WWTBAM Bored

... for you, AH, and you, bob-tel from one of your liberal brothers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opin ... u-are.html

Try to read it and digest it. (I can help you with the big words, AH). It's what I've been telling you for years although I disagree with 2 things here:

1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.
2. Though liberals may feel themselves to be more compassionate, their proposed solutions to most issues are ultimately uncompassionate. (in my opinion, but from what I can see, most of the issues liberals have applied themselves most loudly to have gotten worse in the long run.)

flockofseagulls104 wrote:... for you, AH, and you, bob-tel from one of your liberal brothers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opin ... u-are.html

Try to read it and digest it. (I can help you with the big words, AH). It's what I've been telling you for years although I disagree with 2 things here:

1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.
2. Though liberals may feel themselves to be more compassionate, their proposed solutions to most issues are ultimately uncompassionate. (in my opinion, but from what I can see, most of the issues liberals have applied themselves most loudly to have gotten worse in the long run.)

As usual, you get things wrong Flock. Gerard Alexander is no liberal. He's been writing condescending articles like this for years. Unlike the websites you frequent and your favorites, Fox News and Hannity, the New York Times does try to put some balance on its editorial pages, something that has actually earned it some flack from liberals. This article is an example of that.

The best response to Alexander came in the Chicago Tribune the next day:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyle ... story.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.

I defer to you here Flock. You are the expert on making alleged jokes that aren't remotely funny.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.

I defer to you here Flock. You are the expert on making alleged jokes that aren't remotely funny.

The truth is usually not funny.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:... for you, AH, and you, bob-tel from one of your liberal brothers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opin ... u-are.html

Try to read it and digest it. (I can help you with the big words, AH). It's what I've been telling you for years although I disagree with 2 things here:

1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.
2. Though liberals may feel themselves to be more compassionate, their proposed solutions to most issues are ultimately uncompassionate. (in my opinion, but from what I can see, most of the issues liberals have applied themselves most loudly to have gotten worse in the long run.)

As usual, you get things wrong Flock. Gerard Alexander is no liberal. He's been writing condescending articles like this for years. Unlike the websites you frequent and your favorites, Fox News and Hannity, the New York Times does try to put some balance on its editorial pages, something that has actually earned it some flack from liberals. This article is an example of that.

The best response to Alexander came in the Chicago Tribune the next day:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyle ... story.html

Oh, excuse me. I never heard of him before, so in reading his essay, I got the impression he was sympathetic to the liberal worldview. Of course, because he is not a card carrying liberal, you are totally free to disregard every point he makes.
It just struck true to me because subconsciously your bringing race into a subject that had nothing to do with it, and accusing or implying I was impugning someone because of their name made me subconsciously believe everything you say is bullshit. I don't mean to act that way, but my subconscious mind rules all my actions.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. Michelle Wolf said not one thing that was remotely funny.

I defer to you here Flock. You are the expert on making alleged jokes that aren't remotely funny.

The truth is usually not funny.

To be funny, a joke has to have some relation to the truth. Wolf engaged in character assassination masquerading as humor. And she probably ended the event.

As I understand the article, it's inveighing against the tendency not just to disagree with, but to paint as illegitimate, dissenting views. As so limited, I agree with the point. It's not appropriate to delegitimize people merely for disagreeing with you, as long as their views don't go so far as to, say, call neo-Nazis "very fine people." There's an awful lot of room for legitimate disagreement before political views go so far off the deep end that the views themselves open their bearers up to criticism that I consider appropriate. And I do think there are times when prominent liberal voices have far too quick a trigger.

However, the article goes beyond that. It's also saying that prominent liberal personalities shouldn't use their prominence to advance their political views. Why the hell not? Do the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, let similar concerns deter them from throwing tens of millions of dollars in support of their political views? I've never seen any evidence to that effect.

And flock is a peculiar vehicle for this particular message. I've lost count of the times on this very Bored where he's tried, unsuccessfully, to get me to shut up on a particular issue, not because I've engaged in personal attacks (I like to think I'm quite good at focusing my fire on the ideas rather than on the person), but simply because he disagrees with me. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:As I understand the article, it's inveighing against the tendency not just to disagree with, but to paint as illegitimate, dissenting views. As so limited, I agree with the point. It's not appropriate to delegitimize people merely for disagreeing with you, as long as their views don't go so far as to, say, call neo-Nazis "very fine people." There's an awful lot of room for legitimate disagreement before political views go so far off the deep end that the views themselves open their bearers up to criticism that I consider appropriate. And I do think there are times when prominent liberal voices have far too quick a trigger.

However, the article goes beyond that. It's also saying that prominent liberal personalities shouldn't use their prominence to advance their political views. Why the hell not? Do the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, let similar concerns deter them from throwing tens of millions of dollars in support of their political views? I've never seen any evidence to that effect.

And flock is a peculiar vehicle for this particular message. I've lost count of the times on this very Bored where he's tried, unsuccessfully, to get me to shut up on a particular issue, not because I've engaged in personal attacks (I like to think I'm quite good at focusing my fire on the ideas rather than on the person), but simply because he disagrees with me. --Bob

I didn't threaten to sue you, bob-tel.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As I understand the article, it's inveighing against the tendency not just to disagree with, but to paint as illegitimate, dissenting views. As so limited, I agree with the point. It's not appropriate to delegitimize people merely for disagreeing with you, as long as their views don't go so far as to, say, call neo-Nazis "very fine people." There's an awful lot of room for legitimate disagreement before political views go so far off the deep end that the views themselves open their bearers up to criticism that I consider appropriate. And I do think there are times when prominent liberal voices have far too quick a trigger.

However, the article goes beyond that. It's also saying that prominent liberal personalities shouldn't use their prominence to advance their political views. Why the hell not? Do the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, let similar concerns deter them from throwing tens of millions of dollars in support of their political views? I've never seen any evidence to that effect.

And flock is a peculiar vehicle for this particular message. I've lost count of the times on this very Bored where he's tried, unsuccessfully, to get me to shut up on a particular issue, not because I've engaged in personal attacks (I like to think I'm quite good at focusing my fire on the ideas rather than on the person), but simply because he disagrees with me. --Bob

I didn't threaten to sue you, bob-tel.

You crossed a line that I was (and am) unwilling to tolerate. You walked it back and I let it go. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As I understand the article, it's inveighing against the tendency not just to disagree with, but to paint as illegitimate, dissenting views. As so limited, I agree with the point. It's not appropriate to delegitimize people merely for disagreeing with you, as long as their views don't go so far as to, say, call neo-Nazis "very fine people." There's an awful lot of room for legitimate disagreement before political views go so far off the deep end that the views themselves open their bearers up to criticism that I consider appropriate. And I do think there are times when prominent liberal voices have far too quick a trigger.

However, the article goes beyond that. It's also saying that prominent liberal personalities shouldn't use their prominence to advance their political views. Why the hell not? Do the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson, let similar concerns deter them from throwing tens of millions of dollars in support of their political views? I've never seen any evidence to that effect.

And flock is a peculiar vehicle for this particular message. I've lost count of the times on this very Bored where he's tried, unsuccessfully, to get me to shut up on a particular issue, not because I've engaged in personal attacks (I like to think I'm quite good at focusing my fire on the ideas rather than on the person), but simply because he disagrees with me. --Bob

I didn't threaten to sue you, bob-tel.

You crossed a line that I was (and am) unwilling to tolerate. You walked it back and I let it go. --Bob

You were the one that crossed the line, bob-tel, and I haven't let it go. So don't lecture anyone about personal attacks.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I didn't threaten to sue you, bob-tel.

You crossed a line that I was (and am) unwilling to tolerate. You walked it back and I let it go. --Bob

You were the one that crossed the line, bob-tel, and I haven't let it go. So don't lecture anyone about personal attacks.

So you're saying that I should shut up about it? Thanks for proving my point. --Bob

I hate to post in this fashion, but I've exceeded the number of free articles I can access this month from the Washington Post and I can't access it directly, but this post supposedly contains the entire Washington Post article (and you can link to the Post article from there).

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/05 ... e-c-t.html

Bottom line is that right wing media make a habit of inflating every stray comment some liberal professor or comic (see, e.g., Kathy Griffin) says and turns that into generic condemnation of conservatives by "liberals" and similarly takes quotes from Democratic politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton out of context and then repeat the snippet endlessly. The idea is to impress gullible minds (see, e.g., Flock) into thinking that liberals despise all conservatives and/or Trump voters. The reason for this is obvious. When voters are asked their opinion on specific issues, they favor the Democratic position nearly all the time, usually by substantial margins, so they want to distract their voters away from those real issues, especially in the states like PA, MI, OH, and the like where Trumpanomics is really hurting the people who put him in office.

The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.

If you doubt this, I’d encourage you to tune in to Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio for a week. When you do, you’ll find that again and again you’re told stories of some excess of campus political correctness, some obscure liberal professor who said something offensive, some liberal celebrity who said something crude about rednecks or some Democratic politician who displayed a lack of knowledge of a conservative cultural marker. The message is pounded home over and over: They hate you and everything you stand for.

This machine is extraordinarily powerful. It may not be able to guarantee Republican victory at the polls, but it absolutely can determine how conservatives — including those Trump voters — view what happens on a day-to-day basis in the political world, including efforts by Democrats to reach out to them.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You crossed a line that I was (and am) unwilling to tolerate. You walked it back and I let it go. --Bob

You were the one that crossed the line, bob-tel, and I haven't let it go. So don't lecture anyone about personal attacks.

So you're saying that I should shut up about it? Thanks for proving my point. --Bob

No, I think you should do some introspection and realize that it was you that was trying to get me to shut up, and crossed the line by threatening me personally. I think you should personally tell me you were wrong in doing that, since you are such a reasonable person.

silverscreenselect wrote:I hate to post in this fashion, but I've exceeded the number of free articles I can access this month from the Washington Post and I can't access it directly, but this post supposedly contains the entire Washington Post article (and you can link to the Post article from there).

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/05 ... e-c-t.html

Bottom line is that right wing media make a habit of inflating every stray comment some liberal professor or comic (see, e.g., Kathy Griffin) says and turns that into generic condemnation of conservatives by "liberals" and similarly takes quotes from Democratic politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton out of context and then repeat the snippet endlessly. The idea is to impress gullible minds (see, e.g., Flock) into thinking that liberals despise all conservatives and/or Trump voters. The reason for this is obvious. When voters are asked their opinion on specific issues, they favor the Democratic position nearly all the time, usually by substantial margins, so they want to distract their voters away from those real issues, especially in the states like PA, MI, OH, and the like where Trumpanomics is really hurting the people who put him in office.

The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.

If you doubt this, I’d encourage you to tune in to Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio for a week. When you do, you’ll find that again and again you’re told stories of some excess of campus political correctness, some obscure liberal professor who said something offensive, some liberal celebrity who said something crude about rednecks or some Democratic politician who displayed a lack of knowledge of a conservative cultural marker. The message is pounded home over and over: They hate you and everything you stand for.

This machine is extraordinarily powerful. It may not be able to guarantee Republican victory at the polls, but it absolutely can determine how conservatives — including those Trump voters — view what happens on a day-to-day basis in the political world, including efforts by Democrats to reach out to them.

I take what you say here on the bored and see validation of liberal sanctimony and self-righteousness every day, AH.

silverscreenselect wrote:I hate to post in this fashion, but I've exceeded the number of free articles I can access this month from the Washington Post and I can't access it directly, but this post supposedly contains the entire Washington Post article (and you can link to the Post article from there).

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/05 ... e-c-t.html

Bottom line is that right wing media make a habit of inflating every stray comment some liberal professor or comic (see, e.g., Kathy Griffin) says and turns that into generic condemnation of conservatives by "liberals" and similarly takes quotes from Democratic politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton out of context and then repeat the snippet endlessly. The idea is to impress gullible minds (see, e.g., Flock) into thinking that liberals despise all conservatives and/or Trump voters. The reason for this is obvious. When voters are asked their opinion on specific issues, they favor the Democratic position nearly all the time, usually by substantial margins, so they want to distract their voters away from those real issues, especially in the states like PA, MI, OH, and the like where Trumpanomics is really hurting the people who put him in office.

The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.

If you doubt this, I’d encourage you to tune in to Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio for a week. When you do, you’ll find that again and again you’re told stories of some excess of campus political correctness, some obscure liberal professor who said something offensive, some liberal celebrity who said something crude about rednecks or some Democratic politician who displayed a lack of knowledge of a conservative cultural marker. The message is pounded home over and over: They hate you and everything you stand for.

This machine is extraordinarily powerful. It may not be able to guarantee Republican victory at the polls, but it absolutely can determine how conservatives — including those Trump voters — view what happens on a day-to-day basis in the political world, including efforts by Democrats to reach out to them.

Let's write one sentence that invalidates everything else you said in your article:

But they should not expect the people who are brainwashed because they watch too much Fox News or listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and are upset that they have to share this country with people who do not look like them to vote for them

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Let's write one sentence that invalidates everything else you said in your article:

But they should not expect the people who are brainwashed because they watch too much Fox News or listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and are upset that they have to share this country with people who do not look like them to vote for them

And you pretty much validated the entire point of the article. First, that line was not in the original article but in Digby's commentary. Second, as the article pointed out, you took that line out of context. Here's the entire passage:

Democrats have an obligation to do whatever they can to help people who need help economically or socially. Unlike Trump their policies aren't only aimed at the people who vote for them. But they should not expect the people who are brainwashed because they watch too much Fox News or listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and are upset that they have to share this country with people who do not look like them to vote for them. They will not. That's just the way it is.

They should try to get as many people who agree with them to the polls as humanly possible and persuade the persuadable. But they will not be loved by everyone, ever. This country isn't built that way.

And he is right. There are people who cannot be persuaded, no matter how much your policies actually help them. That's the way it is. And those people won't vote Democratic. Instead, Democrats should persuade the persuadable, and they are doing a very good job of persuading the persuadable during this offseason. In fact, last night, another Republican legislative seat in Pennsylvania elected a Democrat (the first in that district since 1983) in a special election, the 41st red to blue crossover in the last year and a half.

From the Post article:

In the world Republicans have constructed, a Democrat who wants to give you health care and a higher wage is disrespectful, while a Republican who opposes those things but engages in a vigorous round of campaign race-baiting is respectful. The person who’s holding you back isn’t the politician who just voted to give a trillion-dollar tax break to the wealthy and corporations, it’s an East Coast college professor who said something condescending on Twitter.

And then you have stuff like the kerfuffle in Alabama. An outgoing Democratic state legislator publicly suggested that Governor Kay Ivey is gay. Governor Ivey (who has been married twice, both times to men) says that she is not. She criticized the statement for being inappropriately personal. So far, so good.

But Governor Ivey didn't just deny the claim. She labeled it a "disgusting lie." What's disgusting about it?

Stuff like this needs to be called out and highlighted. I don't care whether a politician is gay or straight (although I think in-the-closet gay politicians who oppose equal rights for all sexual orientations are hypocritical). But I do care when a politician thinks that being gay is "disgusting" and can say so publicly without fear of electoral harm. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:And then you have stuff like the kerfuffle in Alabama. An outgoing Democratic state legislator publicly suggested that Governor Kay Ivey is gay. Governor Ivey (who has been married twice, both times to men) says that she is not. She criticized the statement for being inappropriately personal. So far, so good.

But Governor Ivey didn't just deny the claim. She labeled it a "disgusting lie." What's disgusting about it?

Stuff like this needs to be called out and highlighted. I don't care whether a politician is gay or straight (although I think in-the-closet gay politicians who oppose equal rights for all sexual orientations are hypocritical). But I do care when a politician thinks that being gay is "disgusting" and can say so publicly without fear of electoral harm. --Bob

And what, subconsciously, made you think she was referring to being gay as disgusting? Do you just assume that? I think it's disgusting that a politician would publically throw mud like that because she has an agenda of 'outing politicians' she doesn't like. Maybe she was referring to the lie itself. I don't know and neither do you. But you chose to make a public fuss about it when you don't know.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And then you have stuff like the kerfuffle in Alabama. An outgoing Democratic state legislator publicly suggested that Governor Kay Ivey is gay. Governor Ivey (who has been married twice, both times to men) says that she is not. She criticized the statement for being inappropriately personal. So far, so good.

But Governor Ivey didn't just deny the claim. She labeled it a "disgusting lie." What's disgusting about it?

Stuff like this needs to be called out and highlighted. I don't care whether a politician is gay or straight (although I think in-the-closet gay politicians who oppose equal rights for all sexual orientations are hypocritical). But I do care when a politician thinks that being gay is "disgusting" and can say so publicly without fear of electoral harm. --Bob

And what, subconsciously, made you think she was referring to being gay as disgusting? Do you just assume that? I think it's disgusting that a politician would publically throw mud like that because she has an agenda of 'outing politicians' she doesn't like. Maybe she was referring to the lie itself. I don't know and neither do you. But you chose to make a public fuss about it when you don't know.

Ivey said: “This most recent personal attack against me is beyond disgraceful. It’s a disgusting lie being pushed by a paid left wing liberal political operative. There is absolutely no truth to it. It’s false. It’s wrong. It’s a bald faced lie. And I’m not gonna let them get away with it.”

Why is being labeled as gay an attack? (We all know the answer. Ivey believes that her voters would think less of her if they thought she was gay. It's been a long time since I lived in Alabama, but I'm pretty sure she's right about that.) But I really think the word "disgusting" honestly reflects her personal beliefs about sexual orientation. This prejudice is not an issue we can start to work through as long as people like you, flock, are denying its very existence in the face of fairly clear evidence. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And then you have stuff like the kerfuffle in Alabama. An outgoing Democratic state legislator publicly suggested that Governor Kay Ivey is gay. Governor Ivey (who has been married twice, both times to men) says that she is not. She criticized the statement for being inappropriately personal. So far, so good.

But Governor Ivey didn't just deny the claim. She labeled it a "disgusting lie." What's disgusting about it?

Stuff like this needs to be called out and highlighted. I don't care whether a politician is gay or straight (although I think in-the-closet gay politicians who oppose equal rights for all sexual orientations are hypocritical). But I do care when a politician thinks that being gay is "disgusting" and can say so publicly without fear of electoral harm. --Bob

And what, subconsciously, made you think she was referring to being gay as disgusting? Do you just assume that? I think it's disgusting that a politician would publically throw mud like that because she has an agenda of 'outing politicians' she doesn't like. Maybe she was referring to the lie itself. I don't know and neither do you. But you chose to make a public fuss about it when you don't know.

Ivey said: “This most recent personal attack against me is beyond disgraceful. It’s a disgusting lie being pushed by a paid left wing liberal political operative. There is absolutely no truth to it. It’s false. It’s wrong. It’s a bald faced lie. And I’m not gonna let them get away with it.”

Why is being labeled as gay an attack? (We all know the answer. Ivey believes that her voters would think less of her if they thought she was gay. It's been a long time since I lived in Alabama, but I'm pretty sure she's right about that.) But I really think the word "disgusting" honestly reflects her personal beliefs about sexual orientation. This prejudice is not an issue we can start to work through as long as people like you, flock, are denying its very existence in the face of fairly clear evidence. --Bob

Could it be that it would imply she had been unfaithful to her husbands? Just a possibility.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
And what, subconsciously, made you think she was referring to being gay as disgusting? Do you just assume that? I think it's disgusting that a politician would publically throw mud like that because she has an agenda of 'outing politicians' she doesn't like. Maybe she was referring to the lie itself. I don't know and neither do you. But you chose to make a public fuss about it when you don't know.

Ivey said: “This most recent personal attack against me is beyond disgraceful. It’s a disgusting lie being pushed by a paid left wing liberal political operative. There is absolutely no truth to it. It’s false. It’s wrong. It’s a bald faced lie. And I’m not gonna let them get away with it.”

Why is being labeled as gay an attack? (We all know the answer. Ivey believes that her voters would think less of her if they thought she was gay. It's been a long time since I lived in Alabama, but I'm pretty sure she's right about that.) But I really think the word "disgusting" honestly reflects her personal beliefs about sexual orientation. This prejudice is not an issue we can start to work through as long as people like you, flock, are denying its very existence in the face of fairly clear evidence. --Bob

Could it be that it would imply she had been unfaithful to her husbands? Just a possibility.

It wouldn't. It's entirely possible to be gay and yet faithful to a marriage to an opposite-sex partner.

It seems quite clear to me that Governor Ivey is saying it's "disgusting" to claim she's gay. I've seen you, quite recently, acknowledge that racism still exists in this country. This seems to me a clear example of invidious prejudice based on sexual orientation and I hope to reach a world where people acknowledge the prejudice of Governor Ivey's statement and respond to it the same way they'd react if she'd said claiming she was Jewish is a "disgusting lie." --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Ivey said: “This most recent personal attack against me is beyond disgraceful. It’s a disgusting lie being pushed by a paid left wing liberal political operative. There is absolutely no truth to it. It’s false. It’s wrong. It’s a bald faced lie. And I’m not gonna let them get away with it.”

Why is being labeled as gay an attack? (We all know the answer. Ivey believes that her voters would think less of her if they thought she was gay. It's been a long time since I lived in Alabama, but I'm pretty sure she's right about that.) But I really think the word "disgusting" honestly reflects her personal beliefs about sexual orientation. This prejudice is not an issue we can start to work through as long as people like you, flock, are denying its very existence in the face of fairly clear evidence. --Bob

Could it be that it would imply she had been unfaithful to her husbands? Just a possibility.

It wouldn't. It's entirely possible to be gay and yet faithful to a marriage to an opposite-sex partner.

It seems quite clear to me that Governor Ivey is saying it's "disgusting" to claim she's gay. I've seen you, quite recently, acknowledge that racism still exists in this country. This seems to me a clear example of invidious prejudice based on sexual orientation and I hope to reach a world where people acknowledge the prejudice of Governor Ivey's statement and respond to it the same way they'd react if she'd said claiming she was Jewish is a "disgusting lie." --Bob

Once again, you are ascribing prejudices to someone on an assumption. Because you "think" something. Nah. Doesn't work.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Could it be that it would imply she had been unfaithful to her husbands? Just a possibility.

It wouldn't. It's entirely possible to be gay and yet faithful to a marriage to an opposite-sex partner.

It seems quite clear to me that Governor Ivey is saying it's "disgusting" to claim she's gay. I've seen you, quite recently, acknowledge that racism still exists in this country. This seems to me a clear example of invidious prejudice based on sexual orientation and I hope to reach a world where people acknowledge the prejudice of Governor Ivey's statement and respond to it the same way they'd react if she'd said claiming she was Jewish is a "disgusting lie." --Bob

Once again, you are ascribing prejudices to someone on an assumption. Because you "think" something. Nah. Doesn't work.

I'm ascribing prejudice to a professional politician based on words that she used that were intended for dissemination to the public. If she didn't think being gay was "disgusting" (or at least want her voters to believe she thinks that), it would have been quite easy for her to word the denial differently.

This is the state that very nearly elected Roy Moore to the Senate, that did choose him as the Republican nominee for the Senate (Governor Ivey is being seriously challenged for the Republican nomination), and that did elect him, twice, to be the state's Chief Justice specifically because of his opposition to federal rulings on same-sex marriage. Is it that hard to believe that a Republican politician would suffer from, and deliberately pander to, anti-gay prejudice? I think the standard of proof you're demanding is unrealistically high, and encourages dog-whistle politics by allowing politicians to hide clear expressions of prejudice under a patina of deniability. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It wouldn't. It's entirely possible to be gay and yet faithful to a marriage to an opposite-sex partner.

It seems quite clear to me that Governor Ivey is saying it's "disgusting" to claim she's gay. I've seen you, quite recently, acknowledge that racism still exists in this country. This seems to me a clear example of invidious prejudice based on sexual orientation and I hope to reach a world where people acknowledge the prejudice of Governor Ivey's statement and respond to it the same way they'd react if she'd said claiming she was Jewish is a "disgusting lie." --Bob

Once again, you are ascribing prejudices to someone on an assumption. Because you "think" something. Nah. Doesn't work.

I'm ascribing prejudice to a professional politician based on words that she used that were intended for dissemination to the public. If she didn't think being gay was "disgusting" (or at least want her voters to believe she thinks that), it would have been quite easy for her to word the denial differently.

This is the state that very nearly elected Roy Moore to the Senate, that did choose him as the Republican nominee for the Senate (Governor Ivey is being seriously challenged for the Republican nomination), and that did elect him, twice, to be the state's Chief Justice specifically because of his opposition to federal rulings on same-sex marriage. Is it that hard to believe that a Republican politician would suffer from, and deliberately pander to, anti-gay prejudice? I think the standard of proof you're demanding is unrealistically high, and encourages dog-whistle politics by allowing politicians to hide clear expressions of prejudice under a patina of deniability. --Bob

Would your assertation hold up in court? No, I don't think so. I have a reasonable doubt. You don't because you're so damn self-righteous and sanctimonious. You believe you need to be the thought policeman for us deplorables. Thank you for proving my point.

You're an atheist, right? Unless I misunderstand your tagline and possibly past posts, which I choose not to explore...
I believe you subconciously discriminate against Christians. Has nothing to do with lgbt, etc, because many Christians don't discriminate that way. I just think your statements are soo wrong and hurtful. Realize I crosspollinated an sss theme.