posted
Just wanted to point out that now that the election is over, there is alot of "anti-conservative" rhetoric now on the site for various reasons. It's more "openly" hostile than before.
I thought I would open this thread as the official "Call conservatives NAMES" etc. whatever you feel like saying so that we can keep all the "Name calling" in one place.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but if you feel you have alot of anger or venting to do, feel free to do it here.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it will be a good thread for people to "vent" and get it off their chests. I'm already seeing "Bigot" and "knocks against christians/conservatives/repubs/whatever" flying around like never before.
I would like to keep it localized to one thread.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I don't think you're the one that's going to instigate that.
A lot of people are really disappointed, give them a day or so to be really disappointed and this place will return to civilization fairly soon. You won, being called a few names on a message board is a small price to pay.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed the same thing as CS this morning. "Half this country must be idiots" is the message I keep hearing over and over, although not quite so openly.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to add that I'm not calling people names, and i don't support those who are. I just think this isn't the best time for republicans to be complaining about, well, anything really.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
After the election results are in, I promise to: * Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him. * Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him. * Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs [and forums!] and in media while pushing both to be better. * Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better. -- Jeff Jarvis, in Buzzmachine
I challenge all of us to lay down red vs blue (the political bellwether emblems, not the Halo characters) and be civil. Call a space a spade but be polite enough about it to be able to have an informed discourse. Celebrate your diversity but remember that we are neighbors, not enemies. Let there be a re-unified populace, and let us keep our leadership accountable to us. Let there be healing between us, and a peace. Only then will there be a winner today, and it will be you, and it will be me.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I don't know, maybe it helps for me that I start from the assumption that much more than half the country are "idiots". The thing that I'm hoping for is that the people who voted for George Bush and/or belong to conservative organizations for responsible reasons work hard to curb the excesses of the many bigots and such that are also on their side.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
So they are going through those famous five stages of mourning--
1) Denial & Isolation--These are the folks who haven't conceded yet, or who want to run away to Canada. 2) Anger--and that is where many people are at right now. Luckilly, in the US the Anger appears on boards and on the radio, but not via guns or land mines. 3) Bargaining. This will come soon. Someone will post "We will let Bush be president, but he has to be more centrist...etc." 4) Depression. (Where I'm at now). I really want to go back to bed and sleep until 2008. 5)Acceptance. Give us a day or two, OK?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because being a gracious winner includes not expecting people who lost to be happy about it, or to just shut up and go away.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm already seeing 'Bigot' and 'knocks against christians/conservatives/repubs/whatever' flying around like never before."
To my knowledge, the one use of the word "bigot" since the election was applied to someone knocking christian conservatives. Is that what you mean?
And, heck, I'll come right out and say it, if indeed no one else has: slightly more than half the country is apparently made up of idiots. I don't think I'm likely to reconsider that opinion, either; these people had their chance to demonstrate intelligence, and blew it.
posted
Dag, There are three uses of "bigot" on Telp's thread, none of which are characterizing Republicans as a whole. Instead, there are saying that the ban on any sort of union among homosexuals was strongly supported by bigots and wouldn't have passed without the bgiots in these areas. Do you dispute those claims?
Just because there are many people in a group who aren't bigots does not mean that there aren't people in that gruop who are.
edit: Like I've said before, the way to fight the polarization by the immature people on different sides of an issue is for the more mature people to stand up for what is right. If you are unwilling to admit that a significant part of the support people give to the republicans is fueled by bigotry and that this is a problem, I don't think you're going to be part of the solution.
posted
It was pointing out that obviously Tom's assessment of the situation concerning the uses of the word bigot is wrong. I certainly wasn't going to say it in Telp's thread, but not everyone who voted for that intitiative, as wrong-headed as it is, was a bigot.
posted
Yeah, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of them are. In a purely hypothetical and realistically impossible case, if we administered a test that accurately measured negative prejudicial reactions to homosecuals, I'm pretty sure that a majority of the people who voted for the ban would have a relatively high score. Do you disagree?
Again, saying that some of the people who were for something aren't bigots doesn't provide justification for ignoring the fact that many, in this case probably most, of the people were.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just gives me warm fuzzies to know that people on here that I consider to be close friends, in turn consider me to be nothing more than an idiot.
posted
Look, it's not justification for anything. Tom was attempting to make the point that the word "bigot" had only been used in one direction since the election. I provided a counter example.
In your hypothetical perfect test, I would bet many would score high. But I wouldn't bet on a majority doing so.
quote:It just gives me warm fuzzies to know that people on here that I consider to be close friends, in turn consider me to be nothing more than an idiot.
I don't think anyone does. I think a lot of people are hurt and angry right now, and are probably saying things they will regret the implications of later.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG, if it's any consolation, there have been people here I like, and people in the nation at large, much more so, that consider my vote to be one for the moral decay and destruction of our civilization.
posted
Dag, The "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are" line is not a new one either for this issue or for you specifically. It's the standard response to talking about the huge role anti-homosexual bigotry has in the whole "defense of marriage" movement and one of the biggest problems with that movement. It's something that needs to be addressed but one I don't see anyone who uses that line of reasoning addressing.
We are in far more danger, both as a country and as a moral society, from the sanctioned bigotry than from homosexuals. It's something that should be of concern for all decent people, even if they themselves don't support homosexual marriage. And yet, as far as I have seen, it goes almost unopposed by the people who have moral reservations about homosexuality.
There's a story about motes and beams and I think this is perhaps even more important when applied to groups that you belong to. Progress and unity comes when people put principle over ideology. Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do. There may be legitimate reasons from your perspective to be against homoexual marriage, but have the decency to admit that many of the people who are against it are the ideological descendents of people who opposed mixed race marriages and help work against these people. Unless, of course, you disagree with me and think that supporting and condoning bigots is a small price to pay to prevent the ills of homosexual marriage.
posted
"Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do."
I run into this all the time from pro-lifers. I'm pretty strongly pro-life, but I disapprove of a number of their tactics and philosophies -- which often causes genuine surprise and dismay.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You can take three far left candidates, and I just don't think they are going to be as mean as these three. Keyes was recruited and Coburn and Bunning won.
For all of this talk about Christianity, these are three mean people. You can talk all you want about Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but all she wanted was to find a way to make Universal Healthcare work and he is a rich guy who fights for poor people.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Poor winners vs. Poor losers. Which one is actually more obnoxious? At least the losers Lost!
Dunno, AJ. If you saw the speeches by Alan Keyes and Barack Obama, we had a good example of "poor loser" vs. "good winner."
From Obama's victory speech:
quote:"In the ultimate equation, we will not be measured by the margin of our victory," Obama told more than a thousand jubilant supporters crowded into a downtown hotel ballroom Tuesday. "But we will be measured by whether we are able to deliver concrete improvements to the lives of so many people all across the state who are struggling."
(I don't remember if it was in his speech, but he made a point of thanking and acknowledging retiring conservative Senator Peter Fitzgerald's "service" and "integrity" in at least one interview I watched.)
Poor Loser:
quote:Keyes, a 54-year-old former U.N. ambassador whom the GOP recruited three months ago as a last-minute substitute, ran a scorched-earth campaign focusing on abortion and gay rights. He was defiant in defeat, quoting the Bible and lashing out at a state GOP that he felt abandoned him.
"To all of those who've come back and equivocated, to all of those who lied and did not deliver on their promises in the Republican party, to all of those who heard the truth and could not bear to breathe it, let them know that Alan Keyes has said tonight ... we have just begun," said Keyes, who did not call Obama to concede defeat and broke with tradition by speaking after Obama.
(For the most part, Illinois Republican Party members hope Keyes moves back to Maryland ASAP. Denny Hastert is about the only major Republican that seems pleased at the prospect of Keyes hanging around.)
You can take three far left candidates, and I just don't think they are going to be as mean as these three. Keyes was recruited and Coburn and Bunning won.
For all of this talk about Christianity, these are three mean people. You can talk all you want about Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but all she wanted was to find a way to make Universal Healthcare work and he is a rich guy who fights for poor people.
Sure the democrats have work to do to retool their message, but I can walk with a little more pride, knowing that we are still the good guys. Kucinich is a geeky, and Sharpton is a jive turkey, and Howard Dean is a special case, but these are good people who like people.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The doom and gloom and cries of idiocy are pretty tacky.
I agree that the "cries of idiocy" are inappropriate. However, I think it is highly appropriate for people to express to their friends their feelings of concern, fear, uncertainty, or sadness over their perception of the future. I don't think that the fact that the subject of those feelings is political makes it less appropriate. You may find it "tacky," but I submit that it is better than not talking about it, even if nothing more than some small catharsis is achieved.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The "some of the people aren't bigots so we don't need to consider the many that are" line is not a new one either for this issue or for you specifically. It's the standard response to talking about the huge role anti-homosexual bigotry has in the whole "defense of marriage" movement and one of the biggest problems with that movement. It's something that needs to be addressed but one I don't see anyone who uses that line of reasoning addressing.
We are in far more danger, both as a country and as a moral society, from the sanctioned bigotry than from homosexuals. It's something that should be of concern for all decent people, even if they themselves don't support homosexual marriage. And yet, as far as I have seen, it goes almost unopposed by the people who have moral reservations about homosexuality.
There's a story about motes and beams and I think this is perhaps even more important when applied to groups that you belong to. Progress and unity comes when people put principle over ideology. Admitting the faults in many of the people who support what you support and working against these faults in the responsible thing to do. There may be legitimate reasons from your perspective to be against homoexual marriage, but have the decency to admit that many of the people who are against it are the ideological descendents of people who opposed mixed race marriages and help work against these people. Unless, of course, you disagree with me and think that supporting and condoning bigots is a small price to pay to prevent the ills of homosexual marriage.
Good freakin' grief. My whole point in all this is that if you simply write off everyone who opposes gay marriage as bigots, you will be unable to convince the ones who aren't that your side is right. And the combination of those of us who already support civil gay marriage and those who oppose it but aren't bigots is enough to get it passed.
I haven't said we don't need to consider the bigots. I haven't said that many of them aren't bigots. I've simply said that flinging the name about, especially without taking care to make the distinction between those who are and those who aren't, is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
[Edit: In other words, if people were "considering the many" bigots, I wouldn't have an issue. Instead their not considering them. They're not trying to identify which ones are, nor are they considering those who aren't.]
I've tried over and over and over and over again to try to get people to understand a significant portion of the anti-civil-homosexual marriage camp. So far one person on my side of the issue has expressed any understanding of this.
You can't refute an argument you don't understand. Labeling an argument, or those who support it, with such a loaded word is an almost guaranteed barrier to understanding that argument. And that lack of understanding is an almost guaranteed barrier to refuting the argument.
Dagonee P.S., motes and beams, on this issue at least, don't apply to me for obvious reasons.
posted
For me, it isn't that Bush won that is upsetting. Honestly, he made this current mess and he now has 4 years to dig in and make it worse or clean it up. 2008 won't be the shining continuation of a bad thing as I have doubts Cheney will survive the next 4 years due to health concerns, let alone attempt to run and carry on the Bush legacy. If Kerry would have won, there is little he could do differently with Iraq, other that put taxes back up so that we can at least afford to pay for the darn thing.
The upsetting thing is that the Republican ideal won across the board. The biggest slap is the gay marriage amendment, which is the laregest public movement to disenfranchise a group of people since slavery was the law of the land. While not as detrimental in terms of, oh, being a slave the real effect is now an air of open hostility towards a group of Americans who have harmed no one or broken no laws. Simply making something you don't like illegal doesn't make it a crime by any real standards. I don't like the color orange but making an amendment to outlaw it doesn't make its presence harmful towards anyone.
This open environment of hostility to all things that fly in the face of "compassion" is heartwrenching and sickening and to be honest, pretty embarrasing. It is the maturity level of "no girls allowed!!" written all over a tree fort put together by 10 year olds but the effect is obviously more profound and harming towards others. While the gay couple down the street hasn't harmed me, my state voting to essentially margianalize them has certainly harmed them. And that is something to proudly proclaim across the land?? In a time of increasing poverty, jobs shipped off shore, a war and yes, still no cure for cancer we can hold this up as the barometer fro the American people? If that is what is proud and something you could look a child in the eye say "this we did" then I sincerely wonder what is "Christian" or "Compassionate" about the dominant party in America.
posted
And I'm pushing a line that I've consistently advanced for quite some time, which is that the citizens of America, and of the world in general, are not as whole particularly mature or good at making decisions. People have a right to have opinions, but most of these opinions for most of these people are poorly formed. I support populist government (when liberally constrained by a system of individual rights) for it's very beneficial effects in regards to preventing tyranny, but I think that it's foolish to pretend that it is anything other than a might makes right system where might is largely derived from the opinions of immature people, who, among other things, will shock someone to death because someone with slight trappings of authority told them to or watch a women get beaten to death over the course of a half an hour and not do anything, even call the police, until it is over.
Are most Americans idiots? I'd say yes, for most reasonable definitions of the word idiot. It's well within people capabilities not to be so, and I think that this development is hurt by our cultural taboo of acknowledging that most people do and think very stupid things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who really didn't want a second Bush term, I agree that it's inaccurate and, well, idiotic, to call Bush supporters "idiots."
More importantly, it's ultimately self-destructive and self-defeating.
When you go ahead and just label the other side as "idiots" you free yourself from a couple of considerations:
You don't have to consider that the Bush team was effective in reaching conflicted voters in a way that made them drift - not necessarily with enthusiasm in many cases - to their side.
You also don't have to consider the harsh reality that the Kerry team was less than effective in reaching those conflicted voters. It's essential to understand both aspects of the ultimate choices voters made unless all one wants to do is have 2008 look exactly like 2000 and 2004.
*not celebrating today by a longshot, but I figure it's more important to concentrate on how one works with (or against) current realities than writing off over half the people who voted as unreachable.
posted
Dag, I think you are severly underestimating the role that bigotry plays in people's decisions making processes, both in general and in this specific instance. In the case we're talking about, the ban passed by 10% of the vote. Are you suggesting that if you discounted the votes of people whose main motivation was anti-homosexual bigotry, that the ban would still have passed?
Coming from the perspective who believes that there is consistently good evidence to suggest that at least 85% of the American population who self-identify as religious displays a significantly higher level of prejudice than people who don't self-indentify, I'd say that, in this case, you'd might be able to get maybe 10% of the total vote if you discounted these bigots.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you also won't look at the evidence, so how are we to have a rational discussion about the difference in our opinions?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fil, nothing was made illegal that was before legal. In reality these laws substantiated the existing laws and traditions of the states they were enacted in.
Gay marriage doesn't exist in those states and never has. Those that voted for the ammendment didn't take anything "away" from people that had them before.
Marriage has, is and due to the ammendments will continue to be the Legal "union" of a Man and Woman period.
It's not that it "wasn't" before and all of the sudden now is. It was, and will continue to be.
The same avenues open before for legal rights is still open.
There just is not going to be a law forcing anything other than marriage to be recognized on the state level.
I for one see the vote as something different. I expected it to fail in many parts where it was proposed due to it's "exclusivity" clauses. That they passed, clauses in tact tells me this:
The american public will not be dictated to by the government. If the majority believes something to be right or wrong, they will not allow a court to tell them otherwise.
I for one voted for the Ammendment because I am for the recognition of only a Man and Woman as "Marriage" BUT more importantly, as a message to the government that the courts have no business or right in their actions of the last year in states where "gay marriage" was instituted by the bench against the will of the people.
In my opinion there's a right way and a wrong way in a democracy to get what you want. Having a court FORCE your views on the majority of people who disagree, is a sure way to get the eletion results we saw yesterday.
If the election from 2000 told us anything it's that the sure way to "galvanize" your opposition is to tell them that although they are the "Majority", it doesn't matter because your view is invalid, but the minorities is.
It's about Compromise, and there wasn't any last year, hence the results of this election were without "compromise" as well in the opposing factors.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm not sure, which views have I assigned to you that you don't share? The only thing that I've tried to do is describe your behavior, which I'm pretty sure fits my description. Have I missed the thread where you said "not all these people are bigots" and then gone on to talk about how these bigots are a serious problem for your cuase. Or any point where you've given serious acknowledgement and consideration to the problem posed by these bigots? If so, my view of you is defnitely inaccuate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Bok!
