Presumably, gay unicorns like getting poled.
Unfortunately, everybody they meet claims to be a virgin.
Right. Maybe they’ll say something like: “I found her untrustworthy and couldn’t elect a liar.” Or something like “I didn’t want to elect a felon to office.” Or maybe “Trump will bring back manufacturing jobs.” None of those statements are actually true, or reasonable to believe, or anything short of inane bullshit, but… Well, there’s no but. This is what we mean when we say the answer is ignorance.
I know that. In fact, that was part of my point.
The post I was responding to said (and I did quote this in my response):
My point is that this works both ways. Condescending to others occurs on both sides.
And yes, when Trump called Clinton a nasty woman, I took it personally.
Does the Chicago area count as flyover country? I am a white, straight, middle-aged (well, sometimes being 62 feels like it makes me geriatric, but I think to many “middle-aged” applies), land-owning, business-owning female. Even given my gender I am well aware that the current set up is better for me personally, and I will likely benefit in this regime.
But like you, I don’t want to benefit at the likely cost.
At the first opportunity you have to follow your own advice you choose not to? Doesnt give me a lot of faith in you.
In my view, the only thing to avoid is variants of, “You must want people to starve!”
Certainly argue for the reasons you think a minimum wage is valuable, but don’t impute evil motives, or stupidity, to those that disagree.
If you don’t want people to call you a racist, don’t vote for one of the leaders of the birther movement.
And you continue to show no respect for their point of view. That isn’t going to win votes or win elections.
If someone is terribly concerned that their deity is going to revisit the earth soon so they and everyone in their faith is now studying to be a cobbler, because that’s what their god wants, are you going to call them an idiot or are you going to help them find work fixing shoes?
Guess which one would win votes and elections.
Not what happened. I was illustrating my point. Thanks for helping.
Did they happen to say why? I know there was a small paper out there that endorsed him but wouldn’t give a reason-was it this one?
I still can’t believe there are people on this board who, when a gay person meets a Trump supporter, who voted for a man who’ll likely advocate for laws and judges that will strip away his rights, allow discrimination against him, and allow others to put their gay kids in camps, expect that gay person to say, boy, I really respect you and your point of view. Let’s sit down and talk.
I still can’t believe there are people on this board who, when a person with a preexisting condition who’s now insured meets a Trump voter, who voted against the act that gives them a chance at actually living and who may now literally DIE, expect that soon to be uninsured person to say, we should have a beer and have a serious discussion of the issues so I can persuade you to my side.
Do none of you have any understanding or basic empathy? Who the hell would react the way you want them to? Why would you demand those people act that way?
This question shifts a burden to me that I did not assume. I was suggesting that one way the valence calculation here may have been applied. In other words, I was not saying I personally was imposing a moral determination – I was suggesting that voters may have applied their moral views to the question, and that it was therefore impossible to declare with objective certainty that one governing choice is right.
Yes, I agree. But that doesn’t answer detailed questions like, “The law only protects certain classes from being targeted for discrimination; I can fire an employee because they like the designated hitter rule in baseball but not because they’re Asian. What should those protected classes be?”
Sure. But does that better moral fiber require that we become vegans, or can we both slaughter animals for food AND claim we are making the planet healthier for animals to live? Seems contradictory.
I agree, but these are finite resources. As a general aspirational matter, we have enough food to feed everyone and shelter to house everyone. We don’t have enough healthcare to pay unlimited medical costs for everyone. So the details become important.
No. I think we have a greater duty to preserve human life, and when the sovereign control over our own bodies would result in an unborn human’s death, society has the moral right to protect that unborn human.
I demand nothing.
How do you believe your favored approach creates good results, though, as opposed ti mine?
I am offering, as a suggestion, what I feel is a strategy that will mitigate against a repeat of this disaster. If someone finds himself unable to execute this strategy, then he obviously cannot.
Honestly, I don’t think either yours or mine will work. I don’t think you can reason or nice someone who doesn’t think you’re a human being worth of life into thinking so.
I think you can.
I think same-sex marriage reached such social acceptance as quickly as it did because being gay became normalized, and the caricature of a leather-clad pervert was supplanted by boring Bill from Accounting.
It’s how racists’ views crumble, bit by bit. (“There go the blacks again. Why don’t they get off welfare?” “But Steve is black, and he’s worked overtime three straight weeks on the Reynolds merger!” “Oh yeah, you know I didn’t mean Steve. He’s not one of those.”) Still racist, sure… but the dissonance is at work.
Why are liberals incapable of seeing people as individuals, rather than as being part of a group? Just because you’re a minority doesn’t mean you have to vote for the person with a D next to their name, nor does it mean that a White guy voting for Trump is a racist or a sexist. Much to your consternation, people have varied reasons for why they voted, and very few boil down to “because I like <enter 'ism here>”.
Jesus, people. Y’all ain’t never gonna’ figure out why y’all have been marginalized politically for at least the next four years, are you?
That’s my entire point, though: some Trump supporters don’t seem to understand that by voting for a man who has directly and specifically put forth policies that will in some cases LITERALLY kill them (or in some cases, his surrogates and policy makers close to him), they are seen as supporting and voting for those same policies. Or at least, seen as being so apathetic towards them they don’t care what happens.
Does this make sense to you, or am I missing something here?
It makes sense AND you are missing something here.
You are missing that many Trump voters have felt ignored and marginalized and taken advantage of for decades now, even during the W years. Their concerns were not being addressed. And there are a lot of people who feel this way: some significant portion of at least 55,000,000 by last count.