Yes, we’re all biased, but progressives are influenced by facts. Conservatives’ opinions consist largely of unsupported intuition, superstitions, and conspiracy theories. There is a difference. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not every opinion is worth listening to. Conservative opinions generally aren’t.
Not all conservatives do this.
But in some conservatives, there seems to be a hair-trigger reaction to question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them.
The Dixie Chicks didn’t question whether President Bush was a Christian. They didn’t demand to see his birth certificate. They didn’t claim he was a “founder” of Al-Qaeda. Try to imagine the extent of the vitriol if they had said these things about Bush.
But the people offended by the DC’s statement (that they were ashamed that the president was (like them) from Texas) are now supporting a candidate who’s said all those things[sup]1[/sup] about the sitting president.
And you gotta love the International-Date-Line-like distinctions they try to make: The DC’s made their statement on foreign soil. Yeah? So fucking what? People in other countries can learn about what we say here. They got this thing called the internet, and before that, radio.
“When I do it, it’s patriotic; when you do it, it’s treason.”
[sup]1[/sup]OK, Trump said that Obama was a founder of ISIS (not Al-Qaeda), which didn’t exist at the time of the DC’s statement.
Yes.
This has been true my entire adult life. I grew up during Vietnam and the civil rights eras. Many of us, BTW, refused to stand up for the national anthem.
Conservatives called us unpatriotic for protesting. Nixon essentially declared against dissenters. Liberals were demonized for daring to complain against an America that did not live up to its stated ideals.
Conservatism is not a single movement: it insists on being wrong in multiple ways against a host of perceived enemies. But every segment of the conservative movement is alike in excoriating anyone who criticizes America. Except itself.
Another example from a while back. A few years ago my Right Wing friends were all over Obama when this picture was making the rounds. How dare he not salute. Those people protect him. He owes him his life. Blah blah blah.
It was said over and over that he’s not actually required to salute (so stop tossing around phrases like ‘federal law’ and ‘court martial’ and ‘treason’), the soldiers who he ‘half’ saluted to put out a statement saying they weren’t insulted and you didn’t need to be insulted for them kthxbai, and on and on. But, of course, this was just another thing the [various plays on ‘commander in chief’] couldn’t do right.
In one of those threads I posted this picture. And got a ‘but that’s different’ and a ‘why do you have to bring that up’. That was it.
I think people forget that over the last several hundred years there’s been so many people from both sides of the aisle there’s not a whole lot you can make fun of the other person for doing that someone on your side probably hasn’t done as well.
And to both my social justice warrior and super republican friends do we really need to dig up stuff from 200 years ago as a comeback to something that happened a half hour ago?
No.
It goes the other way at least as often. Witness the latest furor about Kaepernick and how it is fine for him to protest during the national anthem, but not fine for the police union to refuse to work the football games where he does it.
Kaepernick can do it because it is not a condition of his employment to refrain from that sort of protest. The police cannot, even though it is not a condition* of their employment to work the voluntary shifts at the football games.
Regards,
Shodan
*No, it is not a condition of their employment. The security shifts at the football games are voluntary. Police can accept or refuse the work for any reason, or no reason.
He is silently kneeling during the national anthem, then going on to do his job to the best of his ability. They are throwing a hissy fit and threatening not to show up unless something is done to stop him(what, exactly, isn’t exactly clear-it’s not like the NFL can solve the problem police-style and beat the shit out of him after “accidentally” shutting off all the cameras).
Yep-totally equal scenarios.
Indeed. I can’t remember the term. But Michael Moore used it in 2008.
It appears that Velocity was, umm, mistaken…
Yes, you are correct; they are equal scenarios.
Anything else that you are wrong about and need to have explained, feel free to ask.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you. The fact that you think I am wrong is all the reassurance I need.
Conservatives, owing to the nature of their political beliefs, have always been about stopping change, or changing things back to some idealized version of the past where America was perfect. Given that they think this time is the “real” America, any deviation from that threatens them and makes them afraid or angry. They seem to feel that its ok to go back to this time and stay there, and anything that moves that proposition forward is good. Their problem with everyone else isn’t the criticisms, its the fact that other people want to move away from this utopian ideal. At this point, such a belief is internalized that it comes out merely as a reflex, as in “No liberal would ever be criticizing America for the right reasons”, therefore every other type of criticism is demonized
Which conservatives? Fisical conservatives? Social conservatives? All of them? You want to lump them all together into one giant group so you can apparently hate them all.
You know, if maybe you actually talked to different conservatives you might get a clue.
For example, you bring up Cliven Bundy and pretend that he is a hero to all conservatives. It is simple disprove. Link
From David Jenkins, the President of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship.
See, that was easy. There is one conservative that does not believe that Bundy was a hero (note, there are many more, I just grabbed the first one I found) so your thesis is disproved. And, to counter the inevitable ‘But that is just one guy…’ dismissal that I know you are thinking of, read this.
Or, in one that I suspect will really blow your mind, how about National Review suggesting that a Black Lives Matter associated group has some great ideas on how to improve the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans:
Link.
Both sides have idiots. Both sides have reasonable people. Both sides have people who try to shutthe otherside out.
Slee
One is a momentary symbolic act that doesn’t have any material affect on anyone else whatsoever. The other is placing many thousands of people at potentially elevated risk by refusing to provide for their safety because one of them expresses an opinion that hurts their feelings, or somehow offends their notion of how a person is obliged to conduct themselves.
And, if it’s the police union that’s refusing to staff the games, that’s different too. One could argue that if individual officers were to stop volunteering for shifts, that’s fine, because they are free to their opinions and actions, and there are other officers who might want the work or are at least more concerned about the well-being of the 60,000 (or whatever) other people in the stadium. But if the union is involved it’s probably going to be hard to get cops to cross that line. That’s actively putting a LOT of people in literal danger, just because ONE GUY isn’t waving his miniature flag fast enough for your liking. Absurd.
No it isn’t. As has already been explained, this is voluntary moonlighting, not related to their duties as police. If it were part of their duty, they would be obliged to do it. It isn’t. They aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan
The cops withholding their services, voluntary or not, because they’re upset that someone doesn’t stand for the anthem is childish.
I think on the whole, conservatives think they own America. They think the flag is a Republican symbol and that patriotism is a virtue of Republicans. They think that the natural order of things is for Republicans to control all branches of government and to use any means necessary (gerrymandering, voter suppression) to achieve that goal. They say “make America great again” because in their view, America cannot be great with a black Democratic president. They want to “take the country back” to the days when both women and blacks knew their place, cops had the right to gun down anyone who looked crosseyed at them, gays were in the closet, and completion of pregnancies was mandatory. They see all this change as un-American, and those who want to push it even further left are un-American and not entitled to their criticism, whereas they are perfectly justified in criticizing the nation for having changed in so many ungodly ways.
I have thought for awhile that there is a huge disconnect between how whites react differently to white and black protestors. Those white sovereign citizen types and others threaten government officials, threaten to secede from the United States, take over Federal property and they’re applauded and nobody gets too alarmed (except for the law enforcement types being threatened). Blacks protest and whites (at least some) act like they are coming to slit their throats. For centuries there’s been a fear by whites that black slaves will rise up and kill all the white people dead, with a whole lot of rape and murder. Of course, part of that has been because blacks were slaves and the fear was used as a way to not free slaves en masse. But when white nationalists start threatening, it’s met mostly with meh. Conservatives seem to think it’s ok for conservatives to complain about America, but not for anyone else.
If the individual police choose not to go, that’s their choice. If they would rather go to a movie, spend time with their family, or not attend a game that they feel someone is going to be disrespectful, that’s fine. They are not shirking their duties as employees of the public, they are just losing out on their own money.
When the police union gets involved, writing letters asking for other entities to violate people’s rights, that’s a different situation. Now you are dealing with an organized group of police, who are attempting to unconstitutionally enforce their standards of conduct on others.
Everybody is prone to a bit of double standards and hypocrisy. The political right in America certainly appears to be very loud about it, especially where “patriotism” and similar concepts are concerned.
Trump telling Kaepernick to go find a better country if this one is so crummy is wildly hypocritical when his own presidential campaign revolves around how awful the country is. Vocal TV and radio conservative talking heads give polar opposite reactions to equivalent actions, depending on what end of the political spectrum they come from.
I find it sad that conservative Dopers are so blind to it.
None of that has any relevance to anything. The fact is that the protests are very different. One is one guy who won’t stand up for the national anthem. The other are cops making sure that people will get hurt.
It doesn’t matter one bit whether it’s their “duty.” There’s a huge difference in the “protest.” What the cops are doing isn’t a protest at all. They are acting in their capacity as cops–hence police union–to try and stop a guy from practicing one of the most basic forms of freedom of speech.
It wouldn’t matter one bit if the police union was liberal and was trying to suppress someone who didn’t do the pledge due to same sex marriage. It still would be just as wrong.
A protest is people talking. It may be annoying and disruptive and even somewhat hostile, but it’s still just talking. It is NOT allowing others to come into harms way.
There are no constitutional issues involved in this situation.
Find a different exhibition of our shared values for him to refuse to participate in (if there is one); too many of us lefties don’t think standing for the national anthem is a worthwhile hill to die on.