Eviora

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to argue if you want to talk about all liberals at once. The reality is that there are "bad seeds" on both sides of just about any divide. That's just people being people. That said, I don't see how "people-of-color conservatives" and such are an inconsistency in any way. It's not like anyone is claiming members of any particular race, gender, religion, etc are a monolith. My tactic for dispelling misconceptions would have to be to provide counterexamples - proof that not everyone in the group is as the misconception claims. But words are wind. That's why I left the Batman quote. To change people's perceptions - which are based in feelings far more often and greatly than reason - you have to show them, not tell them, you're different. I try to stick to reason in debates, but arguments based too strongly in logic and facts are only so effective. For ages, I thought reason was my forte, but I was wrong. Logic didn't make me any less aimless. Not to boast, but I'm skilled enough to make a decent argument in favor of pretty much whatever position I feel like supporting at the moment. But that didn't get me anywhere. Progress only came when I started with a subjective set of very basic values based in objective reality and empathy. I can't speak for other liberals, but I think that's why I clash with people with religion-based worldviews so frequently. I don't want to make any assumptions, but it seems to me that many theists will put the values given to them by their community and/or holy book above more concretely human considerations. So, when I argue with such people, we never really connect because the difference is based in a perception often deeply rooted within our worldviews. Hm. I might be getting a bit off topic. That seems to be a talent of mine. Evi will shush for now. =p

@Chase *sighs* Oh, fine then. Tell me why I'm so inconsistent. Don't expect a huge debate or an overly long response, though. You may not realize it, but these conversations can be taxing and depressing, particularly when you're essentially ultimately arguing for your right to exist as more than vermin. Honestly, I shouldn't be bothering with these topics at all, but here I am, and you've just goaded me into answering your question - I'm such an idiot. =p Just know that I had no duty to defend myself to you. Ultimately, this conversation will almost certainly boil down to us having different values - which we already know is the case. Buuut go ahead! Oh, and with regards to 5., my request was compact, but I was looking for people who fit the following criteria. They're Republicans currently serving as elected officials. They're either an atheist or a member of the LGBT community. At the time of their election they were open about the above. I'm well aware that there are plenty of individuals who are Republicans and either atheists or LGBT, but my point was that they'd have a really hard time getting into office given the prejudices of many Republicans. Caitlyn Jenner isn't an elected official, of course, and a quick fact check on a couple of the others revealed dubious results - for instance, in the "Personal Life" section on Karl Rove's Wikipedia page, it says he considers himself a Christian, though Christopher Hitchens implied otherwise. @ torpedocat Me and my list are giving you chills? Ohmygosh, am I really that scary?

We could have a discussion about consistency... but I'm not really in the mood, especially since you've clearly already made up your mind about all this. Instead, to clear up some misunderstandings, let me list a few things I really am intolerant of - some of them may be more typical of liberals, and some might just be mine. By the way, these aren't all directed at any one person in particular. "Tolerate my unjustified intolerance"We've been over this one like a billion times before. Your rights end where other people's rights begin. It doesn't matter if you religion is telling you to do it. StrawmenSeriously. Scarecrow was everything wrong with Oz. Willful ignoranceNo, lack of education on an issue doesn't justify you saying whatever you want about it. If you don't understand something, go learn about it before railing against it again. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, of course, but others also have the right to classify you as a moron and/or a bigot if you do. Traitors (who intended it)I don't believe in a hell, but if I were the god of one, there would certainly be a special place for these. A girl has to vent her frustration somehow, after all. Obvious overgeneralizationsThis one relates directly to my last post, Chase. Do you really think it's remotely plausible that liberals in general are intolerant of men? You can make the argument that may of us dislike certain men, or men of a certain type (serial killers, for instance), but judging by the number of men we choose to represent us, it's pretty clear that we dislike those individuals and groups for reasons other than being men. Similarly, lots of prominent liberals are white or theists. I'll be really impressed if you can list me 5 Republicans elected into office while being out as LGBT or atheists. I'm sure it's technically possible - you can use really minor elected officials, after all - but some claims of bias are a teensy bit completely unsupported by the evidence, while others may need another look. And, yes, I'm aware you meant this as a misconception open to be refuted. It's not a worthy one. Rule of thumb: Try to analytically isolate the precise cause for a phenomenon, (in this cause, liberals allegedly being intolerant of some people) rather than jumping to conclusions based on contingent facts. Exploiting people's disabilitiesA crazy girl has problems with people trying to manipulate her craziness? That's crazy talk. But, seriously. This applies to both physical and mental handicaps. Abusing these to get the upper hand over already disadvantaged people is the same as coming out as human scum - and that also goes for when companies try to take advantage of these disabilities to make money (beyond offering necessary services). This one may appear irrelevant to the topic at hand, but many people have issues far more debilitating than my whimsical insanity. I often hear Republicans refer to welfare recipients as "lazy" and the like, but in truth, there are people who rely on such systems. Society is complicated. Rules often need exceptions. That's just the nature of human interaction. By the way, yes, I'm sort of raving on this one. When you can't remember the other things you're intolerant ofUm... yeah. I'm sure there are more of these, but I'm out of steam. Maybe I'll post more later; maybe not. It mostly depends on my mood. Now, I'm gonna go eat some stuff. Have fun coming up with ways of accusing me of all the things on my list! Ciao!

People on both sides of the fence are just so intolerant of serial killers. It's almost as if the dislike comes from how they determinedly hurt others rather than the circumstances of their birth. It's totally unfair! On a less serious note, pretty much every liberal I know hates white people and men. Some of our least favorite people are Bernie Sanders and Billl Clinton. We visit our wrath upon them by insidiously ignoring the underprivileged position of white guys and only vying to decrease oppression toward groups that are actually systematically subject to it. Aren't we awful? =(

Voting based on the assumption that Trump would be assassinated... that just seems desperate, not to mention a bit messed up.

Oh, Cruz is certainly not establishment... by "among them", I just meant he is a senator who many of the others have to deal with face to face. They're out of good choices who can be nominated in the first vote of their convention.

Hah .Establishment Republicans get to choose between the most hated among them and a raging narcissist... so they start drafting people who don't even want the job. If nothing else, their convention will be entertaining.

"Let's kill the terrorists' families" isn't just aggressive rhetoric. It's a policy recommendation. A really, really depraved policy recommendation.

@Jericho I was joking. =p @Nepeta You're okay with a president who threatens violence when he doesn't get his way?

We can always pass a last minute bill to tax Trumpy more. Maybe that would put a damper in his campaign! xD

I certainly wouldn't call Hillary the savior of really anything. She's more like "decent" in my eyes. I feel like the Republican nomination is at the "Trump or schism" stage - especially considering the not-so-veiled threats Donny has been making today. And a schism is a win for Hillary. If she's wise enough to ask Bernie to be her VP and he agrees, it may be over then and there - with the Bern and his supporters on her side, I doubt she could lose. I'm pretty sure a Trump presidency would be the end of the GOP (if his candidacy hasn't been already.) I can't say that bothers me. There were, what, 16 or 17 Republican candidates this year, and Trump and Cruz were the ones anointed by the party? I don't think I even have the words to express how sad that is. I wonder what will happen to Trump support if he actually incites more violence...

Not that grim just yet. =p Clinton would probably just be more of the same. You may not like her, but Obama hasn't managed to end the country just yet! xD

So ends Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Clinton and Trump are starting to look really, really inevitable.

*Digs through her box of quotes.* Ah, here we are! "It's not who you are underneath. It's what you do that defines you." - Batman Begins. Cheers!

Or it could be that Democratic voters are temporarily switching sides to vote for Trump in the primary in order to sabotage the Republicans in November. Or maybe people just like Trump 'cause he's an anti-establishment reality TV star. It's hard to determine exactly what's going on. Instead of making poorly-supported claims about who is responsible for Trump's success and sparking a tangential debate that you may later call on a moderator to quell, maybe you should stick strictly to the topic at hand. If nothing else, I imagine we can all agree that Rubio is done. =)

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they struck down some they deemed unconstitutional. As you know.

No you won't. We've already done this through the court system - one of the proper channels. SCOTUS was far from the first court to arrive at the ruling it did. Instead of being at the table, you're trying to invalidate the fruits of our efforts because they don't fit into your personal view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. And, incidentally, I won't take the bait by reciprocating your ruder comments.

It looks more like the right to marry one of the same sex does exist based on the fact that it's being done in 50 states. But I certainly would support an amendment legalizing same-sex marriage for the extra protection it would offer. You can keep saying "Constitutional analysis this" and "written law that" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it's basic decency, not the Constitution, that entitles people to the rights I describe. And denying them those rights for any reason, including reverence to that document, is equally harmful. Discrimination is discrimination, even if it's written into some state level definitions, and human rights are intrinsic within any meaningful conception of morality, not subject to the whims of any entity. No amount of conservative propaganda negates the harm you do by trying to cut off people's rights in pursuit Constitutionality.

Oh, I wouldn't be opposed to such an amendment for clarity's sake. But I'm afraid it's your argument that's paper thin. The first amendment protections for the free exercise of religion end where other people's rights begin. If you truly value completely free exercise for ALL religions you'd have to allow for ones that involve all sorts of lawbreaking. Literally any act would be on the table as long as you could justify it with "'cause my religion says so". Some religions discriminate based on sex and/or gender. Slave owners used to use the Bible as justification. As such, there is no meaningful difference between this civil rights case and those that came before it. Of course, people are free to say whatever they want about marriage - they just don't get to force it upon everyone else in their state.

The Supreme Court did interpret the Constitution. The way they interpreted it implies that the legal status of same-sex marriage was an effect of existing laws/amendments, not a new piece of legislation. Those existing laws/amendments are just now being properly enforced.

Obviously it takes more than one vote to elect a candidate, but that doesn't lessen the fact that you're responsible for the policies enacted by the person you vote for. And there are certainly ways Cruz could hurt the LGBT community (especially transpeople) without overturning the ruling on gay marriage. You seem like the type to follow political news, so I trust I don't have to enumerate them. You can be sure Cruz would sign any such bill that gets placed in front of him. It's pretty easy for you to have faith in the system and be comfortable with the risks to other people, but I promise that from my position the uncertainty is nothing short of crushing. Cruz is on record saying some pretty terrible things about the LGBT community, so there's every reason to believe he'll try something. I don't know about you (or maybe I do...) but I don't vote for people who will try to hurt my friends, regardless of how likely I think they are to succeed. I'm not familiar with the whole hate speech sermons thing. Since, as far as I'm aware, the Westboro Baptist Church still gets away with its shenanigans, I'd speculate that those speeches incite violence or some other type of lawbreaking. If that's true, no sympathy. Expressing your opinion is one thing; trying to convince others to hurt people is another.

So, Jericho, let's go through this little post of yours. You open up by trivializing the struggles of LGBT individuals by portraying them as a simple matter of having a piece of paper. You go so far as to portray the despair they may experience in the face of such rejection as "something not quite right in the head," This isn't really starting well. You're kind of making my point for me. Then you go on to talk about intolerance, and I certainly agree that you can't dispel it by force. That isn't what pro-LGBT legislation tries to do, though. Such laws would lessen the social effects of such intolerance. Dismiss it though you may want to, marriage has several legal implications related to finances, rights to make choices for your spouse in the event that they're unable to, and so forth. Being granted these privileges, along with others pro-LGBT legislation promote, can markedly improve the lives of such people. The fact is simple: no matter what we do, a whole lot of people are going to hold onto their intolerance. the well-beings of many are at stake today - we don't have time to wait for them to come around. I understand that you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, but I haven't particularly seen you provide any compelling reason. It seems to me that if 5 Supreme Court justices (including a conservative) supported the notion that it's protected under the Constitution, then that conclusion probably isn't as far-fetched as your behavior suggests. Regardless, we've already gone through all the proper channels. You act as if it would be appalling for your friends to be upset with you for wanting to delay the issue even more, but you're the one trying to put their lives on hold for no particularly good reason. Not everyone welcomes hatred. Many of us are just trying to live our lives. I'm not as adamant about the gun issue as many liberals, so I'm not going to dwell on it. I'll just note that "the right to bear arms" does not equate to "the right to bear ANY arms". If you're found to be stashing a nuclear bomb in your basement things probably aren't going to go very well, even in the most conservative of states. While I disagree that businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth, I don't particularly see the problem with churches refusing to perform marriages and such that don't fit into their system of beliefs. My lax stance on that is probably influenced by my atheism, though. I'm perfectly willing to compromise on several issues - the balance of capitalism and socialism among them. But civil rights? No. If, out of spite, you decide to obstruct those rights, don't answer to me, but to the people who are close to you who are hurt. No matter how you try to justify that, the damage is dealt in part by your hands should you make that choice. As for the Trump video... it's sadder than his success. It never ceases to amuse me how irritated proponents of anti political correctness get when, after they use their free speech to say something horrible about some group, someone else uses their free speech to say that opinion is depraved and disgusting. You do know it goes both ways, right? You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from the consequences of your words. Blaming the actions of Donald Trump supporters (which you may not be now, but will be the second you vote for him) on social justice warriors is so such deliciously typical behavior that I can't help but laugh. You're responsible for who you vote for because you went out of your way to support that person, but you're not responsible for who everyone else votes for. The train of logic in that video is so absurd that it can be extended in a number of other hilarious ways. For instance: "Trump supporters are responsible for Trump's success not because they vote for him, but because they say rude things that cause the SJWs to attack them, which causes them to vote for Trump out of spite." This view treats people as non-autonomous, as if SJWs attacking non-politically correct comments are forcing Trump supporters to vote Trump. Obviously, they are not. If you can't take the heat, maybe you shouldn't dish it out.

It's only slander if it's false, and you've already admitted you're willing to sacrifice the well being of LGBT individuals for what you perceive to be the greater good. It's cool that you voted for Rubio in the primary, but you've already made it clear that you have every intention to support Cruz in the general if it should come to that. And I'm afraid actions speak far louder than words. Just because you say you aren't placing your ideology before some of your friends doesn't make it so. The simple fact is that friends don't try to ruin the lives of friends, and no amount of talking overcomes that. You could accuse me of jeopardizing your 1st and 2nd amendment rights - but not with a terribly lot of credibility. As far as the 2nd goes, many liberals do want to make it more difficult for dubious people to have guns, or for people to obtain assault rifles and the like, yes, but if you're a stable, law abiding citizen you can still obtain arms if you want to, Any attempt to actually remove that right would be obliterated by the Supreme Court as a blatant violation. I'm not sure what you're referring to with regards to the first amendment, but the only issues that come up for me involve protecting minorities from forms of discrimination that are already illegal with respect to race, sex, and religion. I can't say I'm terribly worried about oppressing people by limiting their rights to oppress others. I see people saying that I'm quite rigid... and, with respect to certain issues, I'm happy to say, "Guilty as charged!" I'm absolutely and unapologetically unwilling to compromise with regards equal treatment for minorities. There's simply no good reason for it, and fellow Americans will continue to attack each other as long as it persists. You don't get to work to destroy someone's ability to function and pursue a happy life without having that held against you.

The reason trans people are less likely to fall anywhere on the political spectrum than gays and lesbians (if that's even true - I don't know if it is) is that there's less promise of beneficial legislation for trans people than there was for gays and lesbians before national marriage equality was a thing. For the longest time, no one was really talking about trans issues. It has only recently become a more prominent topic. But that, of course, is pure speculation. Certainly, members of the LGBT community can have any view under the sun. You can be sure that there are many repressed members of the community corresponding to each letter. People quite frequently have contradictory or otherwise puzzling beliefs. Maybe in the short term you can try damage control as a method of lessening Global Warming related disasters, but if you don't address the problem at its source it's just gonna get worse and worse. And a man who doesn't believe in Global Warming at all isn't likely to take measures to control for it. You can keep trying to justify denying healthcare to the poor all you like, but the fact of the matter is Obamacare has produced concrete results significant enough that many poorer conservatives don't want rid of it. No amount of ideology or speculative reasoning negates that. Let's say the communities around ISIS know exactly what's going on. They're living side by side with terrorists, and they're way too afraid to fight back. Do you earnestly believe that justifies killing them? That sounds an awful lot like Muslim extremists' own justification for killing any old westerners. A look at the U.S.'s own history shows that unbridled capitalism can lead to very, very oppressive living conditions for a whole lot of people. While I'm happy to acknowledge that there may be a degree of uncertainty surrounding the success of socialistic policies, they've also prevented economic collapse more than a few times. Your opinion of them is too black and white. Everyone who votes - myself included - is basically endorsing their candidate of choice by doing so. By helping Cruz get his power, you'd be assuming the same responsibility for what he does with it that he has. The same goes for me and Bernie. The simple matter is that, even if Bernie is naive, he is trying to protect everyone he can. The abortion issue is pretty much the only one that comes to mind where you can make a remotely credible argument that he's trying to "ruin lives". I prefer naivety to Machiavellian calculations every time. Better to try and fail than to sacrifice people group by group in an attempt to serve the "greater good." Long story short, I just wanted to see whether you'd own up to your willingness to throw many members of this very community under the bus in pursuit of your ideals.