# Stop villainizing people whose political opinions differ from yours. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286 "2016-10-21T22:54:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/81 "2016-10-24T13:58:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > W > That’s partly true, but there’s still the scientific concept of empiricism that applies to many of them – i.e.- both sides might agree on the desired social outcome (presumably no one wants social unrest and racial violence) yet one approach much more than the other has historically been shown to be much more likely to lead to the desired results. > > I can and do respect conservative positions when it simply comes down to a difference in values. If conservatives want to promote free enterprise solutions to social ills and argue that the inequalities therein are intrinsic and just the nature of life, I can accept the argument even if I choose to disagree with it. But in so many cases, that’s not what we’re dealing with – we’re dealing with asinine policies that can’t possibly work and are (for example) just disguised handouts to wealthy political donors. In many cases we’re dealing with policies based on fake counterfactual premises, basically a con job on the public. I think we’re more or less on the same page. Conservatives might, for example, reject the whole idea of sexual identity. And that’s unscientific and/or anti-science. But… whether or not a woman wants to be in the same bathroom with someone who is biologically male is a matter of persona/cultural choice, not scientific fact. The idea that there is a “scientific answer” to when or if Congress approves a SCOTUS appointment is, however, laughable on the face of it. Science can tell us when, during pregnancy, the brain begins to function, but it can’t tell us when a fetus becomes human. That is going to depend on how we define what a human is in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/82 "2016-10-24T14:42:54Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > My actual words, which you quoted, were: > > “conservatives have picked the factually and scientifically wrong side” > > Not everything on the list has had scientific input, but everything on that list relies on facts, which conservatives are ignoring. > You mention, for example: > > “trans bathrooms, abortion, gay marriage, Merrick Garland, school busing\*, Affirmative action” > > as being the obvious ones. Let’s consider those. Let’s see. > [@](#): > > 1. Trans bathrooms - it is a fact that transpeople using bathrooms that correspond to their trans identity is not problem, for society, in general. It is a fact that we have all undoubtedly shared a restroom with a trans person at some point in our lives. (There may individual trans people who are criminals, but there will always be individuals who are trouble makers. The general population of trans people are just normal people trying to empty their bladders.) > > It is also a fact that trans people are in danger of being attacked by straight people - usually male people in the male bathroom. > > Conservatives, in making a law forcing people to use a specific bathroom, are using the power of the state to force trans people into difficult situations as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in reality. > > It’s also a fact that the people who had security called on them in the wake of these laws weren’t even trans. > > Conclusion: Conservatives are ignoring facts and reality in creating a solution to a non-existant problem. “Forcing people to use a specific bathroom” is what we have been doing forever, aka Men’s/Women’s bathroom; so it’s not like it out of the blue. Second, stupid people attacking a minority of trans people (themselves a tiny minority) in bathrooms is dealt with punishing those stupid people. However, thinking that it is 100% a non-issue, black-and-white solution is false. I know it’s not likely to happen and more of a strawman than reality but, seeing that we have sex-specific bathroom, what of a person who looks like a stereotypical lumberjack going to the women’s bathroom and saying “it’s ok because that person identifies as a woman”? > [@](#): > > 1. Abortion > > It is a fact that most abortions take place for economic reasons. It is a fact that the number of abortions decline when people have access to free birth control. > > It is a fact that women should be entitled to bodily autonomy. A woman’s body is not a public accommodation. A woman is not a slave to her fetus. > > It is a fact that fetuses don’t even have brains or developed nervous systems until late in the game. They don’t feel pain early on. It is a fact that third trimester abortions are only legal for health problems. > > It is a fact that conservatives ignore all of the above (some of which is, indeed, medical science). > > It is a fact that conservatives have nothing but their faith-based beliefs about “life” to support their positions. > > It is a fact that conservatives are trying to enact policies that would take away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, purely on the basis of conservatives faith-based beliefs. > > It is a fact that conservatives have committed murder and terrorism in the name of their faith-based beliefs. > > Conclusion: Conservatives are ignoring fact & medical science, as well as commiting terrible crimes, in an attempt to impose their faith-based ideas on non-conservatives. Are most abortion economy-based? Maybe. So, what? Would you favor 100% abortin restriciton with a economic compensation? Bodily autonomy? Sure. The fetus is a different body, so the “auto” part of autonomy doesn’t pan out. No brains? The neura plate, itself the foundation of the brain, is present two weeks. No pain? Is that a requierement for humanity? If the did feel pain, would you oppose abortion past the “pain threshold?”. > [@](#): > > 3, Gay Marriage > > It is a fact that there is no evidence that gay marriage causes any social problem whatsoever. > > It is a fact that conservatives have nothing but faith-based reasons for believing that gay marriage is wrong - well, nothing but faith and an ignorant understanding about the history of marriage and its social function. > > Conclusion: Conservatives attempting to deny gay people the right to marriage are denying their fellow citizens of their civil rights, solely on the basis of non-factual beliefs. No evidence? How long has it been going? If it were shown to cause real, observable social problems, would you oppose it? > [@](#): > > 1. This is getting too long. I’ll just note in passing that the facts are that conservatives refusing to work with a black president and undermining efforts to alleviate segregation are all examples of institutional racism - a status quo which conservatives have been trying to defend, often with bloodshed, since the first constitutional convention. Yes, I know, that this paragraph will be met by loud howls of “THAT’S NOT RACISM! YOU’RE THE RACIST FOR CALLING US RACISTS!” from the conservatives in the audience, but - nobody falls for that so I don’t really care. [/QUOTE] If someon hate the president for being black, they’re stupid. “Institutionmal racism” is a scare-word if it has no clear facts. Is learning about Shakespeare “institutional racism” if not blanced with an equal ammount of leaning about non-white writers? Most of your “facts” a beliefs and, more importantly, I imagine you’d still have the same beliefs if the facts were different. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/83 "2016-10-24T14:56:30Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Conservatives were wrong on slavery. Cite? I always thought it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/84 "2016-10-24T15:03:35Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > There probably have been other threads about this, but I came across a thread somewhere in which both political sides were claiming their opponents were appealing to emotion and that their side is the only one that is reasoning logically. The truth is that both sides use appeals to emotion, just different emotions. Conservatives preach towards fear of the unknown and the different, liberals preach to love and harmony. Neither side is correct, they just have different views of the fundamental nature of humanity. Those that think we are inherently vile creatures and must stick together with those that are similar to protect us from our enemies are conservatives, and those that think that people are inherently good and should all come together to live as one big family regardless of their background are liberal. > > We cannot accept into the community of civilization those that have no respect for the rules that are laid down, but at the same time, how does one get respect for those rules if those rules have created their misery? We must search for ways to be able to clearly draw the line between those who are without hope for redemption because they simply are vile people, and those who act out only because acting civilized has gotten them nowhere and can be taught how looking out for the group ends up with everyone better off. > > We cannot possibly spread our wealth evenly throughout the world without wasting most of it on organizational inefficiencies in the redistribution, but with it all concentrated in the hands of a few people, that wealth has much lower overall effective utility due to diminishing returns. There is so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few people that they cannot possibly enjoy it nearly as much as those who have nothing, but at the same time that concentration of wealth is often due to hard work and emotional sacrifice. > > These are very plain truths that should be obvious to anyone who gives them a moment of thought. That we all choose to disagree on exactly where the point to meet in the middle on is not surprising. We need to stop turning the other political side into villains, and express some sympathy for their point of view. Virtually no one believes that they are evil - those who grasp for more simply believe that they are entitled to more than others because of various reasons that seem perfectly justified to them. There are no super-villains or grand conspiracies, just people who think they are making the world better for those who deserve it. We just disagree on exactly who deserves what. I agree. I think we should attempt to see the good in people and not demonize them. It’s too easy to always see the bad motives in our political opponents. I tend to lean towards Trump in his election. I think it very easy to see the complete corruption of the Clinton camp; their violence, vote rigging and identity politics. However, I think it beneficial to also believe that the Clinton camp do wish to see a better America. That many of their motives are noble, and that the Trump camp/Republicans also engage in political corruption. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/85 "2016-10-24T15:30:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? I always thought it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery. The Democrats were the conservatives back then, at least on this issue – they wanted to “conserve” the tradition and practice of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/86 "2016-10-24T15:33:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Democrats were the conservatives back then, at least on this issue – they wanted to “conserve” the tradition and practice of slavery. So it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/87 "2016-10-24T15:34:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? I always thought it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: The democrats were the conservatives then. Talk about forgetting history… To this day I will wonder why it was that the party of Lincoln decided that those types of conservative were ok to accept into the tent after Eisenhower. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/88 "2016-10-24T15:35:02Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > The idea that Black Lives Matter, a grassroots movement that is trying to address a problem that clearly exists is really a pro-crime, pro-violence movement. [Black Lives Matter is a violent movement](https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/black-lives-matter.jpg?w=1600). For all the talk about reality-based worldviews and “just the facts”, lots of people on your side try really hard to deny this simple one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/89 "2016-10-24T15:39:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Black Lives Matter is a violent movement](https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/black-lives-matter.jpg?w=1600). > > For all the talk about reality-based worldviews and “just the facts”, lots of people on your side try really hard to deny this simple one. So many years here and you forget that a nutpick is not a valid argument? > **[Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group](https://time.com/4413786/splc-black-lives-matter/)** > > But the perception that it is racist illustrates the problem ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/90 "2016-10-24T15:45:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So many years here and you forget that a nutpick is not a valid argument? > > [Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group | TIME](http://time.com/4413786/splc-black-lives-matter/) I don’t even know what this means. What’s a “nutpick”? Did you mean nitpick? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/91 "2016-10-24T15:50:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery? Yes. Is this news to you? I thought this was common knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/92 "2016-10-24T16:13:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t even know what this means. What’s a “nutpick”? Did you mean nitpick? It is a portmanteau. And a very useful one: > **[Nutpicking](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking)** > > Nutpicking is the fallacious tactic of picking out and showcasing the nuttiest member(s) of a group as the best representative(s) of that group — hence, "picking the nut". > [@](#): > > Nutpicking is a form of ad hominem attack mixed with cherry picking and straw manning. A broader opposite position is presented **by picking out a particular weak or nutty representative** , hence nutpicking. The scholarly term for the fallacy is the weak-man fallacy.[1] ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/93 "2016-10-24T16:57:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That also means to you accept being villanised for trying to silence opinions that are different from yours, What I accept is that people deserve to be villainized for stupid, anti-science opinions. If I do that, I hope that someone would villainize me because I need to be snapped back out of my stupidity. I would totally deserve it. And there is nothing wrong with trying to silence opinions, just because you have both an opinion and an asshole doesn’t mean I need to be exposed to either. If they are objectively wrong opinions, then silence them through public pressure, mocking them, ignoring them, or telling them to fuck off. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course, “I rightfully villanise you, but you can’t cuz I’m right” is the traditional excuse for depriving people of their rights. Your statement is also the traditional excuse for engaging a strawman. I have every legal right to yell, mock, ignore, or tell you to fuck off for your opinion. Every legal right. And that is enshrined in our Constitution. It takes a giant leap over a mountain of straw to assume that automatically means I’m depriving anyone of rights. Of course the ironic thing is that people who are anti-science know they can’t get their shit heard in any other way except through suppression of speech that crosses the line into violation of rights. Red states are the ones passing laws making it illegal to discuss climate change. They subpoena emails between climate scientists to look for out-of-context discussion to use against them. They mandate that organizations under their control cannot do research on gun violence. Liberals, in general, would never do that. We will mock you. Tell you you’re stupid to your face. Laugh at you. Ignore idiotic anti-science laws. Pass pro-science ones despite your objections. Or simply tell you to take your fucking snowball out of the Senate floor. One of the above is actual suppression and taking away rights. The other is not ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/94 "2016-10-24T17:25:11Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Red states are the ones passing laws making it illegal to discuss climate change. I missed this. Some states made it “illegal to discuss climate change”? Which ones? When? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/95 "2016-10-24T17:28:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I missed this. Some states made it “illegal to discuss climate change”? Which ones? When? I think [this](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html) is what he’s referring to. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/96 "2016-10-24T17:43:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think [this](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html) is what he’s referring to. Thanks for the link. It was very underwhelming though. It doesn’t appear to be “illegal” to discuss it. It doesn’t appear that any “law” was passed by the Florida legislature on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/97 "2016-10-24T17:55:26Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “Forcing people to use a specific bathroom” is what we have been doing forever, aka Men’s/Women’s bathroom; so it’s not like it out of the blue. Second, stupid people attacking a minority of trans people (themselves a tiny minority) in bathrooms is dealt with punishing those stupid people. However, thinking that it is 100% a non-issue, black-and-white solution is false. > I know it’s not likely to happen and more of a strawman than reality but, seeing that we have sex-specific bathroom, what of a person who looks like a stereotypical lumberjack going to the women’s bathroom and saying “it’s ok because that person identifies as a woman”? Why _wouldn’t_ it be ok? What if that lumberjack person _is_ a woman? What gives you the right to insist that she’s not? Who made you the bathroom police? Again, my point is conservatives are making decisions for non-factual reasons. Conservatives can’t provide any evidence that allowing transpeople to use whatever bathroom they causes harm. Therefore, conservatives are wrong to insist that it is a matter of public health and safety to keep transpeople out of the bathroom. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Are most abortion economy-based? Maybe. So, what? Would you favor 100% abortin restriciton with a economic compensation? My point was that conservatives are being irrational in ignoring economic means to reduce pregnancy, like for example, the way conservatives oppose free birth control, reality-based sex education, and better family leave policies. Those are things that have been shown to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies which in turn reduces the number of abortions. Conservatives oppose rational, factual, ways to reduce abortion in favor of faith-based methods which are less effective. Hence, conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Bodily autonomy? Sure. The fetus is a different body, so the “auto” part of autonomy doesn’t pan out. The fetus (as we skip lightly past the embryonic stage) is also welcome to live its life autonomously. That means the fetus is not allowed to parasitically infest another autonomous person and burrow its way into that other autonomous person’s blood stream, hijack their hormonal system, and leech nutrients from another persons’ body. Conservatives who prioritize the rights of a non-person to leech off the body of someone else are misunderstanding both autonomy and personhood. [quote=“Aji\_de\_Gallina, post:82, topic:769286”] No brains? The neura plate, itself the foundation of the brain, is present two weeks. No pain? Is that a requierement for humanity? If the did feel pain, would you oppose abortion past the “pain threshold?”. [quote=“Aji\_de\_Gallina, post:82, topic:769286”] 1. The neura plate alone is not sufficient for brain function. It is not a complete brain, it’s just the building block. Having a functioning brain is the difference between an autonomous human person and an inert collection of body parts. That’s why organ donation and death are based off of brain function, not heartbeats or the mere presence of this or that part. The developing of the fetal brain and nervous system is a process that occurs throughout the entirity of the pregnancy. My point here is that personhood can’t exist without a fully functioning brain. We recognize this easily in adults. There is no fact-based reason for attributing person hood to a fetus without a fully functioning brain. This is why conservatives are wrong on this aspect of abortion. They have no factual reason for assigning personhood to a growing lump of body parts without a fully developed brain. 2. I mention pain because anti-abortionist use emotionally manipulative arguments, for example in the film, “the Silent Scream” to suggest that abortion is painful for the fetus. In reality, the fetus in that film is 12-weeks old. It does not have a brain capacity for feeling fear or pain. Furthermore, the images are filmed in a misleading way. My point is that conservatives are on the wrong side of the abortion issue because they are using phony and misleading emotional arguments that misrepresent medical science. 1. Past the pain threshold - in fetal development terms, this is during the last trimester. Last trimester abortions are already banned in the US (I can’t speak for other countries) unless the health of the mother is at risk. Actually, the laws in the US are mostly based around viability (the exact law varies by locale). Post-viability abortions are for health of the mother or because of a late-developing birth defect. There are only four doctors in the country who will even perform third trimester abortions. They do about 100 a year. Since you ask, personally, I’m fine with that. Pregnancy can be a life-threatening problem. As long mothers are free to protect their own health, I don’t have an objection. But my point in bringing it up is that conservatives are being irrational, afactual and disingenuous to push anti-abortion legislation on the basis of this handful of late-term medical situations. This puts conservatives on the wrong side of this aspect of the abortion issue. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No evidence? How long has it been going? > If it were shown to cause real, observable social problems, would you oppose it? (Re gay marriage) There’s been gay marriage for years now. And yes, if some real, observable, social problem was proven because of the existence of gay marriage, I might oppose it - because I and other liberals are not opposed to a reality-based worldview. But the only result of gay marriage is a giant boost of cash to marriage-related industries so until some actual evidence of problems shows up, conservatives and their handwringing are wrong on this subject. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If someon hate the president for being black, they’re stupid. It’s not “someone”, it’s conservatives. Conservatives in America have lost their damn minds and are behaving irrationally in trying to delegitimize Obama. I know that conservatives will insist that they’re not racist in objecting to Obama but their behavior the last eight years speaks for itself. Conservatives are wrong in their racist reaction to a Black president. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “Institutionmal racism” is a scare-word if it has no clear facts. Is learning about Shakespeare “institutional racism” if not blanced with an equal ammount of leaning about non-white writers? > > Most of your “facts” a beliefs and, more importantly, I imagine you’d still have the same beliefs if the facts were different. Conservatives pretending that racism isn’t real and accusing liberals of being the real racists is just the most obvious and tiresome way that conservatives are on the wrong side of history. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/98 "2016-10-24T18:00:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So it was the Democrats that were wrong on slavery? I specifically said that it was conservatives who were wrong on slavery because the Democrat/Republicans in 1860 lined up differently than they do today. Yes, it was the Democrats who supported slavery in 1860. Then, in the civil rights era, all the racist conservative Democrats fled to the Republican party because of Nixon’s Southern Strategy appealed to them. I know that today’s conservatives think that they are clever in trying to link today’s liberal democrats with the racist conservatives from 155 years ago, but it’s just one of the many things that today’s conservatives are wrong about. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/99 "2016-10-24T18:19:20Z")
Thanks for parroting the liberal fantasy definition of Conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286/100 "2016-10-24T18:24:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The problem with that post is you are mixing scientific fact with political policy decisions. There is no “scientific stance” on trans bathrooms, abortion, gay marriage, Merrick Garland, school busing\*, Affirmative action (just to list the obvious ones). Those aren’t exactly scientific questions, but Republicans have raised objections to at least some of them that have been scientifically disproven. Gay marriage, for example, was argued against on the grounds (among others) that gays are unfit parents, or are more apt to molest children, or that gay parents will turn their children gay. All of which are questions that have been settled through scientifically rigorous study, but which continue to parroted by many political leaders on the right. I think you can make similar arguments about some pro-life arguments (abortion causes breast cancer was a drum they were beating for a while, which IIRC was debunked) and a lot of the arguments around letting trans people use the bathroom is rooted in ignorance of the science around gender dysphoria, what causes it, and how best to treat it. I suppose you could likewise say that a knowledge of history would show how unprecedented holding up Merrick Garland’s nomination is, and that many of the arguments used by Republicans to justify it don’t pass historical muster. That’s not really “science,” but it’s still an educated versus ignorant opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stop-villainizing-people-whose-political-opinions-differ-from-yours/769286.md?page=6)