Don't look now, but there are gays and lesbians in the GOP.
That's right, friends. Gay men and lesbians not only vote Republican, they work for Republicans, too.
Spooky, huh?
I know. Not really. We've known that for a while. We ourselves know that gays and lesbians are a diverse people. We don't all look alike, talk alike, think alike. We have different perspectives, different priorities, make different choices. That's all good. Being gay and lesbian doesn't define everything about who we are.
And yet it seems that certain types of Republican voters are, in fact, spooked.
I guess they haven't been paying attention on Pride, when we march down the streets of American cities, chanting things like, "We're here, we're queer," and carrying signs that say, "We are everywhere."
National Republican leaders, of course, have known that there are gay staffers and officials in the GOP. And it seems that some of them-even publicly homophobic officials-may, in fact, be supportive in private.
The Washington Post notes that when Robert Traynham, chief of staff to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), confirmed a rumor that he was gay, Santorum responded by calling him "a trusted friend�to me and my family."
This from a man who had compared homosexuality to bestiality.
Certain members of the GOP, it seems, have a tangled relationship to actual, living gay people, treating individuals one way in private and talking about us as a group another way in public. That is, the GOP leadership was operating on a more viperous version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." As long as people didn't ask them whether they knew and liked gay people as individuals, they weren't going to tell anyone they did.
But what I wonder is what's going on with the conservative, Republican "values voter." Did they really think that the only gay people in power in America were Democrats? Did they actually think that all gay people can be boxed in a container labeled "progressive"?
Maybe they did.
Maybe a significant part of anti-gay sentiment among conservatives stems from the idea that being gay automatically means we have values different from their values. Maybe they don't quite understand that, yes, there are gays and lesbians who are pro-choice, liberal, atheist Democrats-and then there are gays and lesbians who are pro-life, conservative, church-going Republicans.
We're on both sides of the aisle, and on both sides of many, many issues, from global warming to the Iraq war. We really are everywhere.
And so maybe the Foley scandal, awful as it was, will lead to something good.
Maybe with the Foley scandal, and the circulation of The List-a list of Congressional staffers rumored to be gay-and all the talk in the media about gay GOP staffers, maybe all those things together will lead to a values voter realization that the fact that someone is gay or lesbian tells us absolutely nothing else about them.
"Gay" doesn't tell us what someone's politics are. "Gay" doesn't tell us what someone's life is like. "Gay" doesn't tell us how much money someone has, or how they vote, or what newspapers they read, or what clothes they wear or what they look like.
Really, "gay" tells us nothing about someone except-well, that they're gay.
In November, voters might kick out Republican legislators partly because of Foley fallout. It will be hard to tell whether they are reacting so strongly because of the growing revelations that Foley himself and some key GOP staffers are gay, or because of the constant media connection made between the words "Republican" and "pedophile."
But I hope there will come a time when voters won't react negatively when they find out someone in power is gay. In fact, I hope that they won't react at all.
I hope someday that the fact that someone-even an elected official; even a staffer-is gay will just be treated as something interesting about them, like the fact of left-handedness or of a preference for chocolate ice cream.
I hope someday that the fact that there are gays and lesbians in the GOP will be unremarkable.
I hope someday that when gays and lesbians spook others, it's because we're wearing fabulous Halloween costumes, not because we happen to be gay.
25 Comments for “Spooked by Gay Republicans”
posted by Georgiy on
Perhaps voters will throw out Republicans for the gross abuse of the Iraqi nation, the misuse of $500B, the loss of 3,000 lives and at least ten times that severely wounded (and that’s just Americans! Don’t forget the MIT/Lancet study on the 655,000 Iraqi killed!) to conduct that aggressive infamy.
Frankly, I’m not shocked that there are Gay Republicans, but that there exist (still!) Republican Gays. How much abuse and incompetence can the community, let alone the country, take?
posted by KipEsquire on
This is not the equivalent of “I like chocolate and you like vanilla.” Politically active yet closeted or “DADT” gay Republicans are, by definition, self-loathing collaborators who sacrifice their values for power, prestige, whatever. And they deserve nothing but contempt.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
KipEsquire wrote, “…by definition, self-loathing collaborators who sacrifice their values for power, prestige, whatever. And they deserve nothing but contempt.”
Well, you certainly told HER. Actually, Kip, you seem to have missed one of Jennifer’s key points, which is that we don’t all have the same values. Making sweeping, facile generalizations and tossing around insults accomplishes nothing but impeding a conversation.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
we don’t all have the same values. Making sweeping, facile generalizations and tossing around insults accomplishes nothing
Unless you’re a Republican campaigning against “the homosexuals,” or an apologist for the Republicans like Richard.
posted by Bobby on
Hey, I vote republican because of the gun and tax issue. When the democrats stop supporting gun control and higher taxes, I’ll give them my vote.
Gay issues are secondary.
posted by dr on
“Well, you certainly told HER. Actually, Kip, you seem to have missed one of Jennifer’s key points, which is that we don’t all have the same values.”
Which is fine and good, unless the values of your boss include demonizing you for political gain.
When you’re working for most republicans and the sizable minority of democrats who engage in such hate baiting, doing more damage to gays than any court decision, then how are you anything but a contemptable collaborator is well beyond me.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I’m probably not totally of one mind with Bobby, but he certainly speaks for me on one point: I often don’t buy into the mish-mash package deal of tenets, attitudes and alliances that GLBT politics sometimes embraces. Some GLBT activists find this frustrating and disloyal (sometimes even “self-loathing,” a presumptuous label), but at times I have voted for the less-gay-friendly candidate or option because this choice more closely matches my individual beliefs. Sometimes this earns me brickbats that resemble the anti-gay rhetoric, and after enduring anger from both camps I’m often ready to withdraw from political discussion altogether.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
When you’re working for most republicans and the sizable minority of democrats who engage in such hate baiting, doing more damage to gays than any court decision, then how are you anything but a contemptable collaborator is well beyond me.
A lot of partisan Republicrats have a bit of the persecuted martyr’s complex to themselves — that they’re selling themselves and their fellow gays out, but their pain fulfills a “higher purpose” like feeding the poor or stopping terrorism, etc. The reality, of course, is that they’re just gathering power and wealth for themselves at others’ expense.
They desperately try to spin their activities as “a difference in values” to paint a veneer of respectability on something which deserves no respect. What’s so amusing is that they’ll often attack other people for what they themselves do every day.
There’s nothing funnier than watching the openly gay chief staffer of Ricky Santorum slam “gay activists” for “intolerance,” or watch the closet-case GOP staffers in Washington who architected the anti-gay amendment strategy complain of “homophobia” against them. It’s contemptible that they’d try to hide behind that rhetoric, but on a more base level, it’s simply hilarious that they’d even try to make that argument.
posted by Bobby on
Northeast, I hate the term “Republicrat” unless you’re speaking of a RINO, in which case it doesn’t apply because RINO’s are Republicans In Name Only, like Bloomberg and McCain.
“They desperately try to spin their activities as “a difference in values”
—That’s no spin. There is a huge difference in values.
Here’s an example with a link.
“They worry that Democrats may shift policy toward appeasement of terrorist groups and rogue states and placing greater trust in the United Nations.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200610/INT20061027a.html
Now, maybe you’ll dimiss this as propaganda from CNS. But many of us conservative or right-wing individualists take stories like this seriously.
posted by kittynboi on
Oh look, Bobby is back.
“”””. When the democrats stop supporting gun control and higher taxes, I’ll give them my vote.””””
I’m not too concerned that Democrats are going to take everyons guns away. They know by now that most people don’t support a total ban on guns and I rarely hear any but the most extreme elements of a life voice support for even the mildest form of gun control.
“”””Northeast, I hate the term “Republicrat” unless you’re speaking of a RINO, in which case it doesn’t apply because RINO’s are Republicans In Name Only, like Bloomberg and McCain.””””
I don’t think NEL is particularly concerned if you like his term or not.
What exactly is so RINOish about McCain? Sure, he doesn’t go along with everything the GOP does, but I don’t think he’s nearly the maverick everyone makes him out to be.
“”””Now, maybe you’ll dimiss this as propaganda from CNS. But many of us conservative or right-wing individualists take stories like this seriously.””””
No matter how seriously you take it, that won’t magically make it true. I’ll dismiss it not as propaganda but as something that conflicts with reality.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m not too concerned that Democrats are going to take everyons guns away. They know by now that most people don’t support a total ban on guns and I rarely hear any but the most extreme elements of a life voice support for even the mildest form of gun control.”
—Ever heard about Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Lautenberg, et al? If they could ban every gun tomorrow, they would do it. This is all about ideology, they know what’s good for us and they’re gonna do whatever they can to accomplish their agenda whether we like it or not.
“I don’t think NEL is particularly concerned if you like his term or not.”
—Well, I’m letting him know just the same. We’re here to exchange opinions, aren’t we?
“What exactly is so RINOish about McCain? Sure, he doesn’t go along with everything the GOP does, but I don’t think he’s nearly the maverick everyone makes him out to be.”
—He doesn’t support coercive interrogation of terrorists, he’s pro-gun control, he supported the anti-free speech provisions in campaign finance reform. He’s a moderate republican at best. And by the way, just because he talks to Jerry Falwell doesn’t mean he’s a conservative. Even Howard Dean will speak to evangelicals in a desperate attempt to fool them, which didn’t work.
“No matter how seriously you take it, that won’t magically make it true. I’ll dismiss it not as propaganda but as something that conflicts with reality.”
—Look Kit, reality is what you perceive. For some, reality is what’s going on in Darfur. For others, they’re more interested in saving the whales, while others want to save what we define as traditional values. What you care about, that’s reality!
Do you watch the gay channel LOGO? I’m a fan of Noah’s ark, is a nice show, better than Queer As Folk, but it doesn’t represent my gay reality. Is there a conflict? No.
Reality is a matter of perception.
posted by kittynboi on
“”Ever heard about Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Lautenberg, et al?””
No, I haven’t. >_>;;;
“”””If they could ban every gun tomorrow, they would do it. This is all about ideology, they know what’s good for us and they’re gonna do whatever they can to accomplish their agenda whether we like it or not.””””
Have they actually said they would? Theres also the matter of whether or not they COULD do it, which I am 100% sure they can’t.
“”””He doesn’t support coercive interrogation of terrorists, he’s pro-gun control, he supported the anti-free speech provisions in campaign finance reform. “”””
Three issues? And two of them are very recent issues at that. So, if you dissent on only three issues then you aren’t a republican? What republican party platform planks CAN a republican dissent on and still be a republican? Are there any?
“”””Look Kit, reality is what you perceive. For some, reality is what’s going on in Darfur. For others, they’re more interested in saving the whales, while others want to save what we define as traditional values. What you care about, that’s reality!””””
Noooo. Reality is what you can prove to be so by empircal observation and reasoning. Bobby, I think you’re the most explicitly post modernist republican I’ve ever encountered. Post Modernism AND Republicanism. Two of the things I find more annoying than anything and they’re both combined in you.
“”””Do you watch the gay channel LOGO? I’m a fan of Noah’s ark, is a nice show, better than Queer As Folk, but it doesn’t represent my gay reality. Is there a conflict? No.””””
I don’t have cable. Its not that the show doesn’t represent your “reality”, its that; 1.its a fictional show, and 2.it just shows people whose lives are different than you. You’re using the term reality in an EXTREMELY loose sense, one that I’ve only seen the more extreme post-modernists use.
Do you actuall think that there is not objective reality and not facts that can be independently verified regardless of a persons worldview? Do you really believe this, or is this all just an excuse so you don’t have to prove anything you say?
posted by Bobby on
“Have they actually said they would? Theres also the matter of whether or not they COULD do it, which I am 100% sure they can’t.”
—Mayor Richard Daley said so. Others are just working on incremental steps the way they did it in England. The English gun owner was so afraid of pissing off the rest of the population, that they kept crompromising until it was too late. England is so progressive you can’t even carry a switchblade or pepper spray for self-defense. I think this is called the politics of incrementalism.
I see the same tactics in the war against smoking. In the 1980s, non-smokers wanted non-smoking sections. They were granted that. Today, they want non-smoking streets and towns and public outside areas.
“Three issues? And two of them are very recent issues at that. So, if you dissent on only three issues then you aren’t a republican? What republican party platform planks CAN a republican dissent on and still be a republican? Are there any?”
—3 very important issues for conservatives. McCain is a moderate, we don’t like people like that. Why can’t you understand that? Jim Kolbe is a good example, Jim is a gay republican congressman, who votes conservative on almost every issue but gay marriage. So he’s still a republican and he’ll still get re-elected.
“Noooo. Reality is what you can prove to be so by empircal observation and reasoning.”
—-Right, and you assume everyone agrees with the same empirical observation and reasoning. Every fucking issue is disagreable. We don’t all agree on Global Warming, Abortion, cloning, no matter what the scientists say. There’s a marketplace for evidence and research. There’s groups that say wearing a motorcycle helmet will increase your chances of getting hurt. What sickens me is your attitude of “we know better than you do.”
You don’t, you’re just another politician trying to sell his views. Nothing more.
“Its not that the show doesn’t represent your “reality”, its that; 1.its a fictional show, and 2.it just shows people whose lives are different than you.”
—Fiction is written by people, people are real, thus their work is real.
“Do you actuall think that there is not objective reality and not facts that can be independently verified regardless of a persons worldview?”
—I’ve sent people I like many pro-gun articles with plenty of evidence, and they still don’t like guns. There’s plenty of evidence that the dead penalty is good, such as the $50,000 a year you’ll save by killing evil people. But does the media mention that? No! They rarely if ever mention the evidence if they don’t like it.
There’s no objective reality, only ideology. I’ve come to the realization that everything is ideology.
Do you really believe this, or is this all just an excuse so you don’t have to prove anything you say?”
—Here we go again with the proof thing. If you hate O’reilly, can I make you not hate him with facts? No! It’s ideology! And if you hate rednecks, does it matter if I point out that many of them are really nice people? No, your prejudice will suffice.
In America for example many people think fat people are lazy. Is this based on facts? No. And if facts were offered that many fat people are not lazy, but simply dedicate their energies to their jobs and books and TV, would that change opinions? No.
Only thing that works is dividing people into groups and then getting them to fight for you. That’s why you have negative political advertising, that’s why they use labels. Divide and conquer! That’s the way it all works.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Mayor Richard Daley said so.””””
Then you should have thought to list him.
“”””Others are just working on incremental steps the way they did it in England. The English gun owner was so afraid of pissing off the rest of the population, that they kept crompromising until it was too late. England is so progressive you can’t even carry a switchblade or pepper spray for self-defense. I think this is called the politics of incrementalism.””””
Well, this isn’t england, and I doubt that people are going to be as afraid of anti-gun control forces here.
“””” very important issues for conservatives. McCain is a moderate, we don’t like people like that. Why can’t you understand that? Jim Kolbe is a good example, Jim is a gay republican congressman, who votes conservative on almost every issue but gay marriage. So he’s still a republican and he’ll still get re-elected.””””
I thought important issues for conservatives were smaller government and fiscal restraint? There are plenty of moderate democrats who I don’t completely loathe, so I’m finding it a bit hard to grasp why republicans supposedly hate moderates so much. Jim Kolbe is good because he always votes along party lines? Is that all you want, people who only cast the right votes and never think for themselves or question the wisdom of the party?
As I’ve said before, the GOP has embraed a Stalinist mentality in regards to the complete and utter infallibility of the political establishment.
“”””Right, and you assume everyone agrees with the same empirical observation and reasoning.””””
No, I don’t. I just assume that everyone is at least open to the idea that things can be proven and disproven.
“”””Every fucking issue is disagreable.””””
Thats the entire basis of assuming things can be empirically verified and demonstrated to be true or unture.
“”””We don’t all agree on Global Warming, Abortion, cloning, no matter what the scientists say. There’s a marketplace for evidence and research. There’s groups that say wearing a motorcycle helmet will increase your chances of getting hurt. “”””
Yeah, there are a lot of claims, but what is important is whether or not they stand up to rigirous scrutiny.
“”””What sickens me is your attitude of “we know better than you do.”””””
Because I say that some things are right and others are wrong? Because I say that people should have to prove their assertions before everoyne else accepts them?
“”””You don’t, you’re just another politician trying to sell his views. Nothing more.””””
I’m not politician, I’m just a person typing on the internet.
“”””-Fiction is written by people, people are real, thus their work is real.””””
Their work is real in the sense that, in some form, it exists, but a fictional story is still a fictional story. It never actually ‘happened.’
“”””I’ve sent people I like many pro-gun articles with plenty of evidence, and they still don’t like guns. There’s plenty of evidence that the dead penalty is good, such as the $50,000 a year you’ll save by killing evil people. But does the media mention that? No! They rarely if ever mention the evidence if they don’t like it.””””
Perphaps the people who don’t accept what you say don’t accept it due to bias. Or perhaps they find your arguments flawed and unconvincing. You seem to fail to grasp that you have to convince someone that your position is right. You come accross as thinking that all you have to do is state your position and people will just accept it.
“”””There’s no objective reality, only ideology. I’ve come to the realization that everything is ideology.””””
If there is no objective reality then why should we accept your claim that guns are good and the death penalty is good? After all, those are absolute claims that require an objective reality for them to be true. At best you can only say those claims are true for you but not for others.
“”””Here we go again with the proof thing. If you hate O’reilly, can I make you not hate him with facts? “”””
Well, I dislike what I think is his distortion of fact for political purposes. So you might try convincing me that he does NOT distort facts. I also dislike his attitude. You might try convincing me that his behavior that I find objectionable is justified and desireable. If you can do that, then you can convince me not to dislike him. But you have to actually DO that, not just talk about doing it.
“”””In America for example many people think fat people are lazy. Is this based on facts? No. And if facts were offered that many fat people are not lazy, but simply dedicate their energies to their jobs and books and TV, would that change opinions? No.””””
So, because some people refuse to listen to arguments (lets leave aside whether the arguments themselves are sound) and refuse to accept certain facts, that means objective reality doesn’t exist? Is that what you’re trying to say?
“”””Only thing that works is dividing people into groups and then getting them to fight for you. That’s why you have negative political advertising, that’s why they use labels. Divide and conquer! That’s the way it all works.””””
It might work in politics, but its not way of determining objective truth about the world. Thats for philosophy and science. But you seem to have no use for anything beyond being a partisan hack who, on the one hand, demands people accept his views on guns and torture and how great tradition is, but on the other hand you demand that there is no objective reality, and essentially claim, albeit unintentionally, that no one claim is better than another. And thats is precisely what you get when you say there is no objective reality; you put yourself in a situation where nothing is true, nothing can be proven, and therefore nothing that exists can be better than anything else.
Have you really thought through the ramifications of your sudden conversion to post-modernism? Or is it just what I said before, you simply using this as an excuse when people ask you to provide an argument for your assertions.
You need to dry your tears and learn that people aren’t going to just accept things on your say so.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Kit, this is getting personal, so if you want to e-mail me, go ahead.
“I thought important issues for conservatives were smaller government and fiscal restraint?”
—That’s where the conservative diversity comes in. For some, yes, that is important. Others have other issues they care about.
“There are plenty of moderate democrats who I don’t completely loathe”
—I suspect that’s because you’re not as ideologically driven as me or other people. There are liberals who can’t stand moderates. And I don’t blame them either.
“Jim Kolbe is good because he always votes along party lines? Is that all you want, people who only cast the right votes and never think for themselves or question the wisdom of the party?”
—Is not that simple. I agree with most of the GOP party line, once in a while there might be an issue I disagree with, such as waging war on violent video games (which Hillary Clinton also supports). However, when I vote for a republican, I expect him to vote like a republican in most cases. My party doesn’t demand that we all agree on everything. But there are core issues where agreement must exist.
“No, I don’t. I just assume that everyone is at least open to the idea that things can be proven and disproven.”
—Well, I’m more cynical than you are then. For example, a promiscous heterosexual who doesn’t use condoms is more likely to get AIDS than a promiscous homosexual who uses condoms. But who does the CDC ban from donating blood? Gays! And even if my AIDS test says negative, some heterosexual pervert who goes to Thailand and screws every $10 whore he finds will be allowed to donate blood, while I won’t. So in conclusion, logic and reality don’t apply, only political and ideological influence.
“Thats the entire basis of assuming things can be empirically verified and demonstrated to be true or unture.”
—But they can’t. If I quote statistics that favor my side. You’ll quote statistics that disfavor it. There’s evidence in favor of nuclear reactors and evidence against them. Who owns the truth? No one.
“Yeah, there are a lot of claims, but what is important is whether or not they stand up to rigirous scrutiny.”
—By whom? Doctors, drug companies, sociologist, biologists, everyone has their own agendas. Who do you trust? I trust no one.
“Their work is real in the sense that, in some form, it exists, but a fictional story is still a fictional story. It never actually ‘happened.'”
—Then fine, I’m a post-modernist. So was Salvador Dali who called his own work “hyper-realist” while everyone else saw it as surrealist.
“You seem to fail to grasp that you have to convince someone that your position is right. You come accross as thinking that all you have to do is state your position and people will just accept it.”
—Once in a while people agree with me, I can convince some people. Perhaps my style is what gets me into trouble. Most liberals don’t like all or nothing judgements, unless it favors them.
“If there is no objective reality then why should we accept your claim that guns are good and the death penalty is good? After all, those are absolute claims that require an objective reality for them to be true. At best you can only say those claims are true for you but not for others.”
—Because it’s not about objective reality. Most evangelicals will never say gay is good because if they did, they would find themselves as freaks among millions of their comrades. Saying gay is good would destroy everything they have. That’s why most people stay with the same views unless there’s a major event that changes their lives completely, such as the evangelicals who have a gay son and then must choose either to reject him or accept him and be rejected by everyone else.
“Well, I dislike what I think is his distortion of fact for political purposes. So you might try convincing me that he does NOT distort facts.”
—What political purposes? If you watch his show, you’ll notice that half his audience thinks his too leftwing or too rightwing or an idiot, or whatever. He can’t ask Bush a question without people bitching that his question was too soft or too hard. If he makes a mistake, he corrects himself on the air. However, if you read newspapers and websites that hate O’reilly and you believe the crap they write about him, that’s different. I can’t argue if your source of information is already wrong.
“I also dislike his attitude. You might try convincing me that his behavior that I find objectionable is justified and desireable. If you can do that, then you can convince me not to dislike him. But you have to actually DO that, not just talk about doing it.”
—Very well, but I still insist is a matter of opinion and personal taste. Maybe he doesn’t appeal to you. Some people prefer Larry King and that guy at PBS that interviews people with no audience. I do believe that O’reilly style is the style the common man uses whenever he feels he’s not being watched. The idea that TV hosts should be polite is based on ever changing social rules.
“So, because some people refuse to listen to arguments (lets leave aside whether the arguments themselves are sound) and refuse to accept certain facts, that means objective reality doesn’t exist? Is that what you’re trying to say?”
—Alright, look at crystal meths addicts. To us, the reality is that crystal meth is bad and hurts the body and the mind. To them, their reality is that they feel beautiful, sexy, good, and they see physical improvements on the short them, and that is their objective reality. When their teeth start falling out and the pain begins, their reality changes.
When I was a smoker my reality is that cigarrettes fill an empty existence and kept me entertained in a boring world. When I quit smoking, my reality changed. In fact, my reasons to quit smoking was that I wanted to do something different. It wasn’t the stupid anti-smoking commercials, or the preachy doctors, or my parents, but the availability of a precribed drug called the Nicotrol Inhaler that lets me quit without the pain.
So rather than focusing on one single reality, we should look into how people perceive things. You can say I exchanged one addiction for another addiction, but to me, this new addiction is much better, and I can inhale nicotine at work, in airports, thus winning my personal war agains’t the tobaco haters.
“It might work in politics, but its not way of determining objective truth about the world. Thats for philosophy and science.”
—Read Sidharta by Herman Hesse. The main character experiments with different lifestyles, trying to find truth, and in the end he finds nothing. Philosophy and science contradict themselves all the time. What truth can there be when one person screams one thing and someone else something else? Between Nietzche and Freud and Kant and Einstein and the rest there’s nothing but contradictions. Why for example do people say communism is a good theory when it never works? What kind of truth is that? If it was a good theory, it would work!
“Have you really thought through the ramifications of your sudden conversion to post-modernism?”
—It doesn’t matter. In advertising, my headlines sell the products. I don’t. In politics, my views are supported or rejected. I don’t sell myself, I sell my views. There are no ramifications for me to worry about.
“You need to dry your tears and learn that people aren’t going to just accept things on your say so.”
—Dude! You think I don’t know that? I don’t even have tears. Politics is merely a distraction from everyday boredom.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””That’s where the conservative diversity comes in. For some, yes, that is important. Others have other issues they care about.””””
It doesn’t sound like diversity means a great deal to you if disagreeing on only three issues is enough to earn someone the degree of vitrol you’re directing at McCain.
“”””I suspect that’s because you’re not as ideologically driven as me or other people. There are liberals who can’t stand moderates. And I don’t blame them either.””””
I suppose not. Purity of ideology isn’t all that important to me at all.
“”””s not that simple. I agree with most of the GOP party line, once in a while there might be an issue I disagree with, such as waging war on violent video games (which Hillary Clinton also supports). However, when I vote for a republican, I expect him to vote like a republican in most cases. My party doesn’t demand that we all agree on everything. But there are core issues where agreement must exist.””””
And who determines those ‘core issues’? As I said, I thought the defining issues of republicans were smaller government, less regulation, and fiscal restraint, not the things you listed. Are those ‘core issues’ determined by what the majority in the party happens to think they should be at any given time? Are the determined by anything substantial at all, or just the whims of the masses?
“”””Well, I’m more cynical than you are then.””””
I doubt that.
“”””. For example, a promiscous heterosexual who doesn’t use condoms is more likely to get AIDS than a promiscous homosexual who uses condoms. But who does the CDC ban from donating blood? Gays! And even if my AIDS test says negative, some heterosexual pervert who goes to Thailand and screws every $10 whore he finds will be allowed to donate blood, while I won’t. So in conclusion, logic and reality don’t apply, only political and ideological influence.””””
No one denies that people don’t always behave logically or reasonably, but that doesn’t mean that objective reality doesn’t exist at all, it just means that some people ignore it.
“”””But they can’t. If I quote statistics that favor my side. You’ll quote statistics that disfavor it. There’s evidence in favor of nuclear reactors and evidence against them. Who owns the truth? No one.””””
No one “owns” it, it stands on its own. Anyone can quote statistics, but statistics can be false and distorted themselves. You have to be able to determine which is which.
“”””By whom? Doctors, drug companies, sociologist, biologists, everyone has their own agendas. Who do you trust? I trust no one.””””
Anyone who wishes to challenge claims. If they can prove they are correct then their ideology is irrelevant. Its not a matter of trust, its a matter if they can demonstrate what they are saying.
“”””Once in a while people agree with me, I can convince some people. Perhaps my style is what gets me into trouble. Most liberals don’t like all or nothing judgements, unless it favors them.””””
None of which matters one bit if what you claim is simply incorrect, which you still don’t seem to realize.
“”””Because it’s not about objective reality. Most evangelicals will never say gay is good because if they did, they would find themselves as freaks among millions of their comrades. Saying gay is good would destroy everything they have. That’s why most people stay with the same views unless there’s a major event that changes their lives completely, such as the evangelicals who have a gay son and then must choose either to reject him or accept him and be rejected by everyone else.””””
People hold views for a complex set of reasons, but one of those reasons is that they think they are right, whether they are justified in thinking this or not.
“”””I can’t argue if your source of information is already wrong.””””
So now you turn around completely and admit that something can be right or wrong?
“”””Very well, but I still insist is a matter of opinion and personal taste. Maybe he doesn’t appeal to you. “”””
Insist all you want, but that still doesn’t make it so.
“”””When I was a smoker my reality is that cigarrettes fill an empty existence and kept me entertained in a boring world. When I quit smoking, my reality changed. In fact, my reasons to quit smoking was that I wanted to do something different. It wasn’t the stupid anti-smoking commercials, or the preachy doctors, or my parents, but the availability of a precribed drug called the Nicotrol Inhaler that lets me quit without the pain.””””
Well, most people tend to stop smoking because they know its bad for them, not because they “want to do something different.”
“”””Read Sidharta by Herman Hesse. The main character experiments with different lifestyles, trying to find truth, and in the end he finds nothing. “”””
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take one single book as the final word on everything.
“”””Philosophy and science contradict themselves all the time. What truth can there be when one person screams one thing and someone else something else? “”””
Thats because at least one of them is wrong, its only a matter of trying to find out which one.
“””” Between Nietzche and Freud and Kant and Einstein and the rest there’s nothing but contradictions.””””
As has been said before, there are no contradicctions in nature, only what we know of it.
“””” Why for example do people say communism is a good theory when it never works? What kind of truth is that? If it was a good theory, it would work!””””
You still don’t seem to understand that a person can say something and think they’re right but still be completely wrong. Just because a person thinks they’re right doesn’t mean they are.
“”””It doesn’t matter. In advertising, my headlines sell the products.””””
Well, science, philosophy, and the search for truth aren’t advertising, and the rules of advertising don’t apply to all of reality.
“”””Dude! You think I don’t know that? I don’t even have tears. Politics is merely a distraction from everyday boredom.””””
No, you don’t seem to know that. At the very least, you don’t seem to fully grasp what is means. You seem genuinely apalled and confused when people don’t respond to your efforts to make them think you are right without actually doing anything to convince them. Your pattern usually consists of saying you’re right, and when people ask you to back up your claims, to get defensive and indignant. Perhaps you don’t think everyone will agree with you all the time, but you sill seem to be in the mindset that you’re entitled to have everyone agree with you.
And you still can’t seem to be consistent on whether or not you think your views are completely correct or whether they are just your own subjectve view and no more right than any other.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What exactly is so RINOish about McCain? Sure, he doesn’t go along with everything the GOP does, but I don’t think he’s nearly the maverick everyone makes him out to be.
McCain is actually more of a classical Republican than his angry neo-con rivals. At least he has shown a propensity in the past to be irritated by the drunken spending spree that the Republicrats have indulged in over the last 30 years, and supports getting Amtrak off the government teat.
posted by Bobby on
“It doesn’t sound like diversity means a great deal to you if disagreeing on only three issues is enough to earn someone the degree of vitrol you’re directing at McCain.”
—Diversity means a great deal to me. I’ve supported all kidns of people with all kinds of views. What I don’t like is being told that I have to respect Cindy Sheehan. I have to let her speak, just like I let nazis speak, but I don’t have to respect her. Freedom of speech says nothing about respect, boycotts, hate speech, etc. McCain ended up regulating the First Amendment, that is one of the reasons I hate him. Even the ACLU is against McCain on that issue!
“And who determines those ‘core issues’? As I said, I thought the defining issues of republicans were smaller government, less regulation, and fiscal restraint, not the things you listed. Are those ‘core issues’ determined by what the majority in the party happens to think they should be at any given time? Are the determined by anything substantial at all, or just the whims of the masses?”
—-Well, what the core issues are is a matter of opinion. The things you listed are the opinion of some people, not everybody. If I ask democrats what are the core issues of their party, I’m sure I will get different answers. Iraq is a good example, democrats say they want a time table, then they want the troops to come home, then they say we don’t have enough troops, so they want more troops in Iraq. And then you got Rangel trying to pass a draft.
“but that doesn’t mean that objective reality doesn’t exist at all, it just means that some people ignore it.”
—If people ignore it, it might as well not exist. Didn’t you hear the story about the people who invented a device to block Fox News? They were putting it in schools, to make sure that no kid got Fox on the schools TV sets. Why do you think conservative radio sometimes gets sued? Liberals can’t stand not controling the entire media, they can’t stand a different opinion. Why were the minutemen attacked when they spoke at Columbia? Michael Moore never gets physically attacked.
“No one “owns” it, it stands on its own. Anyone can quote statistics, but statistics can be false and distorted themselves. You have to be able to determine which is which.”
—And that’s when it gets tricky. If I ask you which is the best car in the world, you’d go nuts studying each car maker. What do you value in a car? Speed? Space? 4×4? Navigation system? Technology? Cloth or leather seats? Design? Although people do research, and try to decided what they want, the car buying experience is not an easy one. Like picking an apartment, there’s great fear of making a mistake. So the truth doesn’t always stand on it’s own.
“Anyone who wishes to challenge claims.
If they can prove they are correct then their ideology is irrelevant. Its not a matter of trust, its a matter if they can demonstrate what they are saying.”
—No, it’s a matter of whether they can sell it. Most people are emotional, pro-choicers rarely read pro-life opinions, professional homophobes who read pro-gay opinons only use them to attack gays. Truth means nothing. Just like gay rights if often sold on emotion, so is everything else. You like eating meat? You think it’s healthy? There’s people out there working to ban meat. They’ve already managed to convince millions of Americans that meat isn’t that great. Just wait until the movie Fast Food Nation comes out, you’ll see which “truth” the media decides to cover.
“So now you turn around completely and admit that something can be right or wrong?”
—I never said it couldn’t be. I only said that what is right or wrong can be a matter of opinion. In some cases, we don’t know what is right or wrong. I don’t trust anyone anymore.
“Well, most people tend to stop smoking because they know its bad for them, not because they “want to do something different.”
—So what? My point is my reality is different from other people. Just like other people have a reality different from mine.
“Thats because at least one of them is wrong, its only a matter of trying to find out which one.”
—So shouldn’t you be a little more skeptical and assume that the person who says he’s right might be wrong? It is my skepticism that drew me towards the right in the first place.
“Perhaps you don’t think everyone will agree with you all the time, but you sill seem to be in the mindset that you’re entitled to have everyone agree with you.”
—Speculating about me is as useful as speculating about you.
“And you still can’t seem to be consistent on whether or not you think your views are completely correct or whether they are just your own subjectve view and no more right than any other.”
—Do I have to be consistent always? I allow myself the possibility to change my mind. Using black and white statements is just a technique that even liberals employ.
Let’s just focus on the politics and leave the personal stuff. I’m tired of justifying myself all the time with you. You put a lot of energy into your replies, which I appreciate. But I don’t think it’s propper to talk about this stuff publicly.
If it was an e-mail, I wouldn’t care.
posted by jomicur on
“Fiction is written by people, people are real, thus their work is real.”
This statement sums up Bobby’s “intellect” in a nutshell. Why bother debating someone who admits he can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality?
As it happens, I write fiction for a living. If I ever start mistaking the stories I make up for reality, I’ll be looking for a good mental health professional. Bobby needs to do the same. And KB, I agree with your positions almost completely, but you really need to stop encouraging this dimbulb. You’d make more headway arguing with your cat.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Well, what the core issues are is a matter of opinion. The things you listed are the opinion of some people, not everybody.””””
Well, you seem to regard them as being of paramount importance, importance enough to make McCain not a real republican or some such silliness.
“”””If people ignore it, it might as well not exist. “”””
Things don’t stop existing just because you ignore them, and if one person ignores something it can still affect them because not everyone else ignores it and its influence will still be felt.
“”””Truth means nothing.””””
This speaks volumes.
“”””You like eating meat? You think it’s healthy? There’s people out there working to ban meat. They’ve already managed to convince millions of Americans that meat isn’t that great. Just wait until the movie Fast Food Nation comes out, you’ll see which “truth” the media decides to cover.””””
Then I’ll just ignore them like you suggest above, and perhaps that will solve the problem.
“””” I only said that what is right or wrong can be a matter of opinion.””””
It CAN be a matter of opinion, but that doesn’t me it IS.
“”””My point is my reality is different from other people. Just like other people have a reality different from mine.””””
No, they have different opinions or worldviews. Thats not the same thing as having a different “reality” if you’re using the actual dictionary generally accepted meaning of reality.
“”””So shouldn’t you be a little more skeptical and assume that the person who says he’s right might be wrong?””””
I’ll be skeptical of a claim if I think ther eis cause to be so.
“”””Do I have to be consistent always? I allow myself the possibility to change my mind. Using black and white statements is just a technique that even liberals employ.””””
Does that make you a flip flopper? Its not a matter of you changing your mind, its not that kind of inconsistency. Its the inconsistency of you saying conflicting things whenever it suits the argument you’re making.
“”””Let’s just focus on the politics and leave the personal stuff. I’m tired of justifying myself all the time with you. You put a lot of energy into your replies, which I appreciate. But I don’t think it’s propper to talk about this stuff publicly.””””
You could always stop responding if it means that much to you. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
posted by Bobby on
“”””Truth means nothing.””””
This speaks volumes.
—Listen Kit, if you ever become a marginal member of society whose views are ignored by the media and people in general, then you can lecture me about how important truth is. Today for example O’reilly decided to speak against horror movies like SAW which I love, and he interviewed two people who didn’t like movies like that either, including a shrink that says horror movie fans might be sick. So don’t lecture me about the truth. As George Orwel said, “whoever controls the present, controls the past, whoever controls the past, controls the future.”
“Then I’ll just ignore them like you suggest above, and perhaps that will solve the problem.”
—No, all you have to do is speak against them. Of course, you might also find yourself ignored.
“You could always stop responding if it means that much to you.”
—I respond because I’m usually polite.
“If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.”
—I’ve debated right wing conservatives who hated my guts on the radio. You are not exactly “heat.”
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Listen Kit, if you ever become a marginal member of society whose views are ignored by the media and people in general, then you can lecture me about how important truth is. “”””
I think I’m already there.
“”””Today for example O’reilly decided to speak against horror movies like SAW which I love, and he interviewed two people who didn’t like movies like that either, including a shrink that says horror movie fans might be sick. So don’t lecture me about the truth.””””
And? This has no bearing on whether or not truth or objective reality exists.
If you don’t like my responses, they you can stop responding. Ig you keep responding, then obviously they don’t bother you enough for you to do anything about it.
O’Reily is a ratings whore who will bash anything just to appeal to his drooling, moronic viewers who think they’re fighting a “culture war” by complaining about movies they’ve never seen.
posted by raj on
jomicur | November 1, 2006, 10:49am |
This is one exemplar of why I don’t usually bother with “Bobby” and rarely read its “diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain.”
A work of fiction is real, in that the work itself exists. However, a work of fiction does not–and is not intended to–describe an actual event, even if it is purported to be based on an actual event. There’s a rather significant difference that even a pea-brain should be able to understand.
posted by Bobby on
I read the posts, Raj. There’s a lot of people angry with you, so who are you calling a pea-brain?
You just like people to kiss your ass and pay you compliments. Lawyers seem to be that way. I’ve given up on debating you long ago.
kittynboi, what you said about O’reilly’s viewers is the perfect example of how you can get away with your extremist statements while I cannot. Do you have any proof that the viewers are moronic droolers? You don’t even have cable TV.
posted by cesqua on
bobby: try the libertarian party. they have what you\\\\\\’re looking for without the gay hating agenda. i\\\\\\’ll bet if you research it, you\\\\\\’ll dig it.