We do that too. But we will never have society without politics and we will never have politics without labels.
Agree completely.
I think the tribalism stems from the fact that you have to pick a tribe when you vote, because we elect people to represent us rather than voting issue by issue. But that’s not an excuse.
No but you can say “if you are a republican you support, condone, make excuses for or ignore the racism homophobia misogyny and willful ignorance that is continuously shown by your party” and we CAN and will judge you for that even if you yourself are not or don’t believe in those things. Even if you are not racist you are still surrounded by them, you might not be a woman hater but you still vote for them, you might not hate gays but you give money to a party that does, you might believe in science but you want to put people in power who do not. You deserve to be judged for that.
Sigh.
I’m saying that your logic justifies doing so. And it’s not a straw man.
Sigh. You’re still confused.
Fine, new analogy: Muslims! Not an ethnicity, but a religion only.
So, do you hold all Muslims responsible for acts of terrorism by Muslims who justify it with religion?
Why not? They choose to be Muslims. They could leave any time.
Is this sinking in yet?
Why not? What’s the difference?
Bigger sigh.
Are you a Democrat? IF someone said all Democrats are godless atheists or socialists, how would you respond?
If you’re not a Democrat, let me know if you affiliate yourself with a particular party so I can try this again. Maybe it will finally sink in when you get a taste of your own medicine.
And we’ll always have income inequality, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce it.
Politics should be about policy, not about party.
No, you can’t.
But see, that’s just you repeating the same fallacy. Not all Republicans one could vote for a “woman haters.” Some are actually women even.
But I see I tiny bit of progress - you’re judging people by who they actually vote for, not just for what others somewhere might say or believe. You’re getting there.
The Republican party has no official stance on whether it hates gays or not, as far as I know. And even if it did, not all Republicans agree. Some Republicans are gay themselves, and others are strong supporters of gay rights.
When and if someone votes for or supports a woman-hater, gay-basher, or anti-science loon, by all means judge them for it. Just being or calling yourself a Republican is NOT the same thing as voting for any of those kinds of people. Do you understand the difference?
And we can have politics, and parties, without playing this idiotic game of labeling every single person who tends to support the candidates of one party as being personally responsible for the worst actions and ideas of others who happen to do the same.
For one, I wouldn’t compare it to racism.
What group do I belong to that would make you suppose I go around saying all Jews are stingy?
Being a Republican or calling yourself a Republican and having someone suppose you’re a misogynist or anti-gay is a more fair assumption than making the supposition that a complete stranger-- with no apparent connection to anti-Semitism-- makes claims that Jews are stingy.
Likewise, being a Democrat and having someone suppose you’re a godless socialist is a more fair assumption than making the supposition that a complete stranger-- with no apparent connection to anti-Semitism-- makes claims that Jews are stingy.
Judging a person based on aspects of his or her political affiliations is no where near the same thing as judging a person based on aspects of his or her ethnic group. It’s politics, and it can be unfair, but it’s no where *near *what racists do, which was your original claim.
But just because we can does not mean we should. Sometimes, what you describe there might be arguably a useful strategy.
But you can’t assume that every person who affiliates with it supports what others in it support! You can’t say “because that Republican hates blacks, all of them do.” And you can’t even say that when there’s an official policy by the group. Do you think all Catholics are anti-abortion and anti-birth control just because the Pope is?
Uh, no, all I would need is “mutterings and harangues” by a few Jews, like you said. Then, according to your logic, I could judge all Jews based on that. That’s your logic.
Or I can turn the tables this way and ask you where your cites for the Republican National Committee directing devout devotees (Republicans) to hate blacks and women.
Either way, you fail.
Perhaps. But then you have to be prepared for it to be used against you too, or at least have people call you on it.
What WOULD you say though?
Sigh. Again, I’m not saying you do. I’m saying your logic would permit you to do it.
No, it’s not.
No, it’s not.
Yes, it is.
But hey, you admitted it’s unfair! Progress.
Everything in your second paragraph could easily be the positions of social conservatives in the Democratic party. With the exception of the abortion issue, if you went into the churches of the Democratic districts in the inner city, you would hear just that. The simple fact is, a lot of people hold these views.
Calling people un-American is extreme? I know you don’t live as boring a life as your post suggests. Calling someone a communist in this case would be wrong, but if doing so is extreme, so is the liberals who call people fascists, and the people who do so represent a portion of the Democratic party that is comparable to the Tea Party.
Impeaching the president isn’t extreme. In fact it should be done far more often.
What you have with the Tea Party is a populist insurgency in the Republican Party trying to gain control from the corporatist wing. The Rachel Maddows of the world are upset because the corporatists have stomped on the populist wing of the Democratic party to the point people like you don’t even know they exist. They are upset because the Republican party is starting to resemble the common folk more than the stiff cronies like the Clintons and Obama’s. The fact that they represent a smaller portion of the people is irrelevant. They more realistically resemble that portion of the people than the corporatists in both parties, who resemble nobody anyone knows.
But that’s perfectly okay, according to the logic of many posters here. If you choose to affiliate with a party that is un-American, traitorous and communist, you can be judged for it!
:smack:
Can we place take lance’s constant hijacks of “everyone who wants to hold others responsible for their actions is just as bad as KKK loving neo nazis” to the pit? Dude doesn’t have the spine to take me to the pit despite claiming I’m just as bad as someone who openly hates black people, so if you’re going to engage with his BS, let’s at least do it where it belongs.
Erm, yeah, I know, been there, since the early '80s; my thread is about using the same tactic in response.
Of course it is. There are plenty of things not American but nothing is un- American; the phrase implies some kind of heretical deviation from dogma. N.B.: There is no such political ideology as “Americanism” and only flaming idiots like the Birchers ever use the word that way.
It’s not a hijack. You say something, I respond.
I’m not interested in a fight in the pit, only civil discussion.
I didn’t say you are just as bad as someone who hates blacks, I said your logic would excuse someone like that. Perhaps if you listened more and didn’t want to go to the pit, you’d get that.
Democrats have already successfully demonized conservatives by liberal use of the word “extreme”. I can’t even communicate with someone who thinks Obama is a communist, likewise I can’t communicate with someone who thinks Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are extremists.
It amounts to Congress overruling the electors’ choice of president. The Framers intended it as an extreme remedy, only to be used for high crimes and misdemeanors (the notion of also allowing for impeachment for simple incompetence or “maladministration” was discussed but rejected). That is why it has not been done more often. Really, how could doing it more often possibly be beneficial?
It kindasorta looks that way, but, no, not exactly.
Who, the corporatists or the populists? Either way, yes, we know they exist.
The Rachel Maddows of the world certainly would not be upset about that, if it were true; they’re left-populists, not elitists, except in the sense that duly respecting expertise is elitism.
Not at the polls.