Premature with a goat, Johnny? That's bad.

The point about liberals seeing everyone who disagrees with them as some form of racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted is one I made on the previous page.

And Sam agreed with it, IIRC, after which I rested my case.

The point about liberals seeing everyone who disagrees with them as some form of racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted is one I made on the previous page.

And Sam agreed with it, IIRC, after which I rested my case.

1. I'd love you to use that sort of logic in court.

2. Since billionaire Warren Buffett has called for steeper income taxes on the rich, is his support sufficient to make that case?

3. I invite you to use Sam as your witness in the next dozen threads.

I'm hella fun in the box, Ray Ray. Let me testify! LET ME TESTIFY!!

The point about liberals seeing everyone who disagrees with them as some form of racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted is one I made on the previous page. And Sam agreed with it, IIRC, after which I rested my case.

That you would continuously preen yourself on this point is ridiculous.

But thoroughly in character.

That you would continuously preen yourself on this point is ridiculous.

You're right; my point was not completely accurate. I forgot cold-hearted, selfish, and greedy.

The point about liberals seeing everyone who disagrees with them as some form of racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted is one I made on the previous page. And Sam agreed with it, IIRC, after which I rested my case.

That you would continuously preen yourself on this point is ridiculous.

You're right; my point was not completely accurate. I forgot cold-hearted, selfish, and greedy.

I'm now picturing Ray looking the mirror about every half hour, adjusting his polka-dotted bow tie, and telling himself how studly he looks with his "I'm # 1" foam finger.

Well, I dunno. I do think that people who disagree with me on gay marriage are homophobic, but that's because they are. It doesn't mean they're racists. Or greedy! :)

Well, I dunno. I do think that people who disagree with me on gay marriage are homophobic, but that's because they are.

And again my argument proves itself.

Rarely is it this easy.

Well, I dunno. I do think that people who disagree with me on gay marriage are homophobic, but that's because they are.

And again my argument proves itself.

Rarely is it this easy.

It must have been especially easy once you learned that Bob had been elected to the Chancellorship of the International Order of Liberals, and spoke for all of them.

I look forward to using Jesse "I only believe in limited government" Helms as a way of deducing your views on racial equality.

Seriously, do you ever play any card other than repetitive reductionism?

Is there more about your persecution complex you'd like to share, Ray? It is good therapy to do so, I'm sure you realize.

Seriously, do you ever play any card other than repetitive reductionism?

In fairness, it's pretty reductionist to say that people who don't favor gay marriage are homophobic. No doubt that there are die-hard homophobes out there, and their homophobia drives their opposition to gay marriage, but the argument for gay marriage didn't even exist in mainstream discourse 20 years ago. It's silly to say that everyone was a homophobe back then and aren't now - people were the same then as they are now, but most people just hadn't given the matter much thought one way or the other.

Today there's growing awareness of and sympathy for the issue - in fact, equality advocates have made remarkable progress in a short time. But it's still an ongoing process. There are good people out there still to be won over, and calling them "homophobes" doesn't do much good.

Aside from my usual facetiousness, I had a sort of point in #909. I do not believe that everyone who favors voter ID is a bigot, nor that those who want to roll back the welfare state are racists. It should be pointed out when conservative policies have disproportionate effects on minorities, but that doesn't mean that conservatives are necessarily anti-minority, any more than a woman who would never choose an abortion is anti-feminist.

There are issues, though … I really don't think it's possible to develop an anti-gay-marriage position free of homophobia. How would you do it? By saying that you deeply value sexual privacy, and you have lots of gay friends, but … you don't think they should have the same rights as straight people. There's no way out of that box – not that Ray is defending that particular box. But it should not be surprising that liberals ascribe prejudice to those who argue against basic rights for groups of people.

Edit, to Brian C: No, naturally, you don't try to persuade people by leading with calling them on their prejudices. But there is a kind of unthinking prejudice, just as you say, that should not be glossed over in the name of innocence. Rights are rights; that people don't believe others are entitled to them is not just a case of "haven't given it much thought." Everyone who opposed votes for women was a sexist, whether they'd given it much thought or not, whether they'd grown up in a society that took sexism for granted or not. Sorry, I just have to call things what they are.

In fairness, it's pretty reductionist to say that people who don't favor gay marriage are homophobic. No doubt that there are die-hard homophobes out there, and their homophobia drives their opposition to gay marriage, but the argument for gay marriage didn't even exist in mainstream discourse 20 years ago

The current mainstream recognition of the issue of gay marriage seems a natural consequence of so many more gay people choosing to live openly. I don't think there's anything inherently bigoted about not seriously considering a civil rights issue that you don't think will impact anyone you've ever known.

It's silly to say that everyone was a homophobe back then and aren't now - people were the same then as they are now, but most people just hadn't given the matter much thought one way or the other.

I guess it all depends on how you define "homophobe", but if you haven't thought about the issue much, but believe that either being gay or being in a gay relationship is wrong, that's pretty textbook homophobia by contemporary usage.

Lots more people were racist in 1955 than 1975 - 20 year swings in people's opinions are relatively common on civil rights issues.

Everyone who opposed votes for women was a sexist, whether they'd given it much thought or not, whether they'd grown up in a society that took sexism for granted or not. Sorry, I just have to call things what they are.

But this gets you to the point where everyone back in the day was some kind of monster, while you are an enlightened being. Now of course I believe in human progress and I believe that things are better for a lot of people than they used to be ... I just think it's reductionist to turn around and say that, well, obviously something was deeply wrong with virtually everyone back then. Obviously it was more complicated than that.

As for your "I just have to call things what they are" bit - that raises the question, why do you "have to" do that? It's very easy to make the case for gay marriage without resorting to this kind of counter-productive name-calling. You even seem to acknowledge that it's counter-productive. So why is it imperative to you to attach these kinds of labels?

Seriously, do you ever play any card other than repetitive reductionism?

In fairness, it's pretty reductionist to say that people who don't favor gay marriage are homophobic.

I happen to agree with that, but the point is that Ray treats any liberals who don't fit into his pre-determined box as being essentially nonexistent. It's as if I concluded that all Republicans were Tea Party dittoheads simply because large numbers of them sound like Ray.

Lots more people were racist in 1955 than 1975 - 20 year swings in people's opinions are relatively common on civil rights issues.

Talk about selective endpoints - racial issues, in some form or another, had been a contentious mainstream political issue for centuries before 1955. That's not remotely true of gay rights before 1992.

The "discussion" at this point has devolved into nothing more than name calling. I am closing the thread.

FYI, in the redesign I will restrict off-topic political discussions to a new politics off-topic blog that I am setting up for the purpose. By default, members will not see these discussions in their Hot Topics until they opt-in to see them. In the interim I will restrict off-topic political discussions to a dedicated monthly thread (similar to the football, basketball, and soccer threads) which will be tagged as "politics", marked as "OT:Politics" in the title and which will include a disclaimer about the nature and tone of the discussion. I will also begin closing the discussion of off-topic political discussions in other threads.

When the redesign goes live, I will move all these off-topic political threads to their new home.

If anyone wishes to take responsibility for posting these threads, please contact me and submit the first thread. I will create a Lab Notes thread about this topic.