How do you feel about those who are willing to look into reasonable ways to try to combat the gun violence in our country, or those who will not vote for someone who makes decisions on how others should behave based on their own personal religious beliefs?
Yes, I agree! I mentioned several ways I try to do it. In fact, it was kind of my point!
I agree with this, too.
I’m not sure what this part means.
Based on polling I’ve seen, opposition to gay marriage, and belief that climate change is a hoax, are much, much more common than wanting to ban guns or believing Christianity should be a bar from public office.
The comment you were responding to was about climate change denial and opposition to gay marriage. The difference is that both of these things have been common and even mainstream in conservative circles, whereas I have yet to see any mainstream liberal view that seeks to “ban guns” or that “Christianity should be a bar from public office”. Seeking to have stronger gun laws more similar to those in every civilized nation on earth is not “banning guns”, and questioning the impartiality of an extreme Christian fundamentalist with a history of inflammatory op-eds is not “banning Christians from public office”. This sort of extreme hyperbole coming from you is very ironic given what you just said:
Perhaps you should try harder to follow your own advice.
Well, if all you want to do is feel better about yourself, you can keep insulting the folks on the other side. And if you can’t see that “not calling someone a stupid name” is different from saying “both sides do it”, then I don’t know what I can say. Keep insulting them and let us know how that works out for you.
I’m happy to admit that “the right” has been much more irrational and hateful in recent years. I am most definitely not saying that both sides are the same. But if you can’t treat the other person with human dignity, and at least try to understand why they believe what they do, then you’re only going to make the rift wider. Is that what you want? Remember, what I posted was “a start”, not the be all and end all. I’m just saying that you can’t even start to heal the rift if you are unwilling to drop the insults. It’s like the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Do you want to fix things or do you want to argue about who did “it” first?
And please note that I didn’t say anything about which side had to stop with the insults. But note that it’s only a few folks on the left who have objected. N one here on there right has come in to say “no way”. That’s this MB, though, not RL.
These are excellent reasons to hate Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump. I’m not convinced they are good reasons to hate everyone who calls themselves “Conservative” or “Republican” though.
Would anyone else be happy to divide ourselves in two? One, a multi-cultural, inclusive and progressive country, and the other, a primarily white, exclusive, conservative and mono-cultural society?
I would.
I don’t hate all conservatives. Some are moderate, with enlightened social views, who also happen to want smaller government and favor fiscally conservative policies. I have friends like that and the political disagreements don’t get heated, but…
It’s the bigotry I just can’t abide. The hatred. As a white, middle-class male, I’ve moved in circles from trailer parks to country club cocktail parties. Way, way, too often when I find myself in these all-white gatherings, inevitably, minorities, gays, and anyone else who isn’t white and heterosexual gets trashed. And it’s so part of the norm that people are shocked when you object. The anti-black racism is the worst of it. There are far too many white republicans who promote that kind of hatred and it’s intolerable. If you are white and republican, you know exactly what I mean. It might bother you, but you don’t speak up because you are badly outnumbered.
Not all liberals and democrats are pure and free of bigotry, obviously. But I’d just rather not be around the race-hating, homophobic boors who are the majority in the republican party. Ever.
And it seems the war has started. Not only do you have the shooting of the politicians in Virginia, but now someone has shot at a random Trump supporter. Oh yes, the Trump supporter is a Democrat.
A political divorce would be great, unfortunately, will probably not happen until the rancor or bitterness gets 10x worse than now. Even then it couldn’t happen unless the split were very cleanly along geographical lines. Right now even the reddest of states are 25% liberal and the bluest of states are 25% conservative.
I’d favor separation as well, but what I think we’ll have is kind of a low level civil war: an abortion clinic bombing here, an Congressman shooting there and we’ll lurch from a red state president to a blue state president each trying to undo the work of the previous administration. Add to that the fact that America is awash in guns and it doesn’t look promising.
The climate change thing seems really odd to me - wouldn’t it be better to figure out what the anti-climate actually want, and see if those needs can be met to any degree or their concerns can be alleviated? I suspect the answer is “I want to keep selling and burning fossil fuels”, so probably not, but it’s better than facilely hamstringing a climate change target for no clear or rational reason.
(This is putting aside the fact that dragging our feet on climate change could possibly kill us all, literally. So it’s a bit like compromising with somebody who wants to shoot you in the head. If somebody wanted to double-tap you between the eyes, would you consider it a good approach to try to argue him down to one shot?)
And regarding your gay marriage argument, would you suggest a similar approach regarding slavery? Many people consider this an issue of fundamental human rights. Well, everyone does, actually; some just think that certain people don’t deserve those rights.
You think a war has “started” because some random jackoffs committed a criminal act?
Did it really just start? Maybe it was the right wing who started it with Matthew Shepard or James Byrd Jr..
Really? You think criminals, no matter right or left, have suddenly started something? Jesus wept.
I notice that you didn’t address the part about science and facts. And yet, that was always our common ground. We expressed different opinions, but we could at least meet in the middle by agreeing to the facts. That isn’t possible anymore. Facts are no longer agreed upon. Rather, we are introduced to the concept of “alternative facts” by KelleyAnne. People are told not to trust science, not to trust the press, not to trust anyone that doesn’t use the right buzz words.
Those on the right often gets insulted simply because they refuse to acknowledge this, but facts are indeed facts. I don’t see any of this polarization getting better until we get back to that simple truth.
The hate will continue until enough of us get sick of it.
I don’t know what, or how long, that will take.
And then, filled with rage, we slaughter everyone who hates other people?
Isn’t that on the agenda? A National Day of Purge?
You know if we just ignore it, for most of us (I assume we don’t ALL live in Portland) it won’t exist.
Though I may be caught by surprise when a SWAT team kicks down my door in a couple of years if I ignore it.
Yeah, we already KNOW why they “believe as they do”: because Fox News and Breitbart lie to them, and they accept the lies as truth. I also think black people have a pretty clear understanding why conservatives believe as they do on, say, police shootings.
But sure, go tell a Muslim they should sit down and talk to the alt right and understand why it is they think their religion makes them sub human and why their ancestral home should be bombed to oblivion. That’ll work out really well for both sides.
How did we become bitter political enemies? When you decided that minorities/poor people/people like me weren’t worthy of basic humanity, AND tried to enshrine that belief into law.
As Leaper as demonstrated, because internet.
India is 80% hindu, Pakistan is 97% Muslim.