"You're a fag!" A discourse upon liberal debate

[Skogs]

And I could just as easily say that conservative debate largely consists of trying to dismiss, misrepresent or portray extreme liberal ideas as the general liberal consensus, because they know that they'd lose an actual, rational argument.

But that wouldn't accomplish anything.

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers, and conservatives stop viewing all liberals as anarchist, peacenik, promiscuous, communist hippies.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Actually I think most political parties act kinda cult-like.

Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance.

Liberals see Conservatives as:
Gun-loving, poor-hating, closet-racist, America-loving, UN-hating, Christian-Fanatic proto-fascists who have never had a day of fun.

It's just a way to label people so that you don't have to listen to them anymore. If I'm a "liberal", that's all a conservative will ever need to know about me. That makes anything I say in the political realm heresy to the conservatives, and therefore they shouldn't listen to the ideas other than to find some way to shut me down. If I'm a "conservative", that's all a liberal needs to know. They already know that I'm a sad ignorant conservative to be shunned. Think of it as a way to keep the faithful from going astray. It's the same thing with religion. If I'm not the same religion that you are, than anything I might say about religion is automatically suspect, because I don't know "the Truth (TM)". That way a Christian won't listen to what a Muslim says about God, and therefore think of other possibilities. Nor will a Muslim wonder about the things a Christian says about God. All of it is designed to keep people from listening to the other side and thus possibly questioning the orthodox viewpoint. Very human. It happens everywhere.

[fire_of_avalon]

This part of ur arguement is correct. Its totally riddiculous to label someone who doesnt "like" homosexuality as a homosexual themselves. It makes as much sense to me as labeling someone who doesnt "like" spiders as arachnophobic then calling them, themself a spider.

That is the best and most accurate thing that has been said in this thread, aaaand I love you for it.

Politicians sling mud. That's why they're politicians.

[AkiraMakie]

...once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union

Now this is something that makes no sense to me at all. How and when did Reagan "defeat" the Soviet Union?

He, and a band of friends got together and they journeyed to the center of the the northern crator and defeated the evil Soviet Union which freed Holy. meanwhile, the while the big Communist Meteor was still heading towards America, threathing to destory our very way of life. Holy was freed and once it moved, it sped towards meteor and tried to stop it, but it wasnt enough. It had the reverse effect. But then the lifestream came to help....err...i think you know may know the rest of the story...




anywayz, labels suck. And i believe the Republican party that Lincoln was in back in the 1860's is today's Democratic party. I have to check my sources on that though.

[Sasquatch]

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

"Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance."

Let's see...gun-hating...tax-raising...UN-loving...handout-giving...anti-Christian... For the most part, those are true of the majority of liberals and Democratic voters. Of these I picked out, what have liberals done to dispel those stereotypes upon them? As for the rest of your post, you make the assumption that nobody is open to even hear any other ideas/ideals, which is incorrect.

"Well, Sasquatch, it would depend on who called you homophobic. Not everyone on this message board is exactly fit for CNN, you know."

Not everyone, but many would be a good fit for Dan Rather's two left shoes.

"One can disagree with homosexuality all they want. However, the very second you look down on someone for being homosexual you have become homophobic in my books."

pho·bi·a
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Looking down on homosexuality doesn't make somebody a homophobe. But a person in America can't disagree with homosexuality without being labeled as somebody who hates gays. I've had gay friends, and I called 'em queer and they called me a thumper and we steered clear of the topic because we disagreed on it. Like many people (and many Christians, following what it says in the Bible about "hate the sin, love the sinner"), I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.

[DMKA]

You forgot to point out how the conservative stereotypes are true 99% of cases as well. That's what it means to be "liberal/democrat" or "conservative/republican". It's not like it's an ethnicity or something - it's a label you give yourself. It's like calling yourself a Nazi, but then complaining that people say all Nazis hate Jews.

I don't call myself a democrat, but people just automatically assume I am one. Am I liberal? Of course...as is any decent person (and no, liberal doesn't mean Michael Moore. Look it up in a dictionary for a change). If I have to pick from one of the two though, I'd go democrat.

[Gnostic Yevon]

"Conservatives see Liberals as:
Gun-hating, tax-raising, America-hating, UN-loving, handout-giving, anti-Christian, hypocrtitical hippies who are all closet-socialists and likely on some sort of illegal substance."

Let's see...gun-hating...tax-raising...UN-loving...handout-giving...anti-Christian... For the most part, those are true of the majority of liberals and Democratic voters. Of these I picked out, what have liberals done to dispel those stereotypes upon them? As for the rest of your post, you make the assumption that nobody is open to even hear any other ideas/ideals, which is incorrect.

Not exactly. I'm basing partially on chatrooms. and for the most part at least in the yahoo general politics chatroom, saying something liberal will put you on the ignore list of any conservative in the room. Or saying something conservative puts you on the liberal ignore list. even for those who don't ignore a person of the opposite persuasion, there isn't much of a "discussion". It's mostly name calling. In fact several of the conservatives in general yahoo chat greet the room with phrases like "hello Americans ... and liberals". Now I'll grant you that internet chat isn't the same thing as talking to your buddies about politics, but I don't really do that much. Most of my buddies are not interested in politics.

[XxSephirothxX]

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

I really don't think so. I wouldn't neccessarily say that Lincoln would be a Democrat, because every politician from his time period would be pretty shocked by the crap that goes on in politics now--but he'd definitely be a moderate, and probably a left-leaning one at that...or maybe a flat-out liberal. The party names really did a flip-flop.

[Moose Knight]

This is the funniest thread ever.

Seriously. I live in a very conservative area of the Univted States, and I can say, accurately and safely, that your broad, sweeping generalizations are inaccurate. Reading your essay was like reading a bad stream-of-conciousness rant. Somehow you get from hypocrisy about Homosexuals on the liberals to...Joe McCarthy? You act like McCarthy was the only person in the 50s to hire minorities. Are you aware McCarthy never produced a single shred of evidence for any of his sporadic accusations (He once called LBJ a communist, if that shows anything about his credibillity)?

Also, you use the words liberal and conservative in the context of today referring to...the mid 1800's, calling the Rebuplicans the conservatives and Democrats the liberals as they are today. American history clearly proves this blatant assumption false. The greatest opposition towards the civil rights act (of LBJ) came from democrats (which was, in many ways conservative). THus, you employ highly convoluted logic towards Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly, you never once mention the word 'liberal' in that entire paragraph. Maybe because that paragraph is less about liberals and more about incoherent ranting?

Please don't use sexual slurs as insults. -- foa

[SeeDRankLou]

if you don't approve of homosexuality

This phrase is the problem with your entire arguement, "approving of homosexuality." This is not like approving of someone's choice of political party or university. Disapproving of homosexuality is like disapproving of naturally red hair or left-handedness. You may not see it that way, but the reality of the situation is that it is that way, and that's just sad.

[Raistlin]

If you want us a take you seriously, you should definitely not blatantly and liberally(no pun intended) use ludicrous stereotypes. I haven't even heard of some of this crap - sources, please?

(Don't try to find the logic in it. Liberal argument contains a few tenets--conservatives are evil; capitalism is evil; Christianity is evil; Ronald Reagan is incredibly evil--and everything else shrinks or expands to fit.)

I could just as easily say Conservative argument contains few tenets - free speech is evil, unions are evil, homosexuality is evil, abortion is evil, Bill Clinton is incredibly evil - and everything else shrinks or expands to fit. Same logic.

Joe McCarthy exposed dozens of Communist spies in the higher echelons of the federal government--not only have Soviet officials confirmed the status of these spies (both defectors and those who could speak freely once Reagan had defeated the Soviet Union), but it's also been confirmed by Soviet cables intercepted and decoded in the Venona Project. Liberals promptly claimed that McCarthy was a homosexual. One of his employees, Cohn, who was a homosexual (McCarthy's staff included black people (this was in the days of segregation), women, and homosexuals--not that liberals took much note) and was hounded relentlessly for it--by Democrats and the liberal press.

McCarthy also enoucraged people to "expose" their neighbors if they were communists, which turned it into the biggest witch hunt since the Salem Witch Trials. Have you ever read The Crucible? That's a political allegory written during the time period. Was blacklisting perfectly acceptable? If you even insinuate that, you lose all credibility in my eyes - the Red Scare of the 1950s was one of the worst constitutional tragedies in American history.
However, I've never heard of McCarthy being accused of homosexuality. I've heard of him being accused of many worse things, but never of being gay.

J. Edgar Hoover, who also discovered several spies in the federal government--as well as speaking against the interrment of Japanese immigrants during WWII, another move that Democrats and the liberal press ignored--and is now referred to, without a shred of evidence, as a cross-dresser and a "closet" homosexual.

It must not be too prominent of an opinion, as two years of US History completely glossed over that little tidbit.

Hell, even Lincoln (who was a worthless tyrant, but he was also a Republican, and that's enough for liberal emnity. Probably the only worthless tyrant they didn't support) was claimed to be a homosexual, by some guy who said he'd found the diary of Lincoln's lover. He wouldn't say where it was, wouldn't let anyone else look at it, but he got plenty of front-page space over it.

Lincoln was a worthless tyrant? Wow - that doesn't even deserve a response. I know plenty of liberals who praise Lincoln...quite honestly, I've never known of a liberal to attack Lincoln. However, I have heard of conservatives who attacked Lincoln.

[nik0tine]

pho·bi·a
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Looking down on homosexuality doesn't make somebody a homophobe. But a person in America can't disagree with homosexuality without being labeled as somebody who hates gays. I've had gay friends, and I called 'em queer and they called me a thumper and we steered clear of the topic because we disagreed on it. Like many people (and many Christians, following what it says in the Bible about "hate the sin, love the sinner"), I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.

You apparently do not understand the definition of "homophobia". Here is the definition, so you can get your facts straight.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

The party names really did a flip-flop.

Omg!!1 Democrat is teh flip fl0pz!@!!11one

[Gnostic Yevon]

Actually, no, the party that Lincoln ran under would be today's Republican party.

I really don't think so. I wouldn't neccessarily say that Lincoln would be a Democrat, because every politician from his time period would be pretty shocked by the crap that goes on in politics now--but he'd definitely be a moderate, and probably a left-leaning one at that...or maybe a flat-out liberal. The party names really did a flip-flop.

Lincoln would be a moderate democrat today though. The "radical republicans" of the era wanted to break up all the southern plantations with the whole "40 acres and a mule" as reperations for slavery. Lincoln and johnson opposed it.

[The Redneck]

Two notes, and then I'm going to bed because I'm sick as hell (physically too, this time) and hacking up gobs of some substace that I can't identify and really don't want to from my lungs.

Gnostic Yevon--
You've got to remember that politics have changed a lot over even a hundred years. The ideas that are now considered old-fashioned anachronisms tht we hold simply because we always have were, in many cases, extremely radical ideas that no one would consider not so long ago. :D Of course, sometimes we come around full circle and start adopting some recycled version of what didn't work last time, as well. Really, as far as politics and history goes, in very many cases the only thing that changes is the technology.

Nothing will get accomplished until liberals stop seeing all conservatives as inbred, xenophobic, trigger happy, redneck warmongers,

Hey now--I am NOT inbred! My parents were only related by marriage.

[eestlinc]

how does calling someone a "homophobe" equate to accusing them of being a closet homosexual? I know that some people leap to this conclusion, but it's not at all implied. It is generally thought that one (of many possible) causes of homophobia is an unwillingness to accept one's homosexuality, but it certainly isn't the only cause. People who start making these illogical leaps all the time and insult others should be ignored regardless of their political bent.

I don't feel your generalization on liberals is any more fair than the liberal generalizations you are complaining about.