Should Have Known Better Than To Speak My Mind On Politics
I have this very talented fiction writer friend I truly adore who shares my views on manners and rudeness and even stands up to the rude herself. This is quite the relief because I'm typically the only person ever to speak up when rudesters trample all over the rest of us.
Well, speaking up about my political views was a mistake on Saturday, because I'm libertarian and she's very much anything but. She's also on the left. I'm neither left nor right, but it's my impression and my experience that when people on the right disagree with you, they typically don't take it as personally as some do on the left. People on the right who disagree with me just seem to think I'm a bit stupid (like for my view that we had no business being in Iraq), but they don't think I'm a terrible person for not sharing their views.
My mother experienced the latter recently with a friend, who told her to please never bring up Barack Obama again in her presence (my mother is not an Obama fan, and indicated why in some conversation she and her friend had -- probably by my mother expressing fiscally conservative views). My mother told me that she felt their friendship would never be the same. I told my mom my opinion, that when people on the left don't agree with you, they tend to feel offended that you would even have such views, and even view you as a bad person for having them.
I should have remembered this when my friend made a remark about Santorum (I despise the guy, by the way) and sex and then hopped onto coverage of birth control by health insurance. This was basically my cue -- I saw the can of worms and I got out my can opener -- instead of doing what I should have done, not engaging and hopping on to another subject.
She was shocked at my views on freedom of religion: That if you are, say, a Catholic hospital, and you are not getting public funds, you should not have to provide any medication or service that runs contrary to your religion. (I would add now that I would think this religious dispensation should be suspended if necessary to save a life.)
Now, I'm an atheist, and I think religion is silly, and I'm a supporter of Planned Parenthood and find abortions creepy, but feel a woman has a right to have one (but please have it as early as possible). But, I still feel that people who have religious beliefs should not be forced by the government to do things that violate them.
In case this didn't horrify my friend enough about me, we somehow moved on to other such neutral topics like government meddling in health insurance (and my view that one of the biggest problems is that it's tied to the workplace).
And then, for the crowning glory of what should be termed "How to put a rift in a perfectly wonderful friendship," we somehow moved on to the subject of "What if this cafe decided to say black people couldn't come there?"
I said, "I think that's ugly and horrible but I also think they should be free to do that. I wouldn't patronize this cafe if they had that policy, and I'd probably open up a cafe next door that welcomed everybody -- everybody not shouting into a cell phone."
Shocked, she said that this would take us back to the days of Jim Crow Laws.
And I told her the problem there was government -- government legislation that prohibited blacks and whites from mixing, and that I thought the free market solved these problems. Again, you don't want to serve blacks? You're not going to be serving me, either.
And, I told her, I'd be for freedom to choose who comes into your business even if I'm the excluded one. I told her that I'd experienced some pretty awful anti-Semitism as a child -- egging of our house and more -- but that even if the discrimination fell upon me, I would still maintain the same view.
We walked out to our cars together, and she said something about how necessary government is to run every area of our lives, and I said my view is that government makes a mess of it and that I wanted as little intervention as possible: basically just road maintenance, defense, and the classic stuff you usually hear libertarians talk about when they explain small government.
From the look on her face, I realized about midway through that I'd dug myself into the same friendship hole I'd talked to my mother about, and realized I'd made a mistake. It isn't that I think I should keep quiet about my views; I just think I need to realize that some people just can't help but be anything but deeply offended by them, and talk with those people about shoes, good books, and the weather.
This is a difficult line to tread. Politics is a common, and natural, topic of conversation.
I have the same problem whenever I visit my family. We generally get along great, but they are nearly all very conservative Christian, whereas I am an athiest. I refuse to be dishonest about this, if directly asked. However, I do my very best to steer to conversation elsewhere so that it just doesn't come up.
a_random_guy at February 12, 2012 12:03 AM
I agree wuth you and you may have overdosed your friend a but, but groupthink has to be challenged if for no other reason than to disprove the "Everyone knows ..(insert inane slogan here)". Any itch planted by a well presented contrarian view may lead to a question and maybe even a dissection of the held position and with lots of luck, enough curiosity to try to figure out why someone would actually oppose their viewpoint.
I have been a libertarian since before there was a capitalization of the word. However because of a long military career the capitalization I use is Neo-Libertarian. (exit singing It's a Small World After All)
RRRoark at February 12, 2012 12:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2973578">comment from RRRoarkgroupthink has to be challenged
I do it constantly, but some people cannot be persuaded -- they just will not take in what you're saying -- and when that's the case, sometimes there's more cost than benefit.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 12:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2973587">comment from a_random_guyRegarding my atheism, a_random_guy, I am very open about that also, but saw no reason to reveal it to Gregg's late mom, who was a sweet little Catholic lady, who probably would have worried that I'd burn in hell and Gregg would be left alone for all eternity.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 12:16 AM
I think what makes a best friend is when you can brash out about anything and they don't act shocked.
I have a friend who is super stylish but very traditional in her views about sex. She makes a yucky face when I mention hanging out with trannies on a weekend. She also thinks that a husband buying a house, paying the mortgage, paying all the bills and groceries is normal and when I explained that some women do not have those arrangements she could just not believe it. She thought that every woman that is married has it like that......
On all other grounds she is a really good wise friend.
Purplepen at February 12, 2012 12:37 AM
I had a good friend in college who I knew not to talk much about politics with. Once we were talking about the Bush/Gore election and I mentioned that I voted for Nader. His response was "why'd you do that? He could have lost (to Bush)!" I didn't tell him that I was a registered Republican at the time. Bush had no real chance to win my state in 2000 and I hated Gore. Nader was my "I don't really care" vote.
Sio at February 12, 2012 12:57 AM
I doubt you've ruined the friendship if you have other things in common.
My worst experience along these lines was at last Thanksgiving dinner (with colleagues, not friends or family). All hard core liberals, some of them decades older than me. They started moaning worshipfully about Michael Moore, and I just burst out with what a hypocrite he was. It's hard to temper your reactions when you both feel strongly about something, and know facts others either don't know or choose to ignore.
Everyone was quite taken back by my vehemence as well as the fact that anyone working in the arts could be something besides liberal. Some people listened to my points and, I'd like to think, learned a couple of things. But it turned out that one of the ladies' sons had recovered from leukemia. She viewed universal health care as having saved her son's life and wouldn't hear anything against it. Yeah, I kind of regretted speaking up at that point.
But she doesn't seem to think any less of me now. We're still acquaintances, not friends, but on good terms. And I think friends can accept one holding such wildly different viewpoints even better than acquaintances, because they generally like you for more than just your opinions. Every single person I'm close to disagrees strongly with me on at least one major life matter. Whether I choose to debate with them or avoid certain subjects depends on the relationship.
YTS at February 12, 2012 4:41 AM
I've had the same experience as you Amy, but I've finally stopped feeling bad and blaming myself when it happens.
You think made a mistake by speaking freely? Ridiculous! Why should you hold back, or change to placate someone else. If this "friend" is unable to handle different views that is her problem. No doubt she considers herself very tolerant, except of course when she isn't.
I saw this quote from Christopher Hitchens just yesterday: "It is not enough to "have" free speech. People must learn to speak freely."
JFP at February 12, 2012 5:16 AM
I've lost aquaintence over my views. I hesitate to label them as freinds because if they were freinds then they wouldnt have ended our relationships over differing views on such mundane things.
I'm an athiest, most of my family knows it - I dont go out of my way to advertise it. I dont refuse to participate in family prayrsa around the dinner table, but nor do I refuse to participate in theological discussions if they prop up.
If your friend is really willing to abandon your relationship over one conversation she isnt really your freind.
I recall a conversation I had with my mothers cousin on heath care - he is on permanat disablility and his dad requires a breathing machine. We were talking about free heath care and I was saying it made no sense to shell out millions of dollars to keep one person alive if that person was being kept alive by public fund and contributed nothing to society and couldnt even leave their bed. Obviously he doesnt agree with me but we still talk regularly at family gatherings and he and I arent assholes to each other over our difference
lujlp at February 12, 2012 5:31 AM
Hey, if you're "not supposed to talk about religion or politics" at any particular venue, break the ice with a joke:
"Q: Why hasn't Jesus returned?
A: He has! He's busy polishing his Nobel Prize in the Oval Office!"
Your friend is just one of millions who have been taught that they not only cannot cope, they can only cope with government aid. They are too good a person to ask for help from others directly, but they have a right to command your aid through government.
This emotion is so strong that they will ignore abuse by the IRS, police and the TSA. They are hurt, injured. Fed only poison by popular media trumpeting the number of serial sex offenders nearby and how lousy their neighbors are.
You're not eating this poison, so you are apart from them. And these blind people do not like that you can see. They would pass legislation to blind you. They already approve legislation to keep you down, carefully controlled by government, as they praise the boot on their own neck.
Radwaste at February 12, 2012 5:58 AM
The Right thinks the left is wrong.
The Left things the Right is evil.
I'd agree with you, Amy, on every point made except Iraq (in which i think your answer is slightly more wrong than my wrong answer)and on reforming the incorrigibly rude (assistance is futile.) I think there's a Libertarian inside me screaming to get out.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at February 12, 2012 6:13 AM
Intimacy means talking about whatever the fuck you want. If topics are off limits, that's not a problem... I don't pester people in line at the back either. (Too often... Not all the time.) But when someone says, let's not discuss that, they're saying their feelings are more important than yours.
Good to know, isn't it?
—
A favorite tweet went like this:
The tweet has been removed, which is heartbreaking.
(PS- You guys are wrong about everything, especially the motherfucking Inuit.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 6:20 AM
Saxon - precisely.
See also: Everything a progressive says is projection.
brian at February 12, 2012 7:18 AM
> no reason to reveal it to Gregg's late mom, who
> was a sweet little Catholic lady
There's no such thing as a sweet little old lady, Catholic or otherwise. If you're registered to vote, you're as dangerous as anyone.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 7:22 AM
Interesting stuff.
I know it wasn't the main point of your post, but as a hospital admin, I have to point out that very few (if any) religious hospitals run without public funding.
http://atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals
I would also add that I believe a religious hospital has a responsibility to at least refer/let patients know where they can get the services they want if they don't provide them, something the religious folks in this country have fought against.
Aside from that, I'm sorry about your friend. I'm glad to hear you spared Gregg's grandmother though...I've done the same thing with mine.
Public Funding Hawk at February 12, 2012 7:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974139">comment from JFPIf your friend is really willing to abandon your relationship over one conversation she isnt really your freind.
I think she feels badly about this, too, but the thing is, I can listen to people's differing views and think they're stupid about something, or short-sighted, or irrational, and just value them for what I like about them. It's like my old French teacher, who's a friend of mine, who believes in astrology. That's just asinine, but I try not to think about it and focus on how insightful she is and what a great person she is otherwise. It would be pointless to try to tell her why astrology is asinine -- she doesn't want to hear it and her belief is part of the personal cultural fabric of her life, to put it a little stuffily.
And JFP, this isn't about blaming...I just need to recognize when people are limited in what they can deal with, and if I value what I do share with them and want to preserve that, I have to be mature enough to recognize what's off-limits.
Again, the right and left difference. I joke that a woman that I know is "just to the right of Ghenghis Khan." We know we disagree on some things, and it isn't that we can't talk about them -- just that we aren't likely to change each other's minds or do much more than argue, so we talk about things we do agree on (libertarianish things, anti-big-government things, etc.). The thing is, I don't think she's deeply offended by my views -- and I just accept that her views are her views and not mine. I don't feel she's a terrible person for having them.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 7:37 AM
That is in the very nature of progressives: as the vanguard, they must possess the Truth. Disagreement is a sign either of ignorance or malevolence.
Just like any other religion.
Jeff Guinn at February 12, 2012 7:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974144">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and I didn't blog about this when it happened, because I didn't want the woman to potentially look at my blog and see this, but a woman who works at Whole Foods who came to my neighbors' for Christmas said that some policy where they give workers a bonus or a discount for (forget that there's no evidence supporting this being healthy) lowering their cholesterol was "like Nazi Germany!" or "like the Nazis!"
Sorry, but unless Whole Foods is shoving their workers in ovens, they aren't "like the Nazis!"
In that case, perhaps because Gregg was there (and Gregg is far wiser, more prudent, and more mature than I am), I knew to just let that slide unremarked...along with a few other things the woman said.
Likewise, my mother is very, very smart, and very, very analytical and can pretty much wipe the floor with most people's arguments. The woman she was talking politics with isn't an idiot but she's intellectually average and can never, ever win an argument with my mother. I pointed out to my mother that it's not really the basis of a working social relationship (for most women -- not for me), that you're wiping the floor with their argument.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 7:42 AM
You'll find the trend that all things are personal and political is far more common on the left side of the spectrum because, whether it was conscious choice or simple conditioning, they're caught up in Marxism.
Marxism makes all things political because there is no respecting private property. If everything is private property, and you want something somebody else has, and you don't have the money to afford it, you either give up on it or you go get the money. If all private property is up for debate, once you get beyond the people with big piles of assets to distribute, you eventually get down to the little piles of assets, until everything at all levels is held at the consent of the mob.
The right in America is drifting this direction; when Rick Santorum says he doesn't like libertarians -- and directly rebukes Ronald Reagan's claim libertarianism was the beating heart of the conservative movement -- it is because Rick also is bought into Marxism, or at least the Marxist framing of all things as political and up for debate and decision by the rabble, and so Rick wants to see a different mob in charge making the distribution decisions.
It's nearly impossible to mend those friendship situations because, to make any of your views make sense to your friend, you have to go down to first principles, which is going to involve getting them to decide consciously if private property exists or is simply the consent of current political power. At some level, you also make a pragmatic decision if you really care that much about this person to try to deprogram them or not. The public school systems have likely had 12 years of glorification of protest and petition drive to get them deeply befuddled.
Mr Green Man at February 12, 2012 8:10 AM
I just need to recognize when people are limited in what they can deal with, and if I value what I do share with them and want to preserve that, I have to be mature enough to recognize what's off-limits.
Fair enough, but by the same token should your friend also be aware of what topics she doesnt want to hear your opinion on and do her best to steer clear of them as well?
My newest uncle(married my aunt a few yrs back) and I enjoy debating religion. He is a christian, and I'll admit a great christian, he truly believes in his faith, tries to do the right thing, doesnt force his faith on others at the ballot box. He thinks I'm wrong for being an athiest, I think he niave.
But we have meandering conversations that bounce around everything from theology to cosmology and phisics and anthropolgy. For some reason though it upsets my aunt. I think she thinks were fighting, her father was an alcholic and she doesnt handle family conflict well. So after it became apparent that it upset her the two of us stopped haveing such conversations in front of her when we had large family gathjerings at her place.
My point being if you knew your freind well enough to infer that your answers might be something she wasnt able to handle, shouldn't she also have been aware of that?
lujlp at February 12, 2012 8:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974194">comment from lujlpFair enough, but by the same token should your friend also be aware of what topics she doesnt want to hear your opinion on and do her best to steer clear of them as well?
I have a friend who does do that -- and vice versa.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 8:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974196">comment from lujlpMy point being if you knew your freind well enough to infer that your answers might be something she wasnt able to handle, shouldn't she also have been aware of that?
I find that if people here (in LA) like you, they assume that of course you're on the left and think exactly as they do. Because I'm not a social conservative, people assume that I'm on the left. But, the reality is, I'm very fiscally conservative, a freemarketer and libertarian. And a civil libertarian. If I deplore your views or who you wish to narrowly associate with, I still respect your right to hold those views and to associate narrowly.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 8:47 AM
One of the more memorable occasions of my finding out what a uncaring bastard I am was when I informed some people that they could get an abortion if they wanted "but stop demanding that I pay for it." I could have strolled into a church on Sunday and pissed on the altar and had a less hateful reaction.
That was when it truly struck me that, for a lot of these people, abortion and contraception and such aren't actually 'available' to women unless the women using them don't have to pay for them. And, simply by disagreeing with that, I was classed as a misogynist, christianist, fascist who wanted womyn to DIE!!!
No, can't really say I'm friends with those people anymore.
Firehand at February 12, 2012 8:53 AM
Amy,
As an even harder-core libertarian than you are (very much the anarcho-rothbardian type) I can tell you that I've had conversations like the one you just described more than once with a very good friend, really a life-long friend, who is very much your classic Progressive liberal. We are living proof that two people can disagree about just about everything and still remain friends.
These issues still crop up in conversation b/c he cares about them, but he also now knows that if he brings it up, it may get a bit ugly. What I've done over time is to craft my language to appeal to his world-view, a very polite thing to do, and provide the counter-argument using his own position to craft a solution to discuss.
I always begin these discussions now by saying some variation on the following, "You know, the modern left is right about a great number of the things that are wrong... where we disagree is the source of the problem and hence the solution." That little bit of acknowledgement tends to soften barriers.
I was his best-man just so's you know, and this was well after our many arguments. While you may have done damage to the relationship, a good friend looks past that. But, yes, the progressive left's philosophy is built on engineering a better human and hence they truly are at war with other people for all of the things that are wrong with them.
Ta,
Tom Luongo at February 12, 2012 9:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974241">comment from Tom LuongoThanks, Tom...appreciate your approach...and the result!
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 9:35 AM
Do liberals ever think they should have kept quiet to avoid offending their conservative friends?
Brian at February 12, 2012 9:48 AM
Your mistake is assuming she is really your friend. If she doesn't want too be your friend because of you libertarian principles than she never really was you friend to begin with.
Friendship(in my opinion) is about mutual respect.
I have a friend who is a card carrying communist. I am pure libertarian. When we want to aggravate each other we argue about whats going on in politics.
The arguments are good fun and than we go on to other subjects.
David H at February 12, 2012 9:49 AM
> That little bit of acknowledgement tends to
> soften barriers.
Barriers to what? If to anything less than compelling persuasion, why bother?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 9:53 AM
@Amy: You are welcome. I've been doing this a long time (12 years now since my 'conversion') and while I'm not the most polite person in the world, really quite rude when I want to be, I've found that for so many people they cannot separate their ego from their argument, ie. they are the position they've staked out. There is no distinction between the intellectual pursuit of the truth and what they believe. So, any counter-argument is seen as a threat to their identity and that can get very nasty very quickly.
This is why the Socratic method and 'reactive listening' are such powerful rhetorical techniques. Even when discussing politics, sex and religion (the 3 no-nos of polite discussion) by being accepting of the other person's position, even if you disagree with it, will make them more receptive to what you have to say. Otherwise all they hear is 'YOU SUCK!' even if you said it in the most non-confrontational way imaginable.
When you compound this with radical libertarianism and the conversation's starting point is that there is something wrong with you b/c you are in the extreme minority means that you have to be prepared to swallow a whole lot of mean and condescending behavior.
Ta,
ps. I could not live in L.A. :)
Tom Luongo at February 12, 2012 10:11 AM
@crid: Because no matter how perfect your argument is no one was ever convinced of something as important as a radical change in political or religious philosophy on the basis of one discussion with one person.
It's a question of identity for many people, unconsciously. I'm not saying that you should lie or anything, I'm only saying that you have to be acknowledge their perspective if you want to do anything more than 'talk at each other' as opposed to 'talk to each other.'
There's a difference between talking and communicating.
If your goal is to be persuasive, then using persuasive rhetorical tools is the best path to success.
Ta,
Tom Luongo at February 12, 2012 10:16 AM
> no one was ever convinced of something as
> important as a radical change in political
> or religious philosophy on the basis of one
> discussion with one person.
Doesn't follow. Who told you there'd be no tomorrow?
Today's business today.
> There's a difference between talking
> and communicating.
And there's one between principle and pussyfooting.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 10:22 AM
@crid:
>Doesn't follow. Who told you there'd be no >tomorrow?
If you are being as confrontational in your political discussions with me as you are with people who fundamentally view the world differently than you do... there is no tomorrow because they would rather not speak with you again.
>> There's a difference between talking
>> and communicating.
> And there's one between principle and pussyfooting.
And here's a classic example of just what I was talking about.
This conversation is now over.
Tom Luongo at February 12, 2012 10:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974313">comment from Tom Luongoor so many people they cannot separate their ego from their argument, ie. they are the position they've staked out.
Thanks for articulating this -- I think this is the underlying issue here.
To say it another way, there's no reasoning with people like this because they are deeply wounded that you think differently because it's a wound to their "self." My thinking is just "Okay, you FEEL or BELIEVE differently, and you're wrong..." but the disagreement rolls off my back and I'm able to look at them without our political or other differences making me despise them or find them unfit for all further contact.
For example, at a pundit dinner I go to monthly, I once had a heated argument -- not angry, just energized -- with a polarizing figure on the right about our presence in Iraq. Neither of us had our minds changed, but then it was time to go, and we laughed and hugged goodbye and I told him to tell his wife I said hi.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 10:32 AM
Conversely, is there any political/philosophical/religious point of view that someone could bring up to you that would be extreme enough for you to "unfriend" them?
clinky at February 12, 2012 11:00 AM
> there is no tomorrow because they would
> rather not speak with you again.
If they weren't listening the first time, no one can mourn their continuing disengagement.
> This conversation is now over.
And we understand each other perfectly! These are Shahak's "encouraging signs"!
> Neither of us had our minds changed
That's not the point, is it? People who want to win the lottery want to win it by buying a single ticket... Which is why lotteries are pointless. The odds are against you.
Again Hitchens comes to mind. I think it was a video clip, or a personal appearance, because I can't find the text with Google. He was responding to the idea that being the only one who holds a belief is a position of weakness. But in fact, that circumstance says nothing about the truth of the belief whatsoever.
Meanwhile, you'll never make the same arguments thing in exactly the same terms, and you'll never get precisely the same response from your audience. Arguments are honed.
Biblical revelation ain't the problem. Whether you believe in God or not, ours is a planet where you are going to struggle.
No, what's really going on here is that many people hold popularity as their highest value. So if they can't instantaneously convert people with a supernatural glow of oracular persuasion, then they'll settle for the puppy-love of floppy-eared consensus...
Which some of us regard as a waste of time.
G'night, lil' Tommy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 11:02 AM
Subtract one "thing" from the above.
Sorry about that. I feel terrible.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 11:04 AM
To me, friendship isn't about the need to be right.
What's more important in the grand scheme of things: that one of you be right about your differing political ideology (from each individual perspective, you are both "right," neither is really "wrong"; you're only wrong insomuch that you each hold opposing opinions) or that you maintain a friendship that you both enjoy and will hopefully have years from now?
Sometimes we let our egos get in the way of our close relationships. Ask yourself if this is what you're doing in this situation. If so, what would you do to correct it? If this situation arose strictly as a failing on your friend's behalf, can her faults be overlooked so that you can stay friends?
prawn toe at February 12, 2012 11:17 AM
You are right to express your opinion and she is wrong to hold it against you in a way that is meant to force you to shut up by holding her good opinion of you as hostage.
anon15319 at February 12, 2012 12:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974438">comment from clinkyConversely, is there any political/philosophical/religious point of view that someone could bring up to you that would be extreme enough for you to "unfriend" them?
White supremacy, to name just one example of racism. If somebody believes in the Quranic commands to convert or kill everyone who isn't Muslim. If somebody advocates and encourages violence against those they disagree with (I'm for self-defense).
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 12:06 PM
There are some people on the Right I've met that are just too "hardcore" for my taste. But sooooooooo many people on the Left appear to resemble zealots who have been indoctrinated into a religious like cult. "Dare" disagree with them on anything and you are often to be deemed: stupid, arrogant, ignorant, bigoted, racist, etc. It's quite an interesting experience to behold.
Perhaps worst of all is that if you ever dig down in search of facts with these same name callers, you find a lot of vacant space between their ears, often just populated with grasshoppers chirping.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at February 12, 2012 12:31 PM
I don't think you're hateful, but I think you're very naive and overly trusting of the goodwill of people to think that the free market would fix racism. Sadly, while YOU would boycott, there are lots of people who wouldn't, and you'd end up with some places where black people couldn't be served for miles and miles.
Which would suck if they were driving through somewhere and their car broke down.
NicoleK at February 12, 2012 12:31 PM
I keep pissing off my godfather's family for my righter-wing views on immigration. What's annoying, is whenever we're all together, one of my relatives will bring it up, just for kicks.
NicoleK at February 12, 2012 12:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974533">comment from Robert W. (Vancouver)Lawyer Tom, who I wrote about in the top post for today (with the cat latte photo) is a social conservative who disagrees with me on a number of subjects, but it's just something we both accept like adults. I didn't realize this about people on the left until I got attacked viciously and repeatedly by a "progressive" website (they sent their minions over to personally attack my looks...by the hundreds of comments, designed to wreck the speech in my comments section). The immature attitude toward disagreeing -- even strongly disagreeing -- with somebody's point of view I still find shocking and upsetting. The weird thing about those "progressives" is that they probably agree with me on a lot of things. I wrote recently that if I were any more gay rights friendly, I'd have a girlfriend. And I'm a big ole atheist who makes snide comments about religion all the time. Religious people who post here mostly go, "Oh, what a bore" or something like that. Probably because they are more right than left, and thus just find it something to blow off.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 12:51 PM
@Crid:
You wrote all of that to make it painfully obvious that you missed the point of what I was saying completely. No pussyfooting here, you heard what you wanted to hear and responded from that premise. If I was a pussy about it, I would apologize for not being clear enough.
I'm not.
I did not say anything about wanting to be popular or accepted or anything of that nature. That was your .interpretation. of what I wrote.
Putting on the machismo act in public is just egoism and has nothing to do with Amy's post or my response.
Honestly, Crid, if your responses weren't such object lessons in how not to communicate politely in public.
Ta,
Tom Luongo at February 12, 2012 1:12 PM
"...ours is a planet where you are going to struggle."
Alas, there is so much of everything that even people with completely wrong ideas survive, and the ideas persist because they aren't immediately self-correcting. The problem then becomes the length of time it takes for failure to appear; the longer it takes the more misery when it does get here.
Someone is going to process nuclear waste and tend its disposal site. Someone is going to pay NJ teacher pensions or eliminate them entirely, or something in between.
Radwaste at February 12, 2012 1:46 PM
> That was your .interpretation. of
> what I wrote.
Golly, there's a kinda bifurcated thing happening here.
On one hand you're certain there's been a failure of communication (i.e., ".interpretation.").
With the other you concede that not every point needs to be made in the first pass... Because, y'know, you came back for more.
> object lessons in how not to
> communicate politely
Perhaps when one's career is about flattering clients and berobed, insecure, distracted jurists, being "polite" has some higher currency.
But shucks, the rest of us just wanna have some bloggy fun and figure out what's good and what's not. We're not real-life friends; "machismo" is no more a factor than is a habit of "polite" pandering.
A lot of imaginary faults are ascribed to American character. I think one real one is a fondness for sugary depictions of unity and Will Rogers-style chatter about being able to make fast friends with anyone quickly. With every passing year I grow fonder of the spaces between people, even as insidious forces toil to merge our budgets.
Amy's post concerned intimate relationships, not heroic aspirations for consensus-building. I think that among intimates especially (but not exclusively), human nature puts us at greater risk for inappropriate patience with bad thinking than for twitchy resistance to it.
Some of us are just not that lonely or otherwise needy. We aren't looking for a family, or a sweetheart, or a president, or any other figure to show us the way.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 2:05 PM
"Whether you believe in God or not, ours is a planet where you are going to struggle."
One must eat others to survive. Same time one must strive not to be eaten alive. Thus, the struggle starts in life.
Mother Nature's cruel game plan.
I still have not figured out how to get even and turn the tables on HER without killing myself.
chang at February 12, 2012 2:28 PM
I lean left. Righties generally treat me like I'm a child, and that I will understand the Truth of Life on Earth when I grow up, or have children, or whatever their standard is for full adulthood. If I disagree with them, it's because I just don't understand the way the world really works. Condescending as hell.
I've had intense political conversations with people in which we were both pretty peeved with each other. Then we got over it and moved on. It happens.
MonicaP at February 12, 2012 2:37 PM
Public Funding Hawk: So you have no problems with the government taking money from everyone, then announcing: Here's a pool of money that everyone can access, except {insert group here}.
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air put an even better stake through that one:
SDN at February 12, 2012 2:38 PM
No reason you shouldn't be able to express your views. That's another one of the left's chilling ambitions; squash any ideas that don't follow their narrative.
When you ask a leftie why MSNBC doesn't offer a fair an balanced roster of contributors they will tell you that the right is irrational and doesn't deserve to be included. Similar for the Libertarians, I guess.
It can be tough to lose a friend, but do you really want to associate with someone who is so intolerant?
Hubflyer at February 12, 2012 3:33 PM
Sorry SDN you and Morresiy have missed the point. People are free to practice their religion - they arent allowed to force those beliefs on others.
In the case of catholic hospitals they are taking tax monies from non catholics to provide public services. They can either abide by the same rules as every other business taking tax money, or the can stop taking tax money.
Given the catholic church's propensity to sheil child molesters and restructure their finacxial structures in order to avoid paying setelments to their victims I can make a far better case that they are a business then you could make a case for them being a church
lujlp at February 12, 2012 3:58 PM
Amy: I'm neither left nor right, but it's my impression and my experience that when people on the right disagree with you, they typically don't take it as personally as some do on the left.
Jeff: That is in the very nature of progressives: as the vanguard, they must possess the Truth. Disagreement is a sign either of ignorance or malevolence. Just like any other religion.
It's not a progressive thing. Or a conservative thing. It's a "intensity-certainty" thing. People who are progressives, or conservatives (or libertarians) who fervently believe in something tend to feel they possess the truth and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.
JD at February 12, 2012 4:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2974861">comment from JDI expect people to often dismiss views they don't agree with. It's the woundedness that you would hold such views, views different from theirs, that this post is about.
Amy Alkon at February 12, 2012 5:20 PM
Woundedness, I'm cool with. Some of my own sharpest passages of growth have happened while nursing a "wound".
What pisses me off is people who express themselves perfectly if ploddingly, and then seek to introduce the next topic with 'I don't care to discuss it any further.'
My favorite conversation for the next moment goes "Let's be in touch over the 4th of July, Thanksgiving at the latest...."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 5:27 PM
In the case of catholic hospitals they are taking tax monies from non catholics to provide public services. They can either abide by the same rules as every other business taking tax money, or the can stop taking tax money.
So the government can take our money by force, which is what it does, and then force us to do it's bidding when it "gives" it back? Your thinking is the road to totalitarianism, which seems to be quite popular with liberals and progressives.
DADvocate at February 12, 2012 5:39 PM
> and then force us to do it's bidding when
> it "gives" it back?
Exactly what are you complaining about? What is the better world you want to see? I think Catholic enterprises should be taxed like other businesses. Isn't that what you want? Don't you think there'd be greater resistance to bogus taxes if the churches didn't think they could sit on the sidelines as they were levied?
Men's rights types can be a little too cranky, such that they forget who their friends are.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 6:55 PM
"I didn't realize this about people on the left until I got attacked viciously and repeatedly by a "progressive" website (they sent their minions over to personally attack my looks..."
Amy, I remember that dust-up. I'm sure you noticed how many homosexuality-related slurs they used against you. And you aren't the only non-leftist woman who has been subject to that treatment; Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, to name two, get it on a daily basis. This is the thing a lot of gays don't recognize: on the day that it becomes politically expedient, it will take the Left about three seconds to throw gays under the bus. (And the cozier the Left gets with radical Islam, the closer that day draws.)
"by the hundreds of comments, designed to wreck the speech in my comments section). The immature attitude toward disagreeing -- even strongly disagreeing -- with somebody's point of view I still find shocking and upsetting. " This is why I keep saying that leftism is the politics of narcissism. What you experienced is a variation of the "if I can't have it, nobody can" thing that narcissists do. I've seen it elsewhere before; if the leftists can't dominate a discussion, then they will seek to deny anyone else the use of the communications channel. I once saw a good moderately-trafficked mailing list killed by such a person, who sent out about 400 emails (all individually written) over about two hours, which led the host organization to pull the plug on it.
And that is why I seldom discuss politics with anyone, outside of here and a few other Web sites. Almost never in person, and never on Facebook. And I de-friend people who frequently post politics on FB. There are only a few close friends whom I trust to have political discussions with.
Cousin Dave at February 12, 2012 8:22 PM
I lean right. Lefties generally treat me like I'm a stupid, racist, bigoted Fox News watcher, and I will never understand the Truth of Life.
If I disagree with them, it's because I'm a stupid, racist, bigoted Fox News watcher who not only doesn't understand the way the world really works, but I'm evil, too. Condescending as hell.
Sound familiar, MonicaP?
In my opinion, the left went off the deep end starting with the 2000 election, and I have very, very few remaining friends on the left side of the aisle.
I've got better things to do than be insulted and browbeaten by a bunch of immature bullies.
jimg at February 12, 2012 10:05 PM
Listen— I never want to interrupt people people who are making fun of liberals, and there are some specifically lefty weaknesses in the human heart where this stuff applies (e.g., an unspoken presumption that "barriers" need to be "softened").
But it's just difficult to accept that there's any great disproportion one way or the other with interpersonal social problem Amy's describing.
Rightsiders might not be so achy-breaky heartbroken about things. But a discussion like this ought to produce a pocketknife principle we can all use to identify conservative boorishness.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 12, 2012 10:41 PM
Here's a better idea for people who take offense at your (relatively) non-offensive views: don't talk to them at all. What kind of a friend is a friend who can't stand to hear your political opinions?
Now, I do realize that you have to tread lightly with family members, because you cannot exactly cut them off.
I took Boortz's little quiz, by the way. I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but I scored a little to the left of full-blown libertarian on his quiz, because I didn't believe in unrestricted free trade in all cases. I suspect if the quiz asked about abortion and gay marriage, I would've scored significantly to the right of libertarian.
mpetrie98 at February 13, 2012 12:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2975365">comment from mpetrie98Here's a better idea for people who take offense at your (relatively) non-offensive views: don't talk to them at all. What kind of a friend is a friend who can't stand to hear your political opinions?
A friend I have a lot in common with and care a great deal for. It's immature and ridiculous to just toss somebody from your life -- somebody you care about -- because they don't like your politics. There's more to me than politics, and much more to our friendship.
Amy Alkon at February 13, 2012 12:45 AM
This has been true for a very long time. Conservative intellectual James Burnham (a reformed Marxist, like many center-right intellectuals of the '40s-60s) wrote well about the phenomenon in his Suicide of the West (New Rochelle, NY 1964). It's been reprinted a few times and can be found used for under $20. Reading Burnham's book would be well worth your time.
CatoRenasci at February 13, 2012 3:22 AM
Sound familiar, MonicaP?
Yes, that sounds familiar. You restated what I wrote from a right-leaning perspective using a bizarre rhetorical device designed to make you sound clever. Good job, I guess.
I was sharing my experience with righties as a someone on the left side of the aisle. I don't have many arguments with lefties because either I agree with them or I try not to discuss politics in social setting where people are going to get butthurt about it. Politics makes people assholes.
MonicaP at February 13, 2012 6:33 AM
I have been a Libertarian for a longtime, and believe we should have legal drug use, prostitution, and gambling. I am also a Atheist & Darwinist & NRA member & lover of all things that have motors and go fast & I believe we should return to gold and silver coins as the only legit currency.
I have a view on something or other that will make almost everyone's head explode. All my relatives and neighbors are either home schooling Christian Taliban types or people who aren't sure Obama is Left wing enough to get their vote this time.
At functions like the annual 4hth of July family picnic, I just listen and nod and try to avoid laughing at the stupid things people say. I have learned the hard way not to ask why Noah didn't bring the Tyrannosaurs on the Ark or if they can point out any totally Socialist state that has prosperity and liberty or if they think the police will get there in time after someone breaks into their house and they don't have a gun or why their can of beer is legal but a joint is a felony or what their lives would be like without big oil.
I have learned it is best to let morons be morons. They don't take it well when you point out the errors in their thinking, if you can call it that.
Old Guy at February 13, 2012 7:33 AM
DADvocate, catholic hospitals are not 'allowed' to refuse to treat Luterans, or blacks, or gays, why should they be allowed to refuse to provide Plan B to rape victims?
They are not allowed to refuse to give the Lutherans they hire health insurance, nor are they allowed to fire a worker for being gay, so if insurance companies offer contriceptive services why should they be allowed to edit what the insurance company offers their employees?
Now if it is a PRIVATE hospital which hires only members of the faith and recieves no tax benifits of any sort they are free to do what ever they want. But if they take tax money or tax breaks they the are subject to the same rules as other government contractors - to do anything less is illegal and discriminatory
lujlp at February 13, 2012 7:38 AM
Tactfulness is a wonderful social lubricant.
LauraGr at February 13, 2012 7:50 AM
I think you're very naive and overly trusting of the goodwill of people to think that the free market would fix racism.
I don't know about Amy, but I don't think the free market can "fix" racism any more than the law can. Racism is an attitude that lives in the minds of a significant number of the 7 billion people on this planet. Only within those individual minds can it be killed.
I realize this is a frustrating and hopeless view for those who believe an "ism" can cure/fix individual problems. But all you can do is you. Don't add to the problem, certainly, but beyond that there might not be much else you can do to solve it.
Pirate Jo at February 13, 2012 8:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/02/12/i_should_have_k.html#comment-2975895">comment from Pirate JoI don't think the free market can "fix" racism any more than the law can.
I agree with Pirate Jo here.
I was the loser that nobody would talk to or be friends with throughout much of my school "career." You can't legislate association or force people to change their thinking.
Government control is dangerous -- the more of it we let happen, the more we'll have. It seems benign when it is for "a good cause," but it is not, because government creep begets government creep.
Amy Alkon at February 13, 2012 8:21 AM
This just happened to me on facebook with two relatives, one for posting forward of Moveon.org propoganda, 1% vs. 99% argument about Eating the Rich. And the other, was that Ron Paul was a homophobe and a bigot. Echochambers are so passe.
I spoke up and no doubt, horrified a compliant audience of their "friends"(except one person each time who amazingly, I propted agreement from)
Now,they are both pissed (and probably embarassed to be related to such a rube like me!)
Bottom line. It's cool to be "progressive". There seems to be this unspoken rule there that you can post or say whatever you like if it follows the popular narrative and know that because any dissenters will be bullied, ridiculed and marginalized, you may do so with impunity and without worry of ever being challenged. It's complete sophmoric BS.
I mean, "everyone agrees"...Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Puff Pappy, Chris Matthews, Obama, Oprah..... "How could you POSSIBLY disagree with such mental titans you ignorant bigot!" zzzzzz
My take, they don't know how to logically think for themselves - so when you challenge their bumper-sticker-philosophies they are unable to defend it - they don't even know WHYYYY they believe it. Then it's Stepford Wife time! "Hope! Change! Hope! Change!" (and what an ego buster it must be to them to hear something new, and not in the form of a catchphrase designed to attract agreement and solidarity of all the little brains).
Doesn't take much courage to stand up and take a position and defend your belief when it is someone elses and marketed as the cool thing to say, or do, or be now does it?
IMHO, conservatives and libertarians both live by the priciple of "live and let live" (for progressives, it is FORCE), and that same principle is also kicking our asses right now.
Courage is defending unpopular truths. No matter what the room temp is.
Good for you Amy. I am sorry you have had a rift with your friend.
They need to have their microcosims pierced - they need to know that EVERYONE doesn't agree with them. Just like your article about the TSA pat downs. Speak up!
This belief of "politics isn't polite to talk about UNLESS I agree with it" MUST be challenged. I wont be the first to bring it up, but I will not let them believe that they are more entitled to free speech than I am. Times have changed and this is serious shit.
The fallout sucks though. I can really relate. I am terrified to speak up, but I have decided to do it anyway (respectfully) because I really have had enough of this one sided political idiocy crap.
Feebie at February 13, 2012 12:11 PM
> Tactfulness is a wonderful social lubricant.
Some of us aren't interested in being penetrated... Or in catching anyone else unawares.
> Government control is dangerous
You truly think so? Who then is this "we" you were talking about?
You don't trust voters with control.
And today we learn that you don't trust our government paper pushers with any power, either.
So who's left?
I bet you have one very special personality in mind....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 13, 2012 12:49 PM
For the sake of not making unnecessary enemies, when your opinions put you into a minority group, you have to remember that and step on no more toes than necessary. Or, be discreet but not a doormat.
lenona at February 13, 2012 2:28 PM
JD:
The point in play here being that it is a particularly Progressive reaction to not just vehemently disagree, but also to actively ostracize those who don't see things there own way. It results from the essential difference between the two world views. The conservative point of view is predicated on the limits of human knowledge. Consequently, while I, as a classical liberal (which in the contemporary US is a conservative position) strongly disagree with Progressives, my disagreement does not extend to demonizing them.
There are plenty of examples to make my point. Warmenists, who are always Progressives, actively demonize their opponents, hope for their suppression, and rigorously censor dissent wherever possible. Skeptics, in contrast, think Warmenists are comprehensively wrong, but on that side there are no equivalents to Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, et al.
If someone shows up on a college campus for a presentation anathematic to Progressives, you can be they will show up in droves to ensure that anathema remains unheard. I doubt you can find single example of the reverse side of that coin.
----
Amy:
I'm astonished that you think the proper response was to divert the conversation.
It is common courtesy to not broach certain topics when you aren't certain the other person shares your view. Once someone breaches that barrier, though, you are under no obligation to allow yourself to be held conversational hostage.
I have an unusual work environment, in that it requires me to be in close proximity to one other person (almost always male) who I have likely never met, for days, or even weeks. The unwritten--and almost universally observed--rule is that thou shalt not talk about politics or religion.
A couple months back, my co-worker at the time on successive days asked me if I believe in God (he is a believer), and what my position was on abortion (he is anti-choice).
Doing so was a foul, but having committed it, I was under no obligation to take what came like some sort of talk-test dummy.
Jeff Guinn at February 13, 2012 5:07 PM
> For the sake of not making unnecessary enemies
It's always so difficult to tell which enemies are optional and which are essential... Before, during or after the engagement. So what I like to do is observe my own boundaries and live in the moment. My judgment is fucking superb. (You can borrow it, if you want.)
The demons to my right are usually best answered with some close cousin of the golden rule: I want everyone (male / female / black / white / rich / poor / native / immigrant / bright / stupid) to be treated as I've been treated. Sometimes they'll perceive that treatment as an improvement and sometimes they won't, but there's nothing special about me that's made my life go this well. And I think anyone with the opportunity and discipline I've enjoyed should –and will– do as well as I have.
The demons to my left are best answered by demanding evidence of the splendid charity they so often demand on behalf of third parties. If the most private conduct from a lefty isn't the throbbing, glowing exemplar of sustainable compassion he demand of others for others, then his rhetoric should rejected in an immediate response. Like, out loud.
> The conservative point of view is predicated
> on the limits of human knowledge.
Yes. And human generosity. And human gratitude. And human perfectibility.
Lefties who believe that people will just be sweeter if we demand it of them usually have daydreams of being regarded as a Christlike savior to the species.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 13, 2012 7:32 PM
Primarily, Lefties believe there is no such thing as human nature, that everything we do is a consequence of society.
Which is why Progressives treat disagreement so antagonistically. They know that fixing society will fix us, and they know how to fix society.
No matter how long the parade of horribles they cause gets.
Jeff Guinn at February 13, 2012 8:53 PM
> Lefties believe there is no such thing as human
> nature, that everything we do is a consequence
> of society.
It's a quintessentially feminine belief.
> they know how to fix society.
The most powerful tool for forging human character is example. But when you look at 'em....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 13, 2012 9:04 PM
In a lot of ways, progressives have an incredibly High School mentality. They know they are superior to the rest of us, and can't believe that anyone would really wear those clothes (or think those thoughts) when all the cool kidz are wearing the Right Things and Thinking the Right Thoughts. It's like a threat to their very existence to have an opposing point of view. The Right/Libertarians don't have a Different idea, they are just WRONG (and evil and racist, etc.).
LordJiggy at February 14, 2012 9:22 AM
The free market cannot end racism any more than Progressive Totalitarianism can, but I hold that it's remedies are better and it's side effects less damaging to Liberty.
Taking the example of the segregated lunch counter.
First, there will be people who are offended by a racist service policy and will not patronize such a place.
Second, with a more Libertarian government there will be a much lower entry cost for a new lunch counter to open, as there will be just the minimum amount of regulations required to ensure a building and fare. We had public houses that served food and drink for eons before the myriad of expensive regulations Progressivism foisted upon the would be restauranteur. For the most part, they did not poison their customers, and those who did found them selves short on paying customers right quick. The regulations exist mostly to employ the regulators. Patronage jobs are the life blood of Progressivism.
This means that the discriminated class could open their own restaurants more easily, not only serving the needs of their people, but very likely creating jobs and wealth for the discriminated against class.
You can bet that in those Southern cities where diners had White Only signs up, city ordinances made it difficult if not impossible for Black citizens to open their own restaurants.
It is my contention that a business cannot afford to discriminate unless there is support in some way from the government, either in subsidies or restrictions on competition. Without government distorting the market, such foolishness will be corrected by the invisible hand.
Old Guy at February 14, 2012 10:17 AM
I always make mistakes, grr.
Paragraph 4, it should read...
ensure a safe building and fare
Old Guy at February 14, 2012 10:19 AM
Race &Economics by Walter Williams, for those who question the free market's ability to eliminate racism.
Feebie at February 14, 2012 4:58 PM
A friend sent me a link to an interview Bill Moyers did with Jonathan Haidt called "How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World?" The video is a time commitment at a little over 55 min, but I found it very interesting .
http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
For those who would rather read a transcript, a link is provided underneath the video.
Haidt covers topics such as confirmation bias, culture wars, individual hypocrisy, OWS & Tea Party movements, and moral psychology. All these things seem to be popular topics amongst readers of this blog.
prawn toe at February 14, 2012 9:33 PM
One of the problems is that to those who truly believe in politics, there are no shades of grey, Everything is black or white, good or evil.
The Left, however, is far, far worse than the Right when it comes to this splitting.
Bob at February 15, 2012 10:31 AM
Since you are doing politics I believe this will explain a lot:
The PTSD Party
M. Simon at February 28, 2012 10:53 PM
Leave a comment