So, not a bigot, but worse than a bigot. How worse?
As a bad as usurist (is that worse than a bigot?). Philanderer? Scoundrel?
I think Cheese also said I was than a bigot, but like you he was rather impecise.
I’m trying to size my cross and figure how indignant I should get, and you guys are really doing a poor job defining your contempt.
I actually said really nice things about liberals, and was really careful to define my terms.
[/quote]
Luckily, there are tons of liberals here on this board who would be happy to answer any questions you have about our beliefs. I’ll start by just saying that the above post has almost nothing to do with my political beliefs,
[/quote]
I said:
“Liberals are the guys you want running things when something is wrong. They care about improving the status quo, and when everybody thinks everything is groovy they are the guys who advocate for the people who are left behind. They look at a conservative and see a stodgy old bastard who’s stupid to know that he’s riding a runaway train to a cliff’s edge when the bridge is out, and couldn’g Give a shit as long as the steward brings him his drink.
So, liberals and conservatives need each other. So I think liberals are great”
Do you think that’s a bad characterization?
That’s not your fault. I don’t think he’s particularly consistent.
Well, i’ve Spent a lot of time on this board for like 20 years, reading and debating liberals, I read liberal websites. It seems to me that there are as many types of liberalism as their are liberals, so I tried to define them in the loosest most philosophical terms.
Anyway, I would welcome your take on what constitutes a liberal. Please check out how I defined liberal, Democrat and leftist above, so that we are on the same page. You don’t have to use or agree with my definitions, but at least you will know where I am coming from.
Thanks!
I’ll endorse the first two sentences, and that’s about it. The post I criticized was very different, and almost entirely incorrect, in its characterization of liberals.
Nowadays, “liberal” and “conservative” are almost just team names, IMO. Maybe they mean something philosophically to some people, but not really to me in terms of modern politics – I use them as handy group identifiers when it comes to the political “teams”, but that’s about it.
But I can tell you what I believe on any issue you’d like to ask about, including race, gender, “identity politics”, and more, as a person who generally finds their self on the liberal “team”. In addition to my own beliefs, I think I have a pretty good handle on the mainstream beliefs within the Democratic party (and liberal/progressive movement in general), and I can give you my take on those too, if you’d like.
Scylla, in a discussion about politics and decency on the left and the right, I can’t help but be reminded of this post from several years ago you made in a thread I started: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14831218&postcount=26
In it, you called a woman (Sandra Fluke) a “brazen slut” simply because she was on birth control and made a public political statement about health care and birth control. You were excoriated for it (including attacks on your family), but that doesn’t excuse you from saying something so profoundly stupid and profoundly offensive. Have you changed since then? Do you still have such a misogynistic view of women that you believe any woman on birth control who makes political statements in public are “brazen sluts”? Hopefully you’ve changed since then.
Because the other fella had just mentioned that “there are tons of liberals here on this board who would be happy to answer any questions you have about our beliefs” (and then added a quick “I’ll start”). And so I figured: why not ask some questions, like he was just going on about? I mean, it seemed pretty straightforward.
Well, I sure liked that answer of his to the first one: “In my understanding, if the Border Patrol sees someone trying to cross illegally, they should detain them.”
That sounds pretty good.
As for the other? If a guy is spotted five seconds after illegally crossing the border, I’m not sure it’s all that different from being spotted five seconds before illegally crossing the border. And if he’s spotted after five days or five years or whatever of eluding the authorities? So what? As soon as he comes to our attention, rectify the mistake that never should’ve been made, as if he’d been spotted with five seconds to spare: he should’ve been spotted with five seconds to spare, and I wish he had been spotted with five seconds to spare — but if we arrive too late to stop a lawbreaker in advance, we then do our best to make things right, right?
I think that is the same post. #518. Perhaps you are replying to a partial quote and didnt’t See the whole thing?
Okay. But what if they were brought over as children several years ago, and would make wonderful contributing Americans now? What if by detaining and deporting someone who has been here peacefully and productively for many years, you reduce trust in a community, reducing the likelihood they’ll cooperate with law enforcement in the future, and greatly increasing the risk of rape and child molestation (among other crimes) to those in that community? What if they’re simply hard working people who have spent several years here working and contributing much in taxes while receiving zero public benefits at all? What if they’ve started a productive business (say, a food truck) with several employees? What if they’re taking care of a legal resident? What about a million other scenarios in which going after them makes America less wealthy, less productive, and weaker in general, in some small but still real way – and when we can distribute resources and make law enforcement decisions in entirely legal ways that don’t do these harmful things to the country?
You’re right – apologies; I only responded to a portion of your post. And that portion was the part I disagreed with most strongly.
In other words, no, you haven’t changed.
Thanks. All we needed to know.
But we’re supposed to try to “understand” you “people”. Try to be diplomatic.
Why is it that progressives are always the ones who have to fucking “understand” the frailties of humanity while conservatards can go on being their ignorant, assholish selves? The burden always falls on the shoulders of the educated, of those with a conscience.
Fuck that.
If someone has been living in this country for several years as a productive and law-abiding resident (aside from the obvious), then the “mistake that never should have been made” was not welcoming them in the first place.
My handicap dropped from a 26 to a 14. I have totally changed. I’m coming off my back foot and realeasing my hands at impact, putting much better, and my course management skills have really matured.
I built a grandfather clock from scratch, and it came out awesome!
I grew a goatee, and my wife says she likes it, and thinks it makes me sexy.
Other than that? I’m pretty much the same.
Do you still think women who use birth control and speak out publicly about their views on health care and politics are “brazen sluts”?
Why do you ask? If it’s because you want to decide if you wish to continue to engage with me, or not, than it would be safe to assume I am the same.
If you talk to Hamlet and Cheesesteak (Ham and Cheese!) they will tell you that I am worse than a bigot, because I made light of civil rights.
So…
Because I want to think the best of people. I’m hopeful that you’re a decent person who doesn’t think of women in such misogynistic terms just for using birth control, even if you said something so hateful 6 years ago. Everybody makes mistakes. Do you think calling Sandra Fluke a “brazen slut” was a mistake, or do you stand by it?
Not a hard question. It’s okay to admit you were wrong 6 years ago – I know I’ve said things before that were dumb and hurtful.
You mention all of that as if it’s relevant; is the opposite relevant?
Imagine we find one who does make America “less wealthy, less productive, and weaker in general”. Did you mention all of that What-If stuff precisely because people who aren’t “contributing much in taxes” are to be ushered back out?
Possibly while making some restitution for how they’ve burdened us?
You mention those who’ve been “peaceful and productive” since they broke the law. I’ll readily admit I don’t usually think that way; I don’t care if it’s armed robbery or a parking violation or an overdue library book, I default to saying we should act, upon catching them dead to rights, with no regard to whether they’ve been “peaceful and productive” ever since. But if, as you seem to be arguing, some of them should get a pass due to being a net positive — well, then, what do you figure should be done with those who happen to be a net negative?
I think the vast majority of non-violent immigrants fit into my characterizations, which is why I feel the way I do about immigration policy. I don’t have any problem at all with deporting violent criminals, and I don’t have much of a problem with deporting layabouts or public charges, in general – with the caveat that families must not be broken up or other monstrosities. And I don’t have a problem with an organized, controlled border.
Absolutely. Do you still think puppies should be barbecued? Have you admitted you are an alcoholic or are you still in denial
I will tell you what, if this is sincereley irking you, and you would like to question me. I will answer you as candidly as I can.
On the other side of the coin if you ask me questions phrased like the one above, I will probably just say something that will help you confirm my awfullness.
Yes, it’s sincerely irking me. Why did you call her a “brazen slut”, and do you still feel that’s an appropriate description for Fluke?
But that’s just it: why wouldn’t they have been welcomed in the first place?
I propose that we, like, screen folks who want to come in. If we ask a guy if he has any special reason to think he’d be of use, and he replies “no, but I may have a medical condition,” then maybe we reply right back, “see, we’re just about full up right now, and it sure doesn’t sound like you have enough to offer us; we ask not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for our country.”
But if he instead replies “yeah, I’m a terrific physician,” then maybe we say, “oh, hey, that sounds great; we have a few more questions, of course — but it sounds like you might be of use to us, and so we might deign to let you in.”
Or whatever. If they can make a case for why they’d be a net positive to us instead of a net negative, then why not make that case and get (a) turned away if we have reason to believe they’re wrong, but (b) let in, if they can show why?
Ok. Shit. That’s a difficult question to answer accurately.
I was being flippantly offensive deliberately when I said “brazen slut.” Considering how public figures, particularly Republican/conservative ones are referred to on this board, I thought, and still do think that the comment was unremarkable. Calling me out for it was pure selective hypocrisy, and I still feel that way.
So, I am not sorry, or remorseful or anything like that.
The reason why your question is hard to answer accurately though, is because I have tried to change my posting style. It will sound stupid, but I stopped posting for two years after that thread, and thought about it quite a bit.
When I came back I decided that I would only post things that made me happy. If my post doesn’t make me happy, I delete it before I hit send. If i’ve Already hit send, and am not happy with what I wrote, I don’t keep going (you can’t dig up) I stop, or try a different tact.
That sounds simplistic and self-serving, but it actually has some interesting effects. It’s Harder to get me into a pissing contest than it used to be.