Somehow, despite growing up deep in Republican territory, I first learned about “liberal” from the video game Sid Meier’s Civilization IV. In that game “liberalism” is one of many social advancements, in this case it unlocks social policies such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first player to reach “liberalism” also gets a free advancement, which I usually use to discover the “economics” advancement, which in turn gives me a “great person” who I use to send my civilization into a golden age.
For those who haven’t played the game, the point is that the word will always have a positive connotation in my mind.
The “political opponent” in question was standing in traffic and obstructing the road.
If a driver wants to go *purposefully *head-hunting and swerve out of his way to hit a political opponent, then yes that would be willful homicide; entirely different.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to advocate making it legal to actually kill people on one hand but also complain that there is too much vitriol from the other side when they speak up and object to you killing people is simply astounding.
There was no traffic. No traffic was moving until the murderer gunned his engine and plowed through a group of protesters. But it really sounds like you think that drivers should be able to run people over just for standing in the road. You’re kind of making my point for me.
Yes. The amount of predation must overwhelm the costs associated with moving. Still better than stamping your indignant foot. If you reread you will see that I was giving advice to victims of government predation. This is practical advice, not some ideological martyrdom you prefer for some reason.
It is easier now to escape bigotry than ever before. You don’t even need to flee the old US of A. You seem to think that until there are no costs associated with moving, victims should endure all costs of staying no matter how excessive. The other poster posited scenarios where the clear solution was moving. I will never give advice to someone that will make them worse off.
Thankfully your ideological martyrdom didn’t stop the Underground Railroad. Perhaps you would have counseled enslaved workers to stay and stamp an indignant foot. Maybe those who fled Nazi persecution should have got political? Would that have saved them?
This “counseling victims to stay” and “stamp an indignant foot” is entirely a straw man. I’ve never heard of any liberal/progressive who said that people shouldn’t move if they think they’ll have a better life somewhere else. Maybe someone, somewhere once said this, but the idea that this is a prominent liberal or progressive position is entirely fictional.
So there should be no distinction between allowing someone to die and committing physical aggression against someone to kill them?
Since I neither shrugged it off or whined about that, you have no reason to be horrified.
What I said was that I felt bad for people whose identity is so tied up in politics. It isn’t healthy to be worked up over things you can’t control. For those that are so invested in partisan politics, they cannot stand that they don’t control the behavior of the “other side”.
For example you are livid that you cannot force medical providers to do what you want. Therefore you adopt a rhetorical tactic that devastates all nuance and claims withholding help is the same as killing someone. With this tactic you hope to gain control over the medical providers through legislation backed up by govt guns and prisons. The fact that your emotional level escalates is another point in your favor. Political policy is almost entirely based on which side has the most emotional energy.
Also recently sanctuary cities were very upset that those they pretend to advocate for were going to be dropped off in their towns by Trump and Co. They believed the migrants should stamp an indignant foot until they get a better deal instead of taking the opportunity to get out of Trump’s evil clutches. Pure martyrdom.
I understand that you believe you have some sort of special insight into liberal and progressive minds, but you do not. You’re not a mind-reader. You’re just interpreting things using your own judgment and bias, and apparently you’re interpreting these things in a way that reflects most poorly (or ridiculously) on liberals and progressives.
These things you say about the goals, intentions, and beliefs of liberals and progressives are almost always highly inaccurate. And this is pointed out to you, yet you do it again and again. I don’t pretend to have some special insight into libertarian intentions, goals, and beliefs – I understand that a libertarian such as yourself has a nigh-infinitely better understanding of these than I do. Why don’t you understand the same thing for liberals and progressives?
I honestly don’t know if you read threads or just posts that quote you. There are a slew of posters triggered by my advice to move to escape predation. Of course I knew they wouldn’t like the fact that I suggested such a thing. Perhaps my time as a liberal has given me insight into their ideology.
We force racist waitresses to serve black people at restaurants.
Why should religious bigots get a free pass to refuse service to their customers?
Fuck their bigotry, if they can’t serve all the customers who need service, they should quit and find a new line of work that doesn’t anger their personal sky pixie.
Or, if you prefer, if they find the law is predatory upon their career and religion, move to a new career, or a new religion.