I’m not contesting the point, or defending the strip. You made a bigoted remark, and I called you on it.
Are you suggesting that denigrating a group of people on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation is the same thing as denigrating a group of people on the basis of their commonly shared opinions?
Bigot: n One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Far be it from me to question the infinite wisdom of dictionary.com (it’s not as though I’ve never used it), but I still maintain that calling someone stupid based on their *opinion * isn’t bigotry, it’s discernment.
Agreed. The definition would be probably be better if it was narrowed to things that the person(the one being…uh…bigoted against) can’t change. I.E. Sexuality, Race, Gender.
Politics can and do change.
Lighten the fuck up. Smug wankers like you make me ill.
Psshhh. Nonsense. He started the rant with a complaint about an indefensible, piece-of-crap, waste-of-perfectly-good-funny-pages-real-estate. He gave reasons for his characterization of the strip as unfunny and pointless (as in, not having a decipherable point), gave evidence that it was playing to a certain segment of the cheap seats (Gore-bashing), then identified the intended audience.
He followed up with the generalization that you complain of. Not every generalization qualifies as a “bigoted remark.” Sometimes they can be an overstatement of observed phenomena.
Indeed. If we’re going to run with that definition, we’re going to have to admit that bigotry is most frequently a good thing. I’m pretty fuckin’ partial to democracy, for example. You could definetly call me a bigot against totalitarian, autocratic, and fascist regiems. Doing so, however, badly dilutes the word.
Which is not to say that conservatives are totalitarian, autocratic, or fascisterrific. However, they are examples of legitimate bias against a political position. No one’s going to call you out for hating on Nazis, but how far in from the extremes do you have to go before harshly criticizing a political group becomes the same as criticizing an ethnic group?
He’s not denouncing a person for a particular opinion. He denounced “the mass of conservatives” for the horrendous crime of being conservative. That’s bigotry.
If he also denounces bigotry, then we should probably talk about:
hypocrisy: n 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
“Conservative” isn’t an opinion?
You’re just gonna keep going with this, aren’t you?
People aren’t born conservative. People identify as “conservatives” based on their opinions. Please do try not to be obtuse.
No, it isn’t.
Conservative adj 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Conservative n 1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative
Opinion:
Liberal, is that you?
I keed, I keed!
No, it isn’t.
Conservative adj 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Conservative n 1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative
Opinion: n 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
Thus, we see that a conservative may hold many opinions.
Sigh.
And yet if we don’t acknowledge that people who identify as “conservative” tend to share many of the the *same * opinions as *other * people who identify as “conservative,” then the word loses all meaning. The same thing applies to “liberal,” after all. These words refer to groups of largely like-minded people. Sufficiently like-minded, at any rate, to refer to themselves using an agreed-upon word.
That’s not the problem with the portion of the OP I challenged:
How about instead of replacing “conservatives” with a minority group, we use “liberals” or “democrats”. The statement is still objectionable, and unsupportable.
Rational minds can differ. A political disagreement does not mean that one side must necessarily be wrong, stupid, or evil. Gotta say this is not an argument I expected to find here. I thought this board was a place for reasoned discussion. Was I mistaken?
Of course you were mistaken.
Everyone here but you is stupid.
While I’m not prepared to simply accept Brain Wreck’s generalization as accurate, I think you go too far in characterizing it as “insupportable.” I will agree that he has not adequately supported it in his OP. I myself would feel daunted by the prospect of needing to support it. If you would like to try to support a similar generalization leveled at liberals/leftists, you’re free to make the attempt. If I happen to see you try, I’ll promise to defend you against cries of “bigotry” that may be directed toward you by those who find your arguments less than convincing.
I would point out that a political disagreement also does not mean that one side cannot be wrong, stupid, or evil. 
And no, you weren’t mistaken in thinking this board is a place for reasoned discussion. Unless you were thinking that reasoned discussion is the ONLY thing that this board is a place for, in which case you were mistaken. We also have rants, trainwrecks, meltdowns, and I think I’ve heard rumors of primal scream therapy workshops on alternate Wednesdays. 
No way it’s half. It is one of the better conservative strips, but that’s not saying a whole lot. It will occasionally be willing to call out conservatives on their bullshit.
My point is, I wouldn’t make that attempt. It might interest you to know that I recently got accused of favoring liberals and unfairly bashing Bush on my own little board. Had my most outspoken conservative poster leave the board in a huff over it.