by Jack
I’ve often wondered what unites and motivates liberals? I think the answer is, its a form of tribalism. When it comes to tribalism they are without a doubt, true believers in their cause.
Tribalism: Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group. It’s an “us verses them” kind of mentality. It allows whatever mistake/s the person [in] the tribe might make worthy of a pass. However, whatever a person on the outside does that in any way competes with the tribe, then its something to be distained and rebuked…In the immortal words of Elmer Fudd, “we hate dem wascally wepublicans!”
In tribalism the individual is programmed to have a collectivist mentality that reflects the views of the tribe. Socialism, communism, liberalism…they are all very tribal. Liberalism may not be the most extreme example, but its right up there!
On the right side, pun intended, an individualist (conservative) thinks on his/her own. It’s why conservatives are so hard to govern! They are personally empowered by their pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. They don’t accept doctrine because its popular or because it comes from their tribe, they prefer to apply their own understanding and this makes directing conservatives a bit like herding cats.
The liberal tribal mentality suffers no such impediment. It’s like herding sheep, not cats. But, they do have a major handicap. Liberals do not handle policy change very well. Even in the face of new evidence, they’re prone to keeping a death grip on what they have been taught (uh..dare I mention global warming?). They keep making the same mistakes over and over.
The individualist/conservative is duty bound to accept responsibility and accountability, because, well, they have nowhere to run. They have no shelter like the liberal tribe. Liberals can find an abundance of shelter for their ill-conceived ideology. This has made them the masters of spin and plausible deniability. Maybe it also explains why they are always trotting out failed old ideas in Congress? With tribal shelter – they are able to deflect criticism quite well and because they don’t have to be very accountable, they can be reckless and they are reckless. Just look at the democrat run cities, they are scandal ridden, bankrupt and in chaos.
Liberalism replaces personal accountability with the false notion of inerrancy that comes from their tribe’s circular reasoning and mutual admiration.
I know, sometimes it sounds like I’m talking about Muslim fundamentalists. But, I’m just talking about liberals in politics. However, liberals do mirror some of the fundamentalist traits. For instance, they create a virtual wall of self-righteousness around themselves that blocks new thought and discovery. They are ideologically driven to a fault.
The conservative (individual) is more like a scientist that believes in the virtue of objectivity. What he/she knows is subject to change with every new discovery, thus he/she does not become overly enamored with the prevailing wisdom, but rather forms his understandings with an open, honest observation linked with tried and true principles that have stood the test of time. Compare this system to the indoctrination setup for liberals. They’re only required to listen and check their questions at the front door. Once inside whatever they need to know as a member of the liberal tribe shall come by way of peer pressure and blatant low brow rhetoric.
The liberal pay-off is they get a warm, fuzzy feeling of belonging to something bigger than one’s self. They’re empowered to feel superior to others! The real kicker is the fraternity. This and the day to day guidance they need, that helps them fill some void in their dysfunctional personality. Faithful obedience in this tribe is greatly admired and on the liberal emotional scale it doesn’t get much better than that. What makes one feel good must be good! Oh, and also there’s safety in numbers….they need that one!
However, our nation was crafted on deeper things than “feel good” endeavors. It was built on high respect for the individual and our founders did their very best to empower the one against the many with our inalienable rights that helps us avoid the mob mentality.
I don’t think our founders would care much for liberal tribalism. I know Washington didn’t even like the idea of political parties! However, times change don’t they? Enter the dysfunctional neo-socialist, (and very liberal) democrat party. This party often goes for pure partisan advantage when reason demands they go for the good of the republic. No such luck with this bunch, just as long as whatever they are doing “feels good.”
Conservatism is more like tough love. It’s also the mildest form of tribalism, but liberalism ranks right at the top for the worst. Okay, I admit they’re not ISIS, but I sometimes wonder if they could be if given their way?
Here’s a partisan example of what I’m talking about. Liberals embrace old Hillary Clinton with all her baggage because she is one of them and for no other reason. She not accomplished or even competent, but she gets a pass because she is part of the tribe. The antics of her husband in the White House, her bungling in the State Department, nothing matters as much her membership in the liberal tribe. Liberals are prepared to overlook her shortcomings - it’s time to put a woman in the White House, gee doesn’t that feel good?
At least the conservative tribe is still able to ask tough questions and embrace the value of being accountability for one’s actions. On the liberal side, it takes a major scandal to get their attention. Usually one that has reached critical mass just to force some minor accountability and even then, some members will be forever loyal. Liberalism is scary in this respect; they take too much on faith. They rely too much on partisanship and too little on reality. Thankfully, we have the conservatives because we need more accountability; it’s the most essential part of checks and balances in politics.
Thank you for being an individual and voting for what’s right, not for what’s expedient, popular or conforms with the tribes wisdom.
Perhaps the most profound article I have read on Post Scripts.
Coming from you Pie, that is very high praise indeed, thank you sir!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poro
I offer this example to support your findings.
What Caused a Transgender Reporter to Threaten Sending a Conservative Pundit Home in an Ambulance:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/370785-2-caused-transgender-reporter-threaten-send-fellow-panelist-home-ambulance/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Media
Jack,
This liberal nonsense is going to ruin us. The state of Colliefornia (as Anode calls it) just keeps getting more looney by the day. And just wait until the Dems elect the next governor in 2018. Brown is awful but his successor will be even worse, I guarantee it. (Have you heard the things pretty boy Gavin Newsom advocates?)
And now, as you know, the DemoNcrats are beginning the process of outlawing any name associated with the Confederacy and that includes LEE.
You had better watch out, Jack. These Looneycrats may change your name to Jack Trayvon Martin.
Jack, are there any limits to the idiocy and tyranny from Sacramento?
Can’t you do something to get the State of Jefferson back on track?
Our corrupt supervisors don’t even want us voting on that.
We need to get the State of Jefferson into existence now, not wait until things get even worse.
I agree Bob, the State of Jefferson is doable as a practical split, but there is no way the democrats will allow it now. They are a clear majority in the state, which is why NorCal is constantly screwed, we don’t have the votes. We missed the window of opportunity back in the early 60’s.
Here is a nice cat story to take your minds off of the LooneyCrats. I hope this cat comes to live in the state of Jefferson.
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150116/1016991735.html
I am sending this to my sister in New York. I enjoyed it very much and I think you are right. Nicely done.
Good article Jack.
Ambitious narcissistic zealot exploit the propensity for tribalism as a means to power. How do you start a revolution and create the chaos needed to take over power? Simple, you pit one group against another and where it doesn’t exist you manufacture it. Tyrants can’t control a populations of individuals so the very idea of the individual must be destroyed and replaced with group think. Next the dupes are given a cause to rally behind…income inequality, global warming, civil rights, the 1%….
We are blessed to live in a nation built on a foundation of individuality and freedom. Unfortunately this legacy has not been passed this on to our children. Add a large population of immigrants that don’t care to assimilate and have been raised under liberal governments and it doesn’t take long to achieve “fundamental transformation.”
We are losing the republic and we are losing our freedom to be individuals.
In terms of individual liberals the indoctrination and group think is so solid their minds believe every ignorant thing they’re told by the zealot leadership. Such nonsense as “rugged individualism” means “every man for himself.” Our President used this line a while back, as leader of the liberal tribe. The group think loyal dupe will applaud these sound bites of revolution and praise dear leader as “brilliant.” But the individual can see the obvious flaw in that thinking. Individuals can rely on and work with others, recreate with others, join with other individuals to build things or form charitable organizations without sacrificing their individuality on the alter group think.
We used to have a common denominator…we were free Americans. I’d sure like to see America back come home to that way of thinking again.
This is really, really funny. Seriously, if I didn’t know better I would think this was a brilliant satire of the contradictions and tribalism within ALL humans, conservative and liberal alike. But sadly I know that that was not your purpose, and your entire point was that “Conservatives are better than liberals because liberals are too tribal!” which is such an obviously self-defeating and contradictory statement that I can’t imagine how it’s possible not to see the holes in it. Lumping huge groups of people together to form a common enemy is the definition of tribalism.
“Tribalism: Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group. It’s an “us verses them” kind of mentality. It allows whatever mistake/s the person [in] the tribe might make worthy of a pass.”
How is it possible that you can’t tell this article is engaging in this very practice? You start with huuuuuge generalizations–“liberals are like this, conservatives are like this.” You then criticize them for having an “us vs. them” mentality, which is exactly the mentality promoted in this article! Seriously, if the line between satire and reality has been blurred for a while, this article has managed to demolish that line completely. Satire is pointless now. Congratulations.
In reality tribalism exists on both sides, perhaps in equal measure. There are people on both the left and right who just do what they’re told by their group because they want to feel like part of a group. That’s human nature, not liberal nature. There are also independent thinkers willing to come to their own conclusions on both sides.
“Here’s a partisan example of what I’m talking about. Liberals embrace old Hillary Clinton with all her baggage because she is one of them and for no other reason. She not accomplished or even competent, but she gets a pass because she is part of the tribe. The antics of her husband in the White House, her bungling in the State Department, nothing matters as much her membership in the liberal tribe. Liberals are prepared to overlook her shortcomings – it’s time to put a woman in the White House, gee doesn’t that feel good?”
Honestly, Jack, out of the conservatives and liberal commenters on this site, which of us do you find criticize our own more often? I’ve had trouble getting people here to admit that it’s bad to support terrorists and claim our military is wiping out Christians in Uganda when it’s said by an influential conservative. I’ve had trouble getting people to admit that it’s wrong to say immigration is “white genocide,” or that the 9/11 widows who supported Kerry were “greedy harpies” who enjoyed their husbands’ deaths if it came from an influential conservative. So don’t tell me conservatives are all independent thinkers who are immune from tribalism. There are clearly several conservatives here who will support ANYTHING a member of their tribe does. There are also many liberals who will do the same. Again, it’s human nature, not beholden to any particular party or “tribe.”
Jack I just read an article that relates to this one as well as the confederate flag issue. It’s from Frank Miele of The Daily Interlake in Montana. It’s theme is the importance of eternal vigilance:
It is indeed the substance of the quote that matters.
Peggy at #3, what in the world does that article have to do with tribalism? Zoe Tur didn’t “threaten” Ben Shapiro because he insulted any particular tribe. Shapiro insulted her on a personal level, in an extremely bigoted and ignorant way. He called her “delusional” and then intentionally misgendered her just to be a snotty jerk, which he is. Tur had every right to respond the way she did–Shapiro’s nasty comments amounted to “fighting words.” If he behaved that way in a bar he’d be lucky not to get punched in the face, but because he made his remarks from the safety of a talk show he felt perfectly fine personally insulting Tur and openly questioning her gender identity, which is none of his business. He’s an intolerant jerk, but your defense of him possibly demonstrates something about how tribalism leads people to ignore bad behavior by people on their “side” of an issue.
(And no, I’m not taking Tur’s side because she’s trans or liberal. Just the other day I called out a satirical article and a bunch of commenters for making transphobic jokes about Ann Coulter. It’s not about tribalism for me. It’s about ethics.)
“…he made his remarks from the safety of a talk show he felt perfectly fine personally insulting Tur and openly questioning her gender identity, which is none of his business.”
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Your special case movement has made it every bodies business!
Do liberals EVER take responsibility…ever…for the crap they create?
First blood was drawn from your side before you were even born. YES, Shapiro was rude…so what! The rude as control freak are everywhere in your party and we’re da*ned tired of it.
Go! Live your lives! Deal with your personal problems personally, like adults, and quit shoving them on everyone else’s plate.
Tina: “Your special case movement has made it every bodies business!”
God, you really do believe that LGBT people are the ones who made their very existence a political issue, don’t you?
“First blood was drawn from your side before you were even born.”
That you could say such a thing in the context of a people who have been MURDERED for being who they are is disgusting. Disgusting. Tell me, Tina, how many people have been murdered by trans people for being transphobic. Give me one freaking example.
The long history of gay and trans individuals being shunned from society, told they are perverted, told they are abominations, told they are perverts and criminals, kicked out of their homes, beaten outside of bars, beaten by their parents, imprisoned, chemically castrated by their governments and murdered…where the hell were you then? What did you do to stand against any of these injustices?
Oh, I know–you thought it was nobody’s business but their own. How dare they “shove in your face” the fact that they are human goddamn beings just like yourself.
Well, screw that. What you are witnessing now is a reaction to the bigotry trans people have faced for hundreds of years. What you are witnessing is being told that you’re no better than people you grew up thinking were the bottom rung of society for no other reason than that they were different than you. I don’t expect losing such an unearned privilege is easy for you.
You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to accept it. But your grandchildren will, and your great grandchildren will wonder why it was ever such a big deal to begin with. They’ll also wonder where their great grandmother when LGBT people finally emerged from the shadows and said, “No more. We will not be hated for who we are anymore.”
And they will find this website, this little blog their great-grandmother wrote back in the early days of the Internet, when people still didn’t fully realize the gravity of the fact that what they write here will stand for eternity.
And they will see that you said, “Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!” and they will be ashamed of you.
Tina: “First blood was drawn from your side before you were even born. YES, Shapiro was rude…so what! The rude as control freak are everywhere in your party and we’re da*ned tired of it.”
This comment is especially ironic in light of this article’s insistence that liberals are oh-so-tribal and conservatives models of individuality and personal responsibility.
You can’t just say “YES, Shapiro was rude…” without immediately qualifying it by positing Shapiro and Tur as representatives for each of their “sides.” You don’t see them as individuals at all, but as members of warring “tribes.” To you, Shapiro’s rudeness was justified because Tur is trans and therefore liberal and therefore the enemy. His personal attack on Tur’s gender identity was acceptable because Alinsky or something.
If the article itself hadn’t already demolished its own premise, you just gave it the final blow. Thanks for showing that conservatives can be just as tribal as anyone else.
We’re getting way off topic folks.
I wish I could say I’m surprised that Chris would condone someone he agrees with saying they would send a person home in an ambulance for disagreeing with them. But, I’m not. Also, note the transgender person put his/her hand on the back of Shapiro’s neck, which is assault from my understanding.
Shapiro looked visibly threatened, which was the transgender’s intent. “Shut up or I’ll hurt you right here and now.”
It was pathetic behavior and completely inappropriate. If Shapiro had verbally threatened and physically touched her/him you can not deny it would have been front page news on every liberal rag demanding his immediate arrest and firing.
This has everything to do with tribalism and group think. If you can’t see and understand that it just proves what a tribal member you are.
Everyone but you liberals understand free speech only applies to you and others if they agree with your issues. God help those who don’t, because the attacks will come fast and furious. You demonstrate that behavior every day here on Post Script.
Peggy: “wish I could say I’m surprised that Chris would condone someone he agrees with saying they would send a person home in an ambulance for disagreeing with them.”
Tur did not say she would send Shapiro home in an ambulance for “disagreeing” with her.
She said she would send Shapiro home in an ambulance because be was being an inappropriate, sexist jerk to her.
If we were having a face to face discussion in public and I started calling you “sir” and asking you about your chromosomes, I’d expect you to react the same way Tur did. Except you wouldn’t have to, because Jack would probably threaten to beat me up before you could even get a word out. If someone else started that crap with you, I’d probably react the same way too. Now imagine if you had people CONSTANTLY questioning your gender, on a near daily basis, and calling you mentally ill and delusional despite that you have no recognized mental illness. How would that make you feel? Would you chalk it all up to “disagreement?” Or would you get sick of constantly having to defend your existence and say “Look, MFer–my body is not up to a freaking debate, so talk to me like that one more time and you won’t be able to talk for a while?”
So my opinion here has nothing to do with tribalism; even if the roles were reversed, the behavior would still be unacceptable. If it were Maher making a statement like that to Coulter, I’d expect Coulter to react as Tur did, and she would be right for the first time in her life.
There are such a thing as “fighting words,” and Shapiro’s comments certainly qualify. Note that everyone on that panel rushed to point out Shapiro’s insults were over the line. If he had called the black panelist the “n” word nobody would be defending him, and most conservatives would say that’s Tur-like reaction would be natural and well deserved. But similar bigotry against trans people is still accepted in conservative circles, so you see Tur as the one out of line in this situation.
Oh dear here is another individual who decided to not be a member or the liberal tribe. I hope he still has a business after sharing his non-tribal beliefs.
‘Are You Stupid?’: Gay Baker Lashes Out at His Fellow Gays and Lesbians for ‘Bullying’ Christian Bakers Who Declined to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake:
“A gay baker and chef has come out in support of Christian bakers who have come under fire for refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes, labeling those individuals and activists who are trying to force them to do so as ”Nazis” who are using “bullying” tactics.
Jesse Bartholomew uploaded a two-minute video to his Facebook page earlier this month, expressing his frustration with some of his fellow gays and lesbians who have gone after bakers who decline to make cakes for gay ceremonies.
The clip came just days after it was announced that Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa, would be fined $135,000 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
“Hi guys, my name is Jesse and I bake wedding cakes for a living, and I cannot tell you how disgusted I am with my fellow gay and lesbian community — that they would stoop so low as to force someone to bake a cake for them who simply doesn’t agree with them,” Bartholomew said. “And before you can go and blame me and say that they have to — no, they don’t have to. They don’t have to bake a cake for you.”
Bartholomew, who did not explicitly name the Kleins, went on to explain that wedding cakes cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, and questioned why gays and lesbians would want to pay that much money to make someone bake a cake against their will.
“Are you stupid? That is your personal piece of your wedding. Your guests eat that,” he said. “That cake is involved in your photos. That cake is taken in your mouth, and you eat it in your stomach.”
Bartholomew went on to accuse some of bulling — and worse.
“There’s no other bakers out there?” he rhetorically asked. “It’s plain and simple: you are bullying someone, you are forcing someone, you are being a Nazi and forcing someone to bake a damn wedding cake for you when there are hundreds of other gays and lesbians that would gladly have your business. Shame on you.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/20/are-you-stupid-gay-baker-lashes-out-at-his-fellow-gays-and-lesbians-for-bullying-christian-bakers-who-declined-to-make-same-sex-wedding-cake/
Chris any murder or beating is unacceptable, their are no special cases. In America murder and assault are illegal, in case you’d forgotten, no matter who the victim is. But the left makes this group a special tribal case so that if one is assaulted the group has been assaulted by everyone outside the group and that’s a big fat lie! It is both insulting and intolerant when you personalize it to push a special case agenda, “What you are witnessing is being told that you’re no better than people you grew up thinking were the bottom rung of society for no other reason than that they were different than you”
You don’t get to pretend to know what I thought or believed growing up! You don’t get to fantasize about me or former generations of Americans as if we were all guilty of crimes!
You have no concept of people who were taught to be polite, who were taught that what others did was none of your business, who were taught that crimes committed by individuals will be punished!
You have grown up in a very different atmosphere of group guilt, group interests, group guilt, group as special cases.
The LGBT community did make sexuality and gender political. The intensity of their political, social, and legal bullying has intensified over the decades and cannot be denied.
Your version of what happened in the past is incomplete. What happened to individuals was not done by the entire population nor was it tolerated by most. People may have been unaware but they did not tolerate abuses like those you list. The news was not filled with personal and lifestyle issues.
The American people, even religious people, not only tolerated but accepted gays being out of the closet and living an “alternative lifestyle”. Americans didn’t mind being made more aware. However that wasn’t enough for the radicals and their use of the courts, bypassing the will of the people, was/is in your face. Changing the definition of a word and using the courts to validate the change for accommodation trampled all over the truth and log established law.
If this group wants equal treatment then they should accept responsibility for their circumstances, they should adopt the same level of tolerance they demand for the religious groups they bully.
” But your grandchildren will, and your great grandchildren will wonder why it was ever such a big deal to begin with. They’ll also wonder where their great grandmother when LGBT people finally emerged from the shadows and said, “No more. We will not be hated for who we are anymore.”
My grandchildren know who I am. I don’t hate anyone. I have never harmed anyone. I have also expressed an opinion which apparently is not acceptable to you, even though it is my right.
Have to go.
Apologies to Jack…when I am personally attacked and mischaracterized I cannot let it go.
Jack, another great example of political liberal tribalism vs conservative individual acts was Nixon being forced to resign when faced with the fact that members of his OWN party would vote for his impeachment.
Yet, in the Clinton impeachment process not a single senate Democrat voted guilty on either charge.
While in the House, “Five Democrats (Virgil Goode of Virginia, Ralph Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, Charles Stenholm of Texas, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge. Five Republicans (Amo Houghton of New York, Peter King of New York, Connie Morella of Maryland, Chris Shays of Connecticut, and Mark Souder of Indiana) voted against the first perjury charge. Eight more Republicans (Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Michael Castle of Delaware, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Jay Kim of California, Jim Leach of Iowa, John McHugh of New York, and Ralph Regula of Ohio), but not Souder, voted against the obstruction charge. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against the second perjury charge, sending it to defeat, and eighty-one voted against the abuse of power charge.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
The liberal tribe majority built their wall to protect their leader with only a handful who refused to follow and voted their conscience instead.
History has been very kind to Clinton’s legacy, while Nixon is still held up at the example of how horrible Republicans are.
My kind of guy. Not a liberal tribe member either.
Ben Chapman: (From FaceBook post.)
“I stand with ANY business that believes in traditional marriage. Why not? Are we all wired to think the same? Because it is more common today means people who grew up with nothing but traditional marriage need to alter their views or beliefs? The common, irrational misconception the MSM and the Left spew is that someone who stands for traditional marriage automatically hates gay people. This could not be further from the truth. I have friends, family, who love and support me in almost all of my efforts. I don’t begrudge them for their beliefs, and they don’t begrudge me for mine. But using FORCE to make people accept you not only sets the “gay movement” back decades, but it makes the rest of us, who are gay, also look like fascist bullies, who are no better than those who [truly] hate gays.”
Tina: “The LGBT community did make sexuality and gender political.”
No.
The government made sexuality and gender political when it criminalized homosexuality.
You made the issue political when you voted to annull the marriages of thousands of Californians against their will.
I could go on, but there’d be no point.
“The American people, even religious people, not only tolerated but accepted gays being out of the closet and living an “alternative lifestyle”. Americans didn’t mind being made more aware.”
Which Americans? Some of your guiding lights–including Scalia–still believe that states should be allowed to make homosexuality illegal. In what world is that “acceptance?”
Peggy: “Jack, another great example of political liberal tribalism vs conservative individual acts was Nixon being forced to resign when faced with the fact that members of his OWN party would vote for his impeachment.
Yet, in the Clinton impeachment process not a single senate Democrat voted guilty on either charge.”
Are you sure that’s because of tribalism, and not because Nixon’s offenses were so much worse and more relevant to his job duties than Clinton’s were?
“History has been very kind to Clinton’s legacy, while Nixon is still held up at the example of how horrible Republicans are.”
Really? If that’s true, I don’t think it’s fair. Nixon’s offenses reflect on his own lack of ethics, but I don’t think they reflect on Republicans as a whole.
Another great quote from Ben Chapman a member of the LGBT community.
“The day the gay-left forces a business to close its doors for simply believing in traditional marriage is the day they can no longer claim to be “oppressed.” Congratulations, you’ve now become the oppressors.”
Tina, I’m sorry you felt attacked and mischaracterized by my comments. Perhaps you can now empathize with the millions of LGBT people who have been subject to far worse attacks and mischaracterization for their entire lives, simply because of their LGBT status.
If your relationship were made illegal; if you were kicked out of your home for the person you loved; if you were told you were a pervert and an abomination for the person you loved; if you were told you were unfit to serve your country because of the person you loved; if you were forbidden from certain community service programs, or to donate blood because of the person you loved; if you were fired from your job because of the person you loved; if you were denied housing because of the person you loved; if even after decades of progress, your marriage to the person you loved was STILL a subject of debate; and if there were millions of others just like you, suffering from the same treatment and worse all around the world, for no good reason…
…I doubt you’d be saying that it was simply a “personal” issue, and nobody’s business but your own. I think you would realize that it was political, because oppression and disparate legal and social treatment is always political.
Yes, everyone suffers in life. But it is a fact that some people suffer because of who they are, and because of societal bigotry. You wouldn’t have told a black civil rights protester in the 1960s “Everyone has problems, keep it to yourself, get over it.” (Or maybe you would have; you’re right, I don’t know what your past was like.)
The ONLY reason LGBT people have formed a distinct political group is because the law treated them as such for centuries. The only reason Pride Parades exist is because of the shame they were told they were supposed to feel for so long. The only reason they are standing up now is because they have been bullied for way too long.
To declare that LGBT people made their struggle political is no different from saying that women made suffrage political, or that MLK Jr. made Jim Crow political, or that abolitionists made slavery political.
It was always political. You just didn’t notice it before, because you didn’t have to notice, nor did you want to.
And now the silence has been broken, and you can’t handle it.
Well, to quote you: “Whaaaaa.”
Chris is jumping up and down again to gain attention.
Peggy, what does the phrase “traditional marriage” mean?
1) Does it mean a marriage wherein a woman is her husband’s legal property, as was traditional prior to the early 1900s?
2) Does it mean a marriage wherein marital rape is legal, as was traditional prior to the 1970s?
3) Does it mean a marriage in a society where divorce is illegal and adultery is a crime?
4) Does it mean a marriage where the husband is allowed to cheat, but the wife is not?
5) Does it mean an arranged marriage of economic convenience, as has been the most common model almost everywhere in the world?
6) Does it mean a marriage of a man and multiple wives, as has also been traditional in both Western and Eastern cultures alike?
7) Does it mean a marriage between a rapist and his victim, as required by the Bible?
8) Does it mean a marriage between a widow and her brother-in-law, as also required in the Bible?
9) Or…are you talking about the relatively modern version of marriage, wherein a man and a woman marry for love and commitment, wherein they have equal rights and responsibilities to each other, wherein they can decide whether to have children or not, at what time, and how many, and either party can divorce the other at will?
As you can see, marriage has changed so much throughout history that the phrase “traditional marriage” is utterly meaningless, and actively dishonest when used to describe Marriage #9. There was NOTHING traditional about marriage in America prior to the Obergefell ruling–almost everything about it, aside from the gender combination, would have struck your distant ancestors as weird and inappropriate.
Most of the changes have been to your benefit as a woman, as you have rights within a marriage that previous generations would have seen as grave abominations.
Same sex marriage is a direct result of the expanded rights for women within marriage. If men and women are considered equal within a marriage, and their rights and responsibilities to each other are exactly the same, then what is the justification for requiring marriage to include one man and one woman? There is none.
Chris: “Which Americans? Some of your guiding lights–including Scalia–still believe that states should be allowed to make homosexuality illegal. In what world is that “acceptance?””
Chris you live in the United states of America. If the people of a state decide through the legislative process that marriage is between one man and one woman, making gay marriage illegal, that is their right under the Constitution which states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Constitution Center:
The Supreme Court has been overstepping its authority for some time in the name of fairness. Fairness and equality are not the same thing.
The idea that a state making marriage as between one man and one woman is hateful is complete balderdash. The one doesn’t translate to the other, that’s just your own prejudice showing…not to mention tribal thinking which insists that everyone agree with you!
“The ONLY reason LGBT people have formed a distinct political group is because the law treated them as such for centuries. The only reason Pride Parades exist is because of the shame they were told they were supposed to feel for so long. The only reason they are standing up now is because they have been bullied for way too long.”
So you admit that they have made this a political/social issue! You should know that until they decided to change the definition of marriage and discover a right where there was none in the Constitution, nobody tried to stop them from living however they chose and recreating however they wished. there was tremendous tolerance of those with an alternative lifestyle…that was their right! That was nobodies business.
Oh and by the way…a percentage of gays that get beaten up are beaten up by other gays…do you imagine the entire non-gay population is guilty for that too?
We are NOT members of some tribe! As American citizens we are individuals. The law holds individuals accountable for injustices like assault and murder.
I hope on day you step out of that PC box and learn to appreciate where you live!
I will not address any more of your comments. You have not shown you have respect for the opinions of others nor are you willing to think outside your tribal box…worst of all you assign guilt and stoop to personal attacks when you don’t know what the he77 you’re talking about.
So much for your moral and ethical superiority.
Tina: “If the people of a state decide through the legislative process that marriage is between one man and one woman, making gay marriage illegal”
That is not what I was talking about.
I clearly wrote that Scalia and other influential conservatives (such as Rick Santorum) believe states can make homosexuality illegal, not just gay marriage. I’m not sure if you knew this and just chose to talk about something else, or if you just didn’t bother to comprehend what you were reading.
State bans on homosexual behavior were not overturned until 2003, and Scalia opposed that decision. Since he’s never said otherwise, I assume he still opposes it. How exactly does that square with your idea that the American public accepted gays almost immediately? In some states, it’s only been legal to be gay for a little over a decade!
“So you admit that they have made this a political/social issue!”
No. Please read more carefully. It was already made a political/social issue for them. If the state invalidated your marriage and made physical intimacy with your husband illegal, and you protested that, you would not be the one making it a political/social issue. The government would be the one making it such. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this.
“You should know that until they decided to change the definition of marriage and discover a right where there was none in the Constitution, nobody tried to stop them from living however they chose and recreating however they wished.”
Again, this is blatantly false, and you know it. State bans on homosexual behavior were only overturned 12 years ago.
“Oh and by the way…a percentage of gays that get beaten up are beaten up by other gays…do you imagine the entire non-gay population is guilty for that too?”
I’ve never said the entire non-gay population is guilty for ANYTHING that happens to gay people, Tina. For someone who complains over her words being taken out of context–without a lot of evidence, I might add–you sure are misrepresenting a lot of things I’m saying in this conversation.
I have said that you are guilty of contributing to discrimination against gays, because you voted to annul the marriages of thousands of your fellow Californians a few years ago, and you’ve never apologized for this. You used the government to interfere with the personal lives of complete strangers for no compelling reason other than “the definition of a word” which has had, as I showed in a comment above, several different definitions throughout history, and is notable for the ways it has changed significantly. That you can then say, without irony, that people should keep their private business private is astounding.
Tina: “The Supreme Court has been overstepping its authority for some time in the name of fairness. Fairness and equality are not the same thing.”
As I’ve pointed out to you many times, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell was based on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. You refuse to even acknowledge this, and have stated multiple times that their decision has no Constitutional basis, ignoring their actual justification for their decision. Is that because you can’t refute their real arguments?
Spot on Jack, spot on.
“Tribalism: Loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group. It’s an “us verses them” kind of mentality. It allows whatever mistake/s the person [in] the tribe might make worthy of a pass. However, whatever a person on the outside does that in any way competes with the tribe, then its something to be distained and rebuked…In the immortal words of Elmer Fudd, “we hate dem wascally wepublicans!” –
Update: Shapiro files “battery” charge against Tur.
The Other Behind-the-Scenes Comment Allegedly Uttered by Transgender Reporter to Conservative Commentator Before He Filed a Police Report:
“The Other Behind-the-Scenes Comment Allegedly Uttered by Transgender Reporter to Conservative Commentator Before He Filed a Police Report
The commentator filed a police report on Sunday morning alleging battery. It reads, in part, “[Suspect] became angry and reached/grabbed [victim’s] neck,” and references both CNN and Dr. Drew Pinsky, who hosts the show on which the incident occurred, Breitbart reported.
Shapiro told TheBlaze that he filed the report after he was “physically threatened on national television.”
“The criminal threats continued after the show when this transgender person said to me that he wanted to meet me in the parking lot,” he explained. “I was accompanied to my car after they made sure Zoey Tur left the building.”
Shapiro also noted that he believes the situation would have been handled very differently had he been the aggressor who touched Tur and made a similar threat.
“If the situation had been reversed — if I had grabbed him by the neck … I would have spent the evening in jail,” he said. “There’s no question it’s at least misdemeanor battery.”
As TheBlaze previously reported, Tur and Shapiro got into an intense exchange while discussing Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, with Tur patently disagreeing with Shapiro’s comments on the matter.
But it was one line that Shapiro uttered that appeared to really rile Tur.
“What are your genetics, sir?” he asked, with Tur putting her hand on his shoulder and responding, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.”
Shapiro told TheBlaze that calling Tur “sir” was “not a deliberate attempt to provoke,” as some have alleged.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/20/the-other-behind-the-scenes-comment-allegedly-uttered-by-transgender-reporter-to-conservative-commentator-before-he-filed-a-police-report/
What a giant weenie Ben Shapiro is.
The tribalism hate continues.
Black Confederate Flag supporter murdered after rally by car full of jeering black men:
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/black-confederate-flag-supporter-run-off-road-killed-likely-by-new-black-panther-party-activists/
Oh no, another one!
Black Mississippi flag supporter dies in traffic accident:
“Barnum said she and Hervey were returning home Sunday from Birmingham, Alabama, where they attended a Saturday rally to save the Linn Park Confederate Monument. City leaders there recently voted to remove the memorial from the park.
Anthony Hervey, 49, was killed Sunday when the 2005 Ford Explorer he was driving left the roadway and overturned on Mississippi Highway 6 in Lafayette County, the Highway Patrol said.
The vehicle’s owner and passenger in the car, Arlene Barnum, told The Associated Press on Monday that Hervey swerved and crashed after another vehicle carrying four or five young black men pulled up alongside them, yelling and looking angry. Barnum, of Stuart, Oklahoma, said Hervey yelled something back at the other vehicle before losing control and crashing.
“It spun like crazy and we flipped, flipped, flipped. It was awful,” she said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/black-mississippi-flag-supporter-dies-traffic-accident-130939918.html
Peggy: “Oh no, another one!”
Huh? Both articles you posted are about the same people.
If there is any evidence that New Black Panthers purposefully ran them off the road, I don’t think you’ll get any opposition to them being charged with murder; the NBPP is widely recognized as a hate group by both the left and right.
Chris I will acknowledge I misread your comment.
“Liberalism may not be the most extreme example, but its right up there!” It sure is right up there.
This is so shameful I hope everyone involved is disbarred and put away for life or a very very long time.
Government Persecution of Wisconsin Conservatives Finally Comes to an End:
“In a lengthy decision issued on July 16, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has finally put an end to the secret, unconstitutional, “John Doe” investigation of conservative nonprofits in Wisconsin, such as Wisconsin Club for Growth.
This legal harassment was engineered by a Democratic local prosecutor, John Chisholm, and the head of the state’s “Government Accountability Board,” Kevin Kennedy.
Hopefully, both of them, as well as others involved in this persecution like special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, will now be held accountable both in civil suits and by the state bar for their abusive actions, which targeted organizations because of their vocal support for Gov. Scott Walker’s policy agenda.
They found themselves the targets of a criminal investigation for exercising their most basic First Amendment right to speak about state government and issues before the state legislature.
The prosecutors went after virtually the entire conservative advocacy community in Wisconsin and demanded that the targets keep the investigation secret, threatening them with prosecution if they revealed what was going on.
The prosecutors treated the targets of their investigation as if they were the members of a dangerous drug cartel or mob operation. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, they executed search warrants against the personal homes and families of the leaders of these nonprofits in “pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids in which bright floodlights were used to illuminate the targets’ homes.”
This was dangerous, unjustified, and unnecessary unless, of course, the intent was to intimidate conservatives and punish them for speaking up.
In an extensive, substantive analysis, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman points out that the theory under which the prosecutors were pursuing this investigation “is unsupported in either reason or law.”
Their interpretation of the law was “so sweeping” that it would apply to “constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.”
Fortunately, the court concluded that this intrusive investigation went far beyond what the law and the Constitution allow. It was so “broad and so extensive that they make the fruits of the legendary Watergate break-in look insignificant by comparison.”
Our democracy is supposed to assure the “unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Instead, the prosecutors’ theories “would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/17/government-persecution-of-wisconsin-conservatives-finally-comes-to-an-end/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook
Thanks, Tina. I appreciate that and I hope we can both find ways to understand each other better. I will make more of an effort.