Yeah, but not only did he go to war, it was against his own country! Isn’t that bad? :eek:
I certainly disagree with your first point. A brief survey of posts by the “known” Right-wing posters will bring up a lot of nastiness. Several of the Right-wing posters who have been banned earned their banning in just that way–by exceeding the limits to which even the Left-wing posters may sink: Dogface (who had the intelligence to be a decent poster) and Milum come to mind, immediately. Snaggletooth, Blackacre, and MadSam are doing their bit, currently. (Yes, I have seen complaints from some posters that “liberals” are nastier, here, than “conservatives,” to which I have several times replied that such observations are determined by whose ox is being gored. The observation that there are more nasty posters on the Left than on the Right is a simple function of there being more posters on the Left than on the Right.)
I also tend to disagree with your general point, while acknowledging that there is a kernel of truth in it–but one which I believe you have extended further than it can legitimately go. There was, indeed, a “counter-culture” aspect of the 60s that rejected polite discourse as a sign of the oppressive system. However, that had much to do with the fact that it was a manifestation of an oppressive system. Polite requests for discussion, debate, or change were generally shrugged off by those in power while the supporters of those in power used rocks, firehoses, firebombs, or bayonets to encourage more silence. Such acts were either tut-tutted away by those in power or were condemned with a knowing wink toward the perpetrators. Peaceful demonstrations were condemned as being “inappropriate” behavior by “those people.” Had there not been decades of white on black riots and lynchings before the protests or had the early war protestors not been condemned with riot police sicced on them, it is possible that the issue of courtesy vs “genuineness” would have never arisen. Yes, the voiced rebellion against politeness arose among the “liberals,” but the actual violence that ignored common courtesy had (some of its) roots firmly planted among the “conservatives.”
It’s funny, though perhaps predictable, that I view your post in an almost exactly opposite manner. As far as the first part regarding who’s the most impolite, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the second point, I would tend to disagree with you as well while acknowledging that your post contains a kernel of truth. First of all, I don’t believe politeness was a “manifestation” of an oppressive system anymore than eating lunch could be said to be a manifestation of an oppressive system. The one had virtually nothing to do with the other, IMO.
And secondly, you appear to be saying the same thing I did, that a decline in politeness resulted from efforts to effect social change for the better. The difference is that I lament it and you seem to be okay with it. I happen to feel that a relatively small percentage of the population was directly involved at any given time in any of the things you mention, and yet the entire population has been drug down by this disregard for politeness and consideration for others. And it wasn’t only social injustice that played a role, or even the predominant role, in the decline of politeness and consideration for others in society at that time. A large part of it was simply counter-culture types trying to be cool. It wasn’t hip to be polite and mannerly. And a large part of the counter-culture embraced an anything goes type of attitude about a great many things: sex, drugs and rock-n-roll among them ( 
), and felt that nobody had a right to tell them how to behave about anything. And then those people had kids who grew up in this aggressive and politeness-challenged new society and adopted what they saw as the norm, and then they grew up and had kids who are the young people now who are even more divorced from the concept of politeness and consideration for others, especially outside their own peer group.
But having said that, the past is the past. The thing I’m trying to say is that now that these cultural injustices are for the most part a thing of the past as well, it would be a good thing to try to get back to the kind of society in which people didn’t flip you off in traffic, or deliberately try to keep you from changing lanes, or call you an asshole because you support this or that candidate for office, or blow past you with their noses in the air and saying not one word of thanks when you hold the door for them or let them out in traffic.
I’m aware of what you meant. I simply was floored by the thought that a person could be so partisan as to blame his political opponents for a broad decline in civility throughout society. I suppose there’s a precedent for that sort of thing, but it’s not an example meaningful or relevant dialogue. I think it’s hard for people to make such judgments objectively anyway; it’s a lot easier to see someone’s rudeness when it’s directed at you. Perhaps some of the more extreme examples of rudeness towards liberals have slipped by you.
Long hair and dressing well is equivalent to rudeness? Perhaps we’re having trouble here because of a basic difference in terms. I haven’t noticed any particular difference in the manners or comportment of conservatives and liberals in my lifetime; I’ve known plenty on both sides to be perfectly loathesome, and others who were models of civility and decency.
Perhaps, though, you refer more to “manners” and “polite society” than to genuine civility. Unfortunately, when the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s reached its height, such notions broke down completely amongst the conservative segment of society that had, until then, confined itself to legal oppression and the occasional quiet lynching. If you’re old enough to remember school desegregation, you’ll see that it was not the liberals who violated the basic demands of human society.
Nor did I say it was. I don’t see the decline of civility to be a partisan issue - if indeed such a decline ever occured. Laments about the end of manners and politeness are as old as time, and it’s hard for me to believe that either basic civility or political rhetoric have fallen that much over time. After all, it’s been more than a century since a senator was beaten with a cane on Capitol Hill. And they say that Rachel Jackson, wife of president Andrew Jackson, died young because of a broken heart over the nasty rumors propogated about her in the media.
Surely the Anne Coulter references have been repeated enough here at the SDMB that you’ve heard them before. And it’s possible that my friend Jie-mei was lying to me, but I have no reason to believe so. I was merely making the point that political conservatives do not always comport themselves with the politeness that one would expect, if indeed they were the bulwark of civility in our society. Certainly ten minutes of AM radio could convince anyone otherwise; there are many rancorous, unpleasant, and uncivilized people among conservative media figures. Note that I don’t deny that our side has our share; I simply don’t see any evidence that liberalism is responsible for a decline in manners in our society, as I noted above. I don’t have such a strictly partisan view of the world.
Again, I don’t believe that’s true. Perhaps the rudest, most unpleasant poster on the boards, Brutus, is one of yours; Diogenes at his worst doesn’t rate half of a Brutus in terms of unpleasantness (or incoherence, for that matter. But I digress.) Certainly we liberals outnumber you guys to some extent (although I don’t think the numbers are as uneven as Doper conservatives have suggested.) If we’re ruder, it’s only because we’re more numerous. We could each collect examples until the universe turned dark and cold without finding every instance of partisan rudeness here on the boards, but please don’t pretend your side hasn’t gotten its share of digs in, because it’s simply not the case.
Here on the boards, we’ve lately seen a flurry of posters lamenting Bush’s victory, and a similar flurry of posters celebrating it. However, the gloating tone of the victory celebrations - like Bricker’s I-told-you-so and Muad’Dib’s “happy dance” - surely belies any notion that conservatives are not hateful, vile, vulgar and insulting when they wish to be. In fact, the gloating has been disgusting to me, and it would be had my side won as well (though I don’t deny some of us would have engaged in it.) If you haven’t seen enough examples of absolutely appalling behavior on your own side to contradict your assertion, it can only mean you’re not looking.
I’m afraid that, while you haven’t stepped down to the level of Brutus or “Goddamn mother-effing coward Spaniards” Muad’Dib in terms of idiocy and obnoxiousness, you’ve sadly shown that you view the world through a strictly partisan lens. I make no apologies for Reeder, or Diogenes, or rjung - not because they haven’t been incredibly rude, but because I haven’t claimed my side to have any especial grip on politeness. If you really wish to show the conservative contingent to be the politer side, I suggest you work on taking certain people’s keyboards away.
Excalibre, the key misunderstanding you have is that you attribute to me a bias based on conservatism that causes me to unfairly paint liberals with too broad a brush when passing out demerits for rude behavior. What you do not realize is that my conservatism is based upon, and grew out of, my observations that so much on the liberal side, both philosophically and behaviorally, is wrong. In other words, it isn’t my conservatism that causes me to be critical of liberals; it is liberals that have caused me to be critical of liberals, and it is they that have led me to become conservative. My disdain for their ways predates my conservatism and is what has driven me to it. I was apolitical as a teenager and young man, but what I saw going on around me in terms of liberal or counter-culture lifestyle and attitudes and ways of thinking – which flew in the face of everything common sense told me was right – drove me more and more into the conservative camp…where I am now a member in good standing, thank you very much.
But again, I am not totally against all things liberal. Much good in terms of human rights have resulted from liberal activity. And not only that but most of my friends, both here and in offline life, are liberals. And I can see that some of what I feared would happen as a result of liberal influence indeed has not come to pass…and some good I had not anticipated has.
But still, some bad has as well and that’s what I’m trying to address here. You seem to feel that both parties are, ipso facto, equally at fault in whatever negatives exist in society today, and that to try to say otherwise is indicative of partisanship. Such is not the case. For example, I readily admit that conservatives in the fifties and sixties were content to maintain the status quo and that human rights issues had to be forced in order to effect positive change. I wouldn’t call anyone who says so unfairly partisan. Yet you label me as unfairly partisan for any criticism I make that isn’t ideologically neutral…and that just isn’t so. If it’s a bad on the side of conservatives, I’ll say so; if it’s a bad on the part of liberals, I’ll say so. But to claim both sides are equally to blame for the direction society has taken in regard to basic civility with one another is, I think, naive at best and disingenuous at worst. Since I have no doubt you are honest, I have to go with naive in this case.
I can accept that your disgust with 1960s counterculture drove you into political conservatism. However, you chose your political affiliation long ago; now, either you have maintained the same beliefs about society despite the passage of substantial time, or you are now potentially susceptible confirmation bias, since you now do view issues under the influence of your conservative politics. Everyone is subject to an inability to accurately perceive certain things due to their own emotional involvement in them. That’s one reason I declined to make any claim that either side has a monopoly on rudeness.
I’m afraid you still don’t understand me. I’m not viewing the issue of the decline of politeness through a political lens whatsoever (nor due I accept, necessarily, the proposition that such a decline has occured at all. Remember what I noted earlier about nostalgia; people have been saying the same things since history began, and if you need me to track down cites, I’ll do my best. Suffice it to say, very old texts contain eerily modern laments about the disrespect of the youth, and the decline of traditional morals and manners. :))
I don’t claim that you are unfairly partisan. I claim that viewing this (hypothetical) decline in civility as a partisan issue is intellectually untenable. As I said, no one is immune to having skewed judgments due to their political beliefs. Can I help it if folks like Reeder and rjung simply don’t get my hackles up as much as, for instance, Muad’Dib? So naturally I note more strongly instances of conservative rudeness than I do instances of liberal rudeness; I’m sure you’d admit that you, too, are subject to flawed perception at times. We all are; it’s part of our emotional makeup as human beings.
And “rudeness” is not something easily quantified or measured. I see no possible way to document it without involving human judgment, and I see no possible way for that human judgment to remain truly neutral, no matter how well-intentioned and honest the judges may be. I don’t think it’s possible, then, to claim that either side is ruder even if discussion is limited to the present day.
So you understand that I simply do not believe any particular social movement is behind this (again hypothetical) decline in civility - or at least, if any movement is to blame, it’s impossible to make that judgment honestly. And I don’t believe that long hair or counter-cultural sentiments necessarily correllate with anti-social or uncivil behavior; it’s simply not something I’ve seen evidence for.
Society changes, and it’s hard to say what drives shifts in social thought, at least ones that motivate things so comparatively subtle as interpersonal interaction (as opposed to eminently measurable things like election results.) I don’t think it’s meaningful to blame any one side for something like this, since not only is it inherently unprovable, but I believe that change in society is driven by interactions between people and groups. The sum total of these interactions forms society; “liberal” and “conservative” only have meaning relative to each other and the machinations of society stem from their interactions, not their actions. So if hippies during the Summer of Love started a new trend of rudeness that continued to the present day, a generation later (yes, I understand this is a ridiculous oversimplification of your point, and I don’t wish to imply that you said this. It’s an example.), then that rudeness stemmed from some covert societal force that the hippies rode along with, or it was in direct response to the actions of the ‘establishment’. I simply don’t think social change can be “blamed” on (or credited to, for that matter) any single group. And so I think you’re viewing the issue from an overly partisan viewpoint.
Excalibre, a quick response and then I must go as I’ve been here all night and I’m getting bleary-eyed.
I don’t think (and I hope I didn’t say) that “long hair or counter-cultural sentiments necessarily correllate with anti-social or uncivil behavior.” I simply think that certain wheels were set in motion by the liberal-driven cultural upheavals of the sixties, seventies and eighties (as I said in the post you originally responded to), and that the outgrowth, intentional or otherwise, of these societal upheavals and the attitudes they fostered, is a much more crass, vulgar, aggressive, hostile, impolite and inconsiderate society than existed in this country in the forties, fifties and early sixties.
I understand you disagree, and I don’t expect to convince you. But basically, all this is just talk. The germaine issue is politeness. I think we all agree that society would be much better off if we could return to the politeness and consideration for others that was commonplace in this country once upon a time. Would you agree?
I know it’s been touched on already, but as a woman, no. I really don’t believe that today’s society, which is more inclined to treat me as an equal to a man, is more crass, vulgar, aggressive, hostile, impolite, or inconsiderate.
I would imagine that most minorities would agree with me that we are being treated much more considerately now than ever.
Of course, for white males, things might not look as rosy. When you’re expecting a “Yes, massa,” a “fuck you” is all the more shocking.
I did not argue with Starving Artist’s post regarding political issues and politeness, because I thought I had a pretty good idea where he was coming from – and in fact I was almost on target. People who believe that an issue is so overarching and grievous an usurpation of their or others’ rights and freedom tend to get very insulting and prickly – and the Sixties radicals were probably the most vociferous such group in living memory. In the black/white liberal/conservative dichotomy that does not in fact represent the real world, they definitely were liberals – but not in the sense in which a typical Democrat today or for that matter Liberal and William Ewart Gladstone would have used the word.
The evolution of the insulting conservative of today (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, our own Brutus) and the “trolling conservative” that has in the recent past plagued this board is a reaction against that social activism. I understand it – that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
No, my own opinion is that you are my equal in every way, and deserving of respect and courtesy as an initial presumption from me, until and unless you forfeit that by grossly verbally abusing or insulting me. And I am presumptively entitled to the same respect and courtesy from you.
I grant that the subjugation of women in the past has led to some cultural accretions regarding “courtesy toward women by men” but that is not what I’m referencing here. I’m speaking of the courtesy of equal to equal that has been a hallmark of civilized behavior, and to which you as a human being are entitled without reference to whether you possess a Y chromosome, not of the patronizing courtesy of “the master of the house” towards his wife of a hundred years ago.
But while we’ve gotten into some interesting discussion regarding courtesy, that was neither my nor Heinlein’s main point – it was the issue of identifying, not with humanity nor even with one’s nation, but with one’s own sub-cultural interest group. My belief that Jayjay, Gobear and andygirl are entitled to marry the person they love is not predicated on “gay activism” but on their dignity as human beings. My sense that those who live in poverty deserve a hand up, not a hand out, is based not in my Democratic affiliation but in the fact that we share a common humanity; what harms them, harms me. “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” My belief in Jesus Christ leads me to feel that atheists deserve the same right to choose what (or what not) to believe as He gave me. I feel that the walls we build are destructive of those things which we do have in common – and that Starving Artist and I can agree that we do not want to live in fear of assault on the streets, whether by terrorists, street gangs, thugs, gay bashers, or anything else that might come down the pike, that we want to live in a country where government exists by the consent of the governed expressed in democratic elections through a constitutional republic, however much we might differ on the specifics there, that we agree that government exists to preserve human rights, even if we disagree on what those rights might consist in.
And it’s against that warfare between interest groups that I hoped that my OP would be what little blow I can strike for the country I love, and the humanity of which, with John Donne, I am a part.
How does your model work for a sixty-year-old man who has spent the whole of his youth building his home, improving his property, investing his time and toil into something that you now ask him to abandon? How does he build another fence with his twelve-year-old son? How does he again teach his nine-year-old daughter to care for her horse in the barn that he built with his own hands? How do he and his lover walk outside their new home and look out over the acreage that they formed together? He can no longer labor, and if he could, there would not be time. How do you look him in the eye and tell him that all he needs is to be adaptable? That what he has built is worth nothing more than fair market value? That he can sell his soul and buy a new one?
Heh. Thanks.
What an excellent demonstration of what I’m talking about. Thank you. :rolleyes:
We’re definitely living up to each other’s expectations, then, aren’t we?
You see, you’re harking back to a time when people like me were treated like children. You’re harking back to a time when people of color were treated like dirt. And you want me, or anyone, to mourn that things aren’t as “considerate” now. There was nothing considerate about the 1940s. Sure, white men might have been fairly polite to one another, though I think you’d be surprised at how often that wasn’t true, either. But the rest of us were hardly being treated politely. It’s laughable that you would think that era was some sort of golden age of civility, a glorious summit from which we have fallen. White men may be being treated with less civility than they got then, but the rest of us? We’re getting treated like human beings instead of pets.
I’ve seen people lament the fall away from the “grace” and “civility” of the antebellum south. I guarantee you that the sharecroppers and slaves didn’t think they were being treated with grace and civility. There is nothing civil about contempt or condescension. That some small groups might have been more polite within their groups is meaningless. I think the best gauge of civility is how those in power treat those who aren’t.
Again, white men might have it worse than they did. The rest of us have it better, though still not as good as white men in some areas. I can’t get too worked up about the passing of an era that treated you better while treating me (if I had been born) worse.
Very well said, Polycarp. Your post makes me want to sit down with you and try to work out ways in which we could try to make things better (provided, of course, we were in a position to actually do so). You make your case for wanting to make things better sound reasonable and laudable. I know you are an intelligent man of good will who would be trying to make things better for everyone. I also know you would respect and take into account the things I’m concerned about – indeed you share many of them – and that you would likewise work with me to try to make them better as well.
In other words, you make me want to work with you to make things better in a spirit of mutual good will and respect, whereas jsgoddess makes me want to say “fuck you” my own self and force my concerns politically because reason certainly gets nowhere with the likes of her. (That anyone could equate my suggestion that we would be better off today if we were more polite with an assumed desire on my part to sanction slavery and sexist repression is simply ridiculous and is an example of the mindless rhetoric I’ve been speaking of throughout my posts.) Particularly in light of the fact that I’ve said right out loud that I think the advancement of racial, womens’ and gay rights are positive aspects of liberalism in this country. So, in other words, I’m pretty much accused of racism and sexism and told “fuck you” simply because politeness was more prevalent during the time these issues were worse and I advocate more politeness. As I said: you might just as well blame lunch, as almost everyone at the time was eating it.
I said in another thread that I didn’t think conservative “ideas” won the election; rather it was conservative “values” that won the day. A desire for politeness and consideration for other would be among those values, and a desire to wrest control from (or keep it out of the hands of), those such as jsgoddess is what drives people such as me (in part) to the polls to vote conservative. People are fed up with the rude, crass, and vulgar way society behaves these days (as evinced by the incredible overreaction to Janet Jackson’s boob)…and, given that racism, sexism, and increasingly, anti-gay bias have been dealt with and for the most part corrected, they are more desireous of returning to better modes of social behavior that have been abandoned in an effort to effect these positive changes.
:eek:
You weren’t born?
But seriously, I’m beginning to wonder if you even read my posts. I am not advocating a full-fledged return to the way of life that existed then, I’m saying that we should pick and choose what was good about life in this country then, and, if it no longer exists, try to bring that particular element back.
The next time some “white guy” in traffic tailgates you or flips you off because he thinks you did something stupid and he’s mad about it, or deliberately tries to keep you from changing lanes or merging into traffic…or the next time someone lets a door close in your face instead of holding it for you…or the next time someone calls you “bitch” because that’s what modern culture has allowed to become a synonym for women, try to remember that the loss of civility in this country is only making things worse for us “white guys,” and white guys who, for the most part, joined with you in your effort to gain equality.
That isn’t at all a problem in America. The problem is the reverse: people identifying their group with the country, to the exclusion of other groups. In a backassward sense, they’re the same, but the consequences are very different.
By the mid-1990s, even the Marilyn Quayles of the world had stopped trying to guilt women back into the kitchen. Not applicable.
Both? If so, not applicable; both liberals and conservatives today seem to think well of the police.
The courts, of course, are a more complicated matter. Liberals generally have faith in the court system as a whole, despite their upset about a certain pair of Supreme Court decisions in December 2000, and their worries that the Federal courts in general are being systematically stacked by the GOP. Many conservatives, OTOH, clearly don’t have much faith in the courts, despite the strong conservative tilt of the Federal courts resulting from most judges having been appointed by Presidents named Reagan and Bush. I’m mystified by this, of course, but it’s real. However, conservatives, despite their ascendancy, aren’t “the population.” Not applicable.
We have low taxation, low inflation (for now), and a relatively small Federal workforce. Not applicable.
Finally one that applies. And to think that for a brief shining moment, we’d managed to get income and outgo into balance. We know how it moved out of balance. We also know where the silly-season stuff, like flag-burning amendments and attempts to plant the Ten Commandments on public buildings, come from.
Unless things have spiked just in the past year or two, crime rates are the lowest in a generation.
We had the one big day of the terrorists, but that united us. All too briefly.
Not applicable.
OK, here we’ve got some problems. But I don’t think stop-loss and Gitmo are causing America to disintegrate, even if the disagreements over them are doing their bit.
Here, I’m going to flat-out disagree. Why? Because of New York City. There it is, a city that prides itself on being rude and abrupt. But it’s the one truly great city of our land, and one of the greatest cities in the world.
Heinlein didn’t always have it right. He believed that a well-armed culture was a polite culture - but they’ve got plenty of guns in the 'hoods east of the Anacostia in D.C., and it’s been that way for decades. Yet it’s not a polite neighborhood. Switzerland is polite because of the Swiss, not because of the guns.
Hell, America as a whole is one of the most heavily-armed countries this side of Iraq. We’re getting more well-armed all the time. Yet the problem of rudeness is the one you cite, Poly, and it isn’t going away.
So I don’t see that Heinlein’s remarks have much relevance here. He said some wise things; he said some dumb things. But if he said something that applies to the strife between lefte and right in our society, as mirrored on this board, it was probably in some other book.
I have not claimed that one side or the other was more polite or impolite. I have noted that all your oxen (on both sides) have bloody flanks–and bloody horns.
You seem to have read my post with your own filters. I have not claimed that courtesy was a manifestation of an oppressive system. I noted that the breakedown of courtesy occurred first among those holding the power. The resultant embrace of discourtesy by the Left was a reaction to the hostility and discourtesy demonstrated by those in power. For several years before I began hearing that manners were simply a way to keep people in their place, I heard and witnessed people in power abuse it. Long before the first utterance of “personal honesty” (as a rationalization for rudeness) I saw a cop knock a classmate off the steps of a public museum from which my classmate was photgraphing a peaceful demonstration while “good citizens” screamed obscenities at the marchers. Years before I heard it claimed that “manners” were some sort of barrier to freedom, I heard “polite” people disdain those who were attempting to claim their rightful place in society in the crudest terms and other “polite” people mock anyone who was different.
The resultant deterioration of courtesy was not an effort to overthrow oppression, but a natural reaction to hypocrisy–all the more since many people who were, at that time, proclaiming the need for courtesy were, themselves, discourteous.
And I have no idea where you get the idea that I am “okay” with discourtesy. While I do not stoop to the rude behaviour of publicly chastising those who are rude (other than my children), I do attempt to refrain from discourtesy, myself.
I am not “okay” with a lack of condsideration; I simply do not choose to arbitrarily blame groups of which I am not a member for “their” failings when those failings are present in nearly all groups within society–even groups with which I may be associated.
I guess you didn’t read any of my posts very carefully. 
I stated, far more than once, heck, far more than once in each of my posts, that I haven’t seen evidence that society has grown genuinely ruder. I wish we could discuss this properly, but I understand that you don’t have the time to read what I actually wrote. This issue is hardly of cosmic importance anyway.
I guess you don’t read any of our posts very carefully.
jsgoddess said nothing of the sort. She made a pretty meaningful point about it - the “polite society” you harken back to, to whatever extent it was politer (which, as I’ve stated, is merely a hypothetical. Every generation looks back to the good ol’ days of their childhood with a less-than-accurate image of the past.) was only politer among a small group of people. I certainly don’t wish to be back in a day when white people were politer and black people kept in their place - and even if white people dressed conservatively and knew which one was the salad fork*, the tremendous incivility of white folk’s treatment of black folk was far, far ruder.
What jsgoddess is doing here, and which you seem to disagree with, is linking “politeness” to the treatment of minorities - because, at a lot of places and a lot of times, white people were far less than polite to blacks. I think it’s a relevant comparison; if you don’t agree, please discuss the point rather than dismissing it.
Starving Artist, I hope you don’t think I’m too forward in saying this, but you have a bad habit of taking others’ disagreement with you rather personally, and of, frankly, refusing to really consider the issues you’re discussing. It’s not something you do constantly; you’re rather a cut above the duffers and Brutuses of the world, which is why I speak to you (from time to time) and not them. However, you’re not making yourself look good at the moment: jsgoddess made what, to me at least, is an interesting point, and you overreacted to the point of swearing. She didn’t insult you, she didn’t insult conservatives in general - she merely argued with you. That’s what this place is about.
She didn’t accuse you of racism. Or sexism. Not even implicitly. She argued with your belief that society was more polite back in the good ol’ days. That’s not the same as calling you racist, or sexist. She implied that the racists and sexists of the '50s and '60s that really were working to oppress women and minorities were, indeed, racist and sexist. She was not lumping you into that category. Honest.
The white man got his lunch from the labor and suffering of the black man! 
*Start on the outside and work your way in! It’s the small one, fuckers! Christ, can’t even eat a damn salad without help. :: wanders away grumbling to himself ::