And it’s been repeatedly explained to you that what you are considering “treating people equally” is anything but. Not sure how much simpler we can make it.
If you had an example that actually “treated people equally” then you’d have a point. But you don’t, so you don’t.
Don’t know what you are alluding to, but I probably don’t care.
Conservatives have a few errors that need correcting. I had in mind their support of special treatment of police and other government workers.
During the US debate, we actually did see actual Dopers claim that gays have the same right as straights to marry people of the opposite sex, so there was no problem to fix.
And that speaks loudly, doesn’t it?
I don’t have an example of conservatives treating people equally in the liberal conception of the phrase.
Exactly.
Another example of treating people equally in the conservative sense of the term.
Why should I care about special interest groups who want to disembowel me?
I had no evidence of something I didn’t claim. For some reason I think this is not hitting home for you.
Yeah, dude, we know.
Yeah, dude, we know.
Further illustrating the indefensibility of the term as you use it.
Just to clarify (I know, I know, you’re being disingenuously obtuse, and what witty fun it is !) : it was a joke, and they don’t generally speaking. But they *might *just get the impulsive urge to when you pretend to have utterly missed the whole gay Thing over the past, oh, twenty, thirty years, thereabouts ? Wait, no, the seventies still keep receding, the judgemental agist assholes. Make that fitty.
Seems that Will may have forgotten the three social structures in which conservatives agree “communism/socialism” is better… families, churches, charity… but points have to be made in this discussion, I guess.
Once we get past the vitriol and name-calling, it seems like one of the fundamental differences is that conservatives value things like personal freedom and property rights - i.e. the right to own and dispose of your own possessions how you see fit, as more important than making things fair or equitable.
So when we start talking about progressive vs. flat taxes, one side sees “unfair” as taxation causing a higher burden on one group than another, while the other views “unfair” as one group getting more of their stuff taken than another.
Both are right from their particular perspectives. And both viewpoints are compounded by emotional aspects - “$100 of tax to a poor person is a bigger deal to them than $3000 to an upper middle class family! That’s not fair!” versus “I’m successful- why is the government taking more of my income than that dumbshit I went to high school with who did nothing but smoke weed and skip class? I’m being penalized for doing the right thing.”
You are mistaken in that assessment.
That would not be racism, that would be bigotry.
This quoted section is in fact a bigoted statement as well. I disagree with your assessment that the Republican Party is “awash in racism and bigotry.” It’s nothing more than a hyperbolous statement of political hackitude. The statement tells me about you and your attitudes. It tells me nothing about Republicans.
You are not free to assume I am Republican. I, in fact voted a Democrat in the last two presidential elections.
I am aware that there are racists on the right. It is very clear that the left is far more racist.
More. I didn’t accuse or imply that you were being racist. That would make no sense. What I did accuse you of by implication was bigotry. The quoted section I used paints with a broad enough brush, and is egregious enough that such an accusation is warranted. I stand behind it.
There’s that broad brush again. Clinton signed DOMA, Obama came out against gay marriage during his first term. You seem to want to assert as a given fact that issues of racism and bigotry should automatically be attributed to the right when the evidence is clearly to the contrary. The more reasonable answer is that societal attitudes change and evolve.
You are making broad mid characterizations that are not supported by the facts.
I think that’s an act of imagination on your part. No such thing happened.
I do not. The fact that she is Muslim is irrelevant. Her being a rabid anti-American and anti-Semite who has accused him of being a white Nationalist running concentration camps, is probably the relevant reason behind his ire.
Jesus Christ, again with this. Bigotry, not racism. How can I could even accuse you of being racist against conservatives? It’s a political philosophy not a skin color.
The link is really not about Republicans. Republicans tend to be insensitive towards race and racial issues, because they believe that individual identity is sovereign.
Liberals used to believe this, too. With the ascendency of the left, that has changed. The Left believes your group identity is more important than your individual identity. That change is what is referred to when one talks about “identity politics.” Your previous examples directed at the right don’t represent “identity politics,” they are examples of racial pandering.
The two terms are not interchangeable.
So, why are more minorities Democrat. Because the Democrats court them. They do so in ways that are worthy and admirable, and they do so in ways that are odious and despicable, and everything in between.
What gets me. What I truly can’t believe is that somebody like you, a Moderator on this board, who has supposedly demonstrated some kind of faculty for critical thinking actually believes any of this bullshit you are arguing.
There are 300 million people in this country and two political parties. The fact that you paint with so broad a brush on half of them is the very definition of…
Bigotry.
In your opinion, does “personal freedom” include the right to marry who you want?
As an American minority, I will have to say that this is a very ignorant statement.
We can use that as part of governmental assistance if you wish to. Do the businesses ever NOT get governmental assistance and better themselves financially?
What I’m after is governmental assistance that is ‘temporary’ is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. ALL of it.
The permanence of it is unacceptable.
The liberal principle might as well be talking about equal as a whole new word then. Fair is a subjective judgement and it is also why you get so much pushback.
Equal is easy to define, fair, not so much.
One of which focuses entirely on the self, and the other from recognizing that there are other people in the world. Only one of those perspectives is valid.
It isn’t emotionalism, but factuality.
Hear, hear ! And that’s why Congress looks like [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/I am aware that there are racists on the right. It is very clear that the left is far more racist.).
I mean, seriously, Scylla. You’re not an absolute idiot. You’re one of Them obviously, but you still penned that blimp story, and you’ve waterboarded yourself, and you’ve written that one thing about taming horses which I *still *pull up from time to time because it’s so fucking good. I *know *there’s some feelz in you.
So how do you square axiomatic, absurd statements like “the Left are the *real *racists !” with something as simply factual as that graphic, or Trump getting applauded, cheered on with chants of “send them home” ? Where’s the disconnect, where’s the crack in your prism ?
Hahaha, seriously? What is factual about defining fair (non-equal) rate in taxes that I can’t factually rebut?
Okay, rebut the claim that low-income people are affected more by a flat tax rate than are high-income people. Take all the time you need.
Spoiler: It’s a fact.