Again, the OP said this is a non-issue. So why are liberals making a fight over it? Why don’t they just shrug and move on?
All about the slippery slope. Those well-intentioned conservatives want to control others’ behaviors that they (in some really twisted logic) deem as infringing on their right of religious freedom. It’s always the same. Abortion rights…prayer in schools…gay marriage…transgender bathroom requirements.
Yep, it’s stupid and pointless. But if they get an inch they take a mile.
My wearing black shoes isn’t a big deal right up until you punch me in the nose for wearing black shoes. At that point, I have to respond, because if I don’t, you’ll break my fucking jaw the next chance you get.
Whenever I read another well-reasoned and thoughtful comment from SOAT I think there may yet be hope for us all.
Well, that’s presumably because you’re a consequentialist, who wants to fix things instead of assigning blame and beating people up. That seems the obvious way to be.
But this is America! I expect neither the Democrats or the Republicans particularly want to raise taxes on white suburbanites to help poor colored people in Flint. So the GOP pretend there’s no problem, and the Democrats just yell and point fingers.
glee got it right. While some politicians are civic-minded, many are just “looking out for Number One.”
ETA: I may be too cynical. Also, Hari Seldon made a good point.
I think maybe you’re not giving authoritarian despots a fair shake. I mean, if you had an authoritarian despot who had a little better judgment than Rupert Murdoch, and he had Murdoch put to the sword, that would be a small step up in the quality of the state’s decision-making process.
More generally, the press is terrible. And large-scale commercial broadcasting, which has economic incentives to favor great concentrations of wealth, is particularly counterproductive. You want to change this country? Go after TV and radio, somehow.
Although I agree news coverage and commentary is terrible, and of course the major corporations which own most of the news outlets have a desire to avoid addressing genuinely controversial issues, but there is also a reluctance to give time and coverage for positions that don’t neatly fit into a dichotomy that can be characterized on a single axis political spectrum, in large measure they just don’t want to or cannot spend the time to address issues which may have many nuances, such as long term energy policy, socioeconomic disparity and the attendant disenfranchisement of whole classes of people, or the consequences of ceding the lead in intellectual and research science to other nations because we cannot devote more than a tiny fraction of tax revenue to fund it. And then there are things like infrastructure, water-use politices, and tax reform that are too complicated and frankly boring for even most of the people reporting on it, much less the viewing public. It’s not that the actual people reporting and presenting the news have a specific agenda to bolster their corporate masters and hidden overlords; it’s mostly that they’re too dumb, or believe (often with good reason) that their viewers are too ignorant to understand the details. They are, as John Stewart so adroitly put it, “partisan…hacks” who are just creating theater rather than reporting or analyzing news.
Here’s an example that covers all bases: gay marriage. This was framed by opponents as a liberal vs. conservative “public morals” argument, even though the only people who should really give a flying fart about the moral implications are those participating in it. But there are several other issues which received sparse coverage, including the issues allowing homosexual couples to join in by-state “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” but the lack of consistency for dealing with legal implications across state lines including medical and benefits coverage, resolution of assets upon death or dissolution of the partnership, dealing with support and visitation rights of adopted children of such a union, and so forth, not to mention expanding the market of the wedding industry by increasing the available demographic. In fact, the arguments against gay marriage–that it would undermine male-female marriage, that it would force churches to approve and adjudicate such marriages, et cetera–was reported as matter-of-fact “presenting both sides” even though one side was almost purely baseless scaremongering.
These are the people who gave Donald Trump a platform from which to freely (both as in speech and beer) spew baseless xenophobia and nonsensical solutions. And because it suited their purposes, they even treated him with enough seriousness that he started treating himself seriously, and down that slippery slope we’ve slid headfirst into a mudpit, albeit without Kathleen Turner at the end. And they did it not because they love Trump, but because the ratings he pulls in. The only people who should be giving Trump the time of day are comedians like Seth Meyers and John Oliver, and only to highlight what a puerile clown he is for espousing pure idiocy from beneath what appears to be a dead ginger tabby stuck to his head.
Stranger
Many people vote based on perceived cultural similarity rather than policy. In other words, they don’t look at their own policy preferences and the policies of particular politicians and decide which will best advance their preferences. They say “I like this guy/gal because he seems like my kind of guy/gal”. And such people are more likely to be swinging voters because candidates change but fundamental policy divisions do not.
Politicians spend substantial time on (relatively) minor social issues because they permit cultural positioning. Good education and infrastructure are something everyone wants. Being in favour won’t mark you out as being of - or not of - the culture of the particular swinging voters you are chasing. But taking a position on some talking-point-de-jure will.
If my meaning wasn’t obvious earlier, I’ll be more blatant: most of the time, when someone says, “Why can’t we stop dwelling on minor, unimportant issues and concentrate on what’s IMPORTANT,” he is being dishonest. Most of the time, we’ll find that the person DOES, in fact, regard those issues as important. He simply thinks everybody who disagrees with him should shut up and go away.
Decades ago, on William F. Buckley’s old Firing Line series, a liberal Catholic priest and a very conservative priest were arguing about the Latin Mass. At first, the liberal priest was very charming, amiable and gracious. He explained at great length that it didn’t really MATTER what language the Mass was said in, that it didn’t really MATTER what forms the ritual took. Surely, he said, what REALLY matters is that all Catholics are gathering together in the spirit of brotherhood, So, he asked, why can’t we stop arguing about such a trivial issue and concentrate on IMPORTANT issues, like serving the poor.
The old priest, an advocate of the Latin Mass, disarmingly replied, “I’m glad to hear you say that it doesn’t matter what language we use or what rituals we use. So, since it doesn’t matter to you, why not just agree to do it our way, the Latin way, and then we can move on to discussing how to help the poor.”
The liberal priest went ballistic, and started insulting the old school Church in every possible way. Which just went to show… all his talk about how the language and ritual were unimportant was BALONEY! He thought the language and rituals were very, very important indeed. So important that his opponents had a duty to clam up and stop obstructing progress.
And so it is today. When a liberal says, “Come on now, it doesn’t MATTER which bathroom a cross dresser uses,” he’s full of beans. He DOES, in fact, think the issue is extremely important. That’s why he’s so determined to crush the people of North Carolina for having a different opinion.
Same with gun control. Liberals will occasionally talk sweetly and nicely, and try to “reason” with their gun owning brethren. “Come now, NOBODY is talking about confiscating all your guns, so why can’t we put our differences aside and concentrate on IMPORTANT issues.” Of course, the reality is, LOTS of prominent liberals ARE talking about confiscating guns! Every time President Obama or Hillary brings up Australia’s experiences, the clear implication is that, like Australia, we must have a mandatory buyback program (i.e. confiscation with compensation).
So, suppose a reasonable NRA member says, “Fine, if you say this isn’t really an important issue, we can agree to disagree. All you have to do is guarantee that you won’t support a confiscation program later. Then I’ll agree to discuss fixing our roads and bridges.” Think liberals will say, “Fantastic! We’re finally finding common ground”?
NO! The liberal will show his true colors and yell, “Just give up your damn guns, already, or we’ll TAKE them!”
Feminists like Anna Quindlen like to say, “I’m TIRED of arguing about abortion. Why can’t we move on to the REAL issues?” I’d like to tell her, “Great, I’m glad you’re tired of the argument. Since you don’t think this is a ‘real’ issue, why not agree to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, and move on to those ‘real’ issues?” Think she’d agree? Nope. She’s not “tired” of abortion, she’s just tired of people disagreeing with her.
Whenever you’re tempted to say, “Come on, let’s stop talking about unimportant issues,” ask yourself: do you REALLY regard this as an unimportant issue? Unimportant enough that YOU’RE willing to let the other side win?
If not, face facts: it’s NOT an unimportant issue to you, and you shouldn’t expect your enemies to let you win any more than you’d capitulate to them.
Now, AFTER that long spiel, will I acknowledge that some election hinge on issues of no relevance to the job at hand? Sure.
Back in 1977, when Ed Koch and Mario Cuomo were vying for the job of Mayor of New York City, the main issue was… the death penalty (Koch was for it, Cuomo ardently against it). Now, regardless of where you stand, can we all understand that the issue was absolutely, completely irrelevant?
Not unimportant, just IRRELEVANT! The Mayor of New York City can’t execute anyone, nor does he have ANY Say in whether the death penalty is legal. The state legislature determines that. So, Koch and Cuomo spent most of their time arguing about a hot button issue that would NEVER come up during the mayor’s term.
THAT is worth ridiculing. A mayor’s job consists largely of important but unglamorous tasks. Like sitting through long budget meetings, negotiating contracts with the garbagemen’s union, figuring out how to pay for pothole filling, calculating if there were enough plows to clear the streets of snow next winter.
Mayoral candidates arguing about the death penalty, Comptroller candidates arguing about abortion, Sheriff candidates arguing about affirmative action… THAT is pointless and stupid.
What MATTERS is discrimination against transgender people (which, btw, is not the same thing as being a cross dresser). And that ‘opinion’ was not by the people of North Carolina, it was a law passed solely by its governor and an overwhelmingly Repubican set of state reps and senators.
Love to see some current cites about proposals for mass confiscations. Otherwise just say you’re using the slippery slope argument and save us the time of reading it over again.
Why not use actual quotes rather than putting words in people’s mouths?
As a liberal who thinks the people of North Carolina can suck it with their “different opinion,” I have to say you’re right in a way. Liberals do need to stop framing the argument that way. I’ve tried to explain that to them here on this board but it doesn’t seem to sink in. It plays right into the hands of people like you.
I DID, in fact, use actual quotes, as you can see below.
This is where YOU say, “Gee, sorry Astorian, I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about.”
Nice goalpost shifting.
The OP said that bathrooms were a non-issue that nobody should be arguing about. YOU obviously don’t agree. You think this is an extremely IMPORTANT issue. SO important that North Carolina must be pressured to accept YOUR opinion.
If YOU think the matter is so important, why shouldn’t the people of North Carolina agree?
No, this is where you claim a quote which isn’t actually there. Those are not her words, they are yours in an attempt to recast what she wrote into what you wanted to hear.
This is where I don’t let you put words into my mouth, either.
There seems to be a pattern developing here. OP never said nobody should be arguing about it, he said he didn’t want to hear about it. I know, it doesn’t fit with your hypothesis.
You have no goalposts to shift. The debate is over a law that has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘the opinion of the people of North Carolina,’ but the opinion of a little over 100 people. The fact that they happen to be elected representatives does not mean that it’s the ‘will of the people.’ Perhaps if you showed some cites on exactly what those people’s opinions on the law are. But so far the only cite you’ve provided at all (and even that at my prodding) is a misquote.
Your ability to ignore plain English is astonishing.
I’m done wasting time on you.
More like you’re done putting out your weird little conservative fantasy.