish to be one who avoids getting down to brass tacks.

However, we seem to have left the realm of big ideas, and you now seem to focus on details of my yearbook (making a throwaway one line attempt to coin a term fro modern evident which will doubtless result in another lengthy digression)

So, I find the choice of battleground mildly humorous. Perhaps this means that I am insensitive, privileged person who has proven his inability to truly appreciate the struggle, and who demeans those who are discriminated against, this revealing his true colors as gay hating racist who is part of the problem and in need of re-education by finer minds. Or wherever you are going with this.

Or, I could just plead guilty and admi that I failed to recognize the deep gravitas of cake eating, bus riding, and who left up the toilet seat, while climbing up on my cross.

Got some nails.

The part that really interests me though, and the part to which I feel I never really got a serious answer is to my original question:

If you believe that there are reasonable and intelligent conservatives out there, who are fully aware of the odious failings of Trumpism, who still feel obligated to side with the Republicans and oppose the left, why, in order that they would agree with, do you think they are doing so?

What I am asking is really very simple. Can you faithfully articulate the oppositions viewpoint?

I ask this because I see how Republicans are characterized as morally bankrupt racists, whose stupidity is only exceeded by their greed, intellectual dishonesty, and willingness to destroy the environment, and hatred of women, blah blah blah, and I wonder if that’s rhetoric or literal gospel belief. I bring up the metaphor of the guy who can’t get dates who blames the women to open up the possibility some posdibility’s For thought.

We are at a time right now where the President of the Republican Party is so horrible, it’s really not up for debate. Given that this is so readily apparent, why do half the people in the country still find it preferable to what the left is offering?

Are they all bad and stupid or do they see something even worse on the left (hint, it’s the latter)

What is it?

451

Gary:

I pointed out the need for regulation and mentioned it in the context of capitalism not necessarily always finding the best solution.

452

Thank you for acknowledging the miscommunication and taking the blame. And thanks to Kimstu for helping getting us to that point.

If it is a minor point of yours, I will minorly point out that the Jim Crow laws were targeted at blacks, not the merchants who served blacks. Sure the merchants were effected, but they were never the intended target of the laws. The laws were made to keep blacks economically, politically, and socially powerless.

Which brings me to the large point I made in response to your postings. You seemed, and again if I misinterpret let me know, to be positing that unseen hand of capitalism would lead to the financial end of bigoted businesses. It seemed to be a part of your larger point that government should have had nothing to do with fixing the problems of racial (or currently sexual orientation) discrimination (unless it fits into your “public trust” exception). Have I got it right?

Because my response then, and now, is to point out that there is no evidence to support your ideas that capitalism would have eventually (or will now) put an end to racial or sexual discrimination, and, in fact, the opposite is true. The majority of evidence was that change only occurred when the government stepped in, not when business started to get hurt by the laws. I then asked, and will ask again, this question: How long should the victim of discrimination have to wait for capitalism to bring about fairness and equality? Blacks in the South waited (and are still waiting) for almost 100 years after the Civil War and before Brown v. Board and the Civil Right Act of 1964. Should they have stuck it out a bit longer and waited for commerce to solve the problem?

And this discussion, is part of an even larger one you seem to be making about the role of government. You seem to be positing that the government should not have, and should not currently, involve itself in the creation and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws (again your public trust exception). And I pointed out, and will continue to, that the only thing that actually changed discrimination was governmental action. Sure, victims of discrimination could wait until society makes the glacial shift in beliefs about their worth and value. But, again and again, the evidence shows that it is only when the government intervenes to enforce anti-discrimination laws that actual change has come to protect US citizens from bigotry.

And, to tie a nice little bow on the entire discussion, I engaged you earlier (largely ignored by you) about the importance of deciding ones priorities in the political realm. To me, it is much more important to me that the government work for the betterment of ALL its citizens, including issues of social justice like anti-discrimination laws, than it is that the rich get a tax break. Just as it seems more important to you that government be limited in those aspects than it is that victims of discrimination have a remedy that actually works rather than waiting for the economy to magically fix it.

Full circle!

I know it’s a ton of text and some pretty deep thoughts, but I think this is an issue that is worth discussing on the multiple levels of we’ve engaged in. I understand if you want to stick to sound bites and being affronted, but I hope you understand better what I’m getting at. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll rethink your priorities in deciding who or which party, to support.

453

Nope. You’re just an asshole not worth bothering with. I can’t answer for them, but I don’t give a shit if an asshole thinks they’ve “won” an argument. I’ve won by not being an asshole.

454

NM

455

Ignorance and intolerance.

What they perceive as being bad - saving the environment, enacting laws so that they have clean water to drink, protecting the food we eat, laws that promote fair labor standards, promoting a more inclusive society in spite of visible differences - aren’t in reality bad. They are perceived as threats by an ethnic majority that has a certain archetypal view of what America should look like. If the support for Trump and today’s GOP included support among Latinos, African Americans, and other minorities, you might have a point, but support for Trumpism and the GOP is overwhelmingly white.

456

How many of the boards Republicans support Trump et al? And that is who reads what you write concerning … them.
At the end of the day, conservative judges benefit the conservatives of the board, but if you polled the ones here I can guarantee they would all agree that if Kavanaugh was found guilty of attempted rape, they would all want a new justice nominated

457

Man, that is probably a very good question. To be honest I don’t think it would take a whole lot if there was some centrally vocal third party.
For me to make the move to the Democrats, they would have to stop trying to ban guns, they would need to want a smaller less involved government, no more tax and spend. Less involvement in my daily life would be great.

Ultimately I don’t have a firm position on Roe (I can see both viewpoints).
I think the Gay and Lesbian community should be able to do what they wish.
I think minorities deserve to be equal in regards to opportunities (but not made to be equal in regards to outcomes)
I think global warming is the real deal, however how to go about combatting it is a big ole mess.

Does that answer anything for you?

458

We’re going to end up in the weeds in any case. We both agree that it is appropriate to draw the line somewhere; that businesses can’t just have carte blanche to discriminate against anyone they want. When lines are drawn, the people who do that sort of thing will sue and force the courts and legislatures to define very, very precisely where those lines are. I don’t see how drawing the line where you want to is going to produce any less litigation and bureaucracy than drawing it where I would like to.

You have fairly summarized my argument, although I would stress that people are individuals and obviously not every single person of a particular social background is going to share the same political views.

ARE you, in fact, a Chinese immigrant? If not, I would submit that it is a bit of a stretch for you to blithely assume that you can accurately imagine how you would feel if you were; it’s the sort of the assumption, in fact, that is pretty stereotypically associated with white privilege.

However, it is certainly true that immigrants from Communist countries tend to be strongly conservative once they arrive in America. So, yes, people who have had the experience of living under repressive totalitarian governments will tend to distrust government. Likewise, people who have had the experience of being discriminated against by private businesses will tend to distrust private businesses. This is exactly what I’m saying, that our politics emerge largely from our life experiences (and from the historical experience of groups which we identify with). This doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with race or gender; you’ve provided a perfectly reasonable example of a case in which it doesn’t. Still, people in general have very different experiences of living in modern America based on their racial and gender status, so those differences are going to be very significant in our political discourse.

459

And that’s OK, but don’t YOU say anything mean to THEM.
Fuck that.

460

Why should they concede anything? I’m serious. Why should they?

We had The Party Of NO, opposing Obama every step of the way.

We had McConnell deliberately blocking and making threats when Obama AND the CIA tried to warn him and ALL the Repubs about Russian hacking.

We had them steal a Supreme Court position from Merrick Garland.

We have a traitor in office, with the help of Russian trolls and hackers.

Who by the way has appointed the most corrupt administrators and directors possible, to destroy the very agencies they head.

We see him, aided by the Repubs, obstructing justice every day regarding the Russia investigation

We see the rise of Repub stains like Roy Moore, fascists and nazis like Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Stephen Miller, David Duke, Richard Spencer, Kris Kobach, etc.

We have traitors like Trump himself, Graham, Nunez, Rohrbacher etc… they even had a junket to Russia this year, to get their marching orders.

Shit, the list goes on forever.

Why should there be any concessions?