Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Belief 41

Journal by pudge

I am told that it is wrong for a group to hate another group for having different personal beliefs.

I am told this by liberals.

Why then do the liberals hate the people who voted differently from them?

What am I missing? Why is this not hypocrisy?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Belief More

Belief

Comments Filter:

  • Innoculation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bettiwettiwoo ( 239665 ) <bettiwettiwoo.gmail@com> on Thursday November 04, 2004 @08:40PM (#10730259) Homepage Journal
    I don't know why, but I assume it's same reason some of the same people can tell you that 'Jews are the new Nazis', can talk about how 'Jews' really set the agenda for the Bush/Howard/whomever government, and can have all sorts of unsavoury opinions about the state of Israel, and yet not be anti-semitic.

    Maybe there's some form of innoculation against hypocricy they receive as children?
  • I'm not a liberal myself, but voting Repuplican is an action that, when a Republican wins, leads to further actions taking place by the government. Yes, it's based on beliefs, but a "live and let live" philosophy doesn't (necessarily) include being neutral towards people who perform a certain action just because it's based on a belief. So, theoretically, a "live and let live" liberal wouldn't hate someone who despises homosexuals but doesn't bother them and doesn't try to prevent gay marriages. "Theoreti
    • I believe it's not healthy to hate long-term, but I see where you're coming from. (And hey, if you wanna be a hata that long and do that to yourself, it's your body.)

      I don't really hate neo-Nazis, but I do disagree enough with them to stop them if they try anything bad. And I may work myself up to a feeling of hate in order to do what I need to do. At all other times, I hardly think about them. (I reckon this is what you do, too.)

  • Because... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mskfisher ( 22425 ) * on Thursday November 04, 2004 @09:16PM (#10730597) Homepage Journal
    Well, the Republicans are, by definition*, the people who hate people because of their personal beliefs.
    Republicans hate gays, minorities, the poor...
    And besides, they hate plenty of people not usually classified by their beliefs, such as women, children, and anyone without a lot of money. Oh, and the whole earth, too.

    Therefore, since Republicans hate everyone, it is okay to hate them. ("I tolerate everything except for intolerance!")
    They are evil incarnate, exemplified by power-hungry monsters like Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, and Rupert Murdoch.
    Finally, it is okay to hate the brainwashed lackeys that vote for/serve them. (Since they're so evil, ad hominem attacks are justified, so feel free!)

    I could go on and on... but I won't, because this post is already starting to sound like this guy [timecube.com].
    And it's a little distressing how familiar I am with this line of rhetoric... that's what happens when you read Slashdot and Metafilter, I guess.

    * [knee-jerk definition based largely on misunderstanding, assumption, and only the most shallow of examinations of the factors and motivations of your average conservative]
  • In one of your journals a while back I explained that people who claim to be open-minded are often closed-minded to those that they perceive to be closed-minded. Similarly, those who denounce hate might feel that it is ok to hate those they perceive as being hateful.

    Also note that I explained how it is hipocracy for a liberal to be closed minded by not for a consevative. I am too lazy to look up the post(s).

  • The word "hate" in this context is just for propoganda purposes, and I suspect that they don't hate people who have different beliefs, rather, they hate them for voting according to those beliefs.

    They like to use the word hate since it now is tied to 'hate crime'. So if I believe that abortion is wrong, that's fine - but if I vote according to my beliefs then I've demonstrated 'hate' - I'm forcing my belief on another group which has a seperate belief.

    What they are trying to accomplish is getting peo

    • For those who've never noticed ... abortion forces ones beliefs on a baby, pretty irrevocably.

      • Of course, the problem here is both sides work from different axioms:

        Lefist: A fetus is not a human being until it's born.
        Rightist: A fetus is a human being with full rights from the moment of conception.

        Since neither of these statements can really be proven (at least not in my experience), we've reached the point of axiomatic seperation. If discussion on abortion was centered on "when does this thing change from human gametes doing stuff to a human with full rights?", things would at least be clearer.

        • The problem of slavery is that both sides work from different axioms:

          South: A black person is not a human being.

          North: A black person is a human being with full inalienable rights.

          Since neither of these statements can really be proven ... obviously we have to err on the side of absolutely not denying rights to someone that might be a human being.

          Let me note that in both the abortion and the slavery issues, scientists (geneticists and embryologists) are definitely able to verify that the class in ques

          • I find that, due to the fact that being pregnant is a tremendous burden on the female body, combined with the fact a goodly number of fertilized eggs miscarry or fail to implant correctly, leaves the debate rather more open than the slavery one--which, I might add, it took a civil war and heavy governmental force to push everyone onto the same axiom.

            Now, I personally believe that abortion should be minimized as much as possible, but I also believe that contraceptives which prevent the fertilized egg from i
            • I find that, due to the fact that being pregnant is a tremendous burden on the female body, combined with the fact a goodly number of fertilized eggs miscarry or fail to implant correctly, leaves the debate rather more open than the slavery one

              Not the issue of whether the fetus is a human being deserving of rights, no, it doesn't. Neither of those facts speak to that issue.

              And it ignores that the burden on the South was in many ways far greater than the burden of unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy is fairly

            • I find that, due to the fact that being pregnant is a tremendous burden on the female body

              Look, society already imposes, in my state at least, the horrible burden on females that if they give birth to a child they must at least go drop the child off, no questions asked, at a fire station or hospital instead of chunking the child in a dumpster (as happened out here a few months ago). If it's not horrible to make this imposition on a woman who gave birth to a child due to choices she made, how is it hor

              • Okay, we're going to drop the slavery comparison right now--I don't believe it's a particularly good analogy at all.

                Secondly, it's relevant because I subscribe to a theory of ethics that says a fetus is not yet a full human being (you want a bad analogy, here's one--this line of reasoning is accepted by any vegetarian who eats eggs but not chickens), therefore its rights are indeterminate until determined by legislation--and in the absence of specific rights determined by legislation, the convenience of th

                • Certain things you said lead me to believe you didn't give much thought to what I said, but instead gave an instinctual response. I will point those out below.

                  Okay, we're going to drop the slavery comparison right now--I don't believe it's a particularly good analogy at all.

                  You are refusing to respond to my point. It's a perfectly valid point, and the point is that the fact that some group of people believes that a class (fetuses, slaves) are not deserving of rights is not a sufficient reason to den

                • Okay, we're going to drop the slavery comparison right now--I don't believe it's a particularly good analogy at all.

                  I don't know who this "we" is, but it's a near-perfect analogy, and I have no intention of dropping it. If it makes you uncomfortable, good: it's supposed to.

                  I subscribe to a theory of ethics that says a fetus is not yet a full human being

                  "for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal" -- Stephen Douglas, first Lincoln-Douglas debate.
              • Great points, jdavidb.

                I don't think any issue has caused me to waffle more than abortion. I certainly can't honor abortion on demand, say, in the ninth month; it's too close to being a newborn, and if we call that murder, I can't see calling the former perfectly all right.

                I'm also reticent to call abortion in the first week wrong. I subscribe to the belief that taking life without its consent is wrong, to be sure, but meanwhile I'm thinking about the woman's rights, too (both in cases of rape and incest
              • A few more rambles:

                One, euthanasia is not the same as abortion: grown human beings have clearly determined legal rights, whereas the fetus does not have any legislated rights, and currently sits in a legal grey area.

                Second, I disgree with your theory of when life begins because I believe in God. If that human life "starts" (by which I mean "gets a soul" here) at fertilization, given that a significant proportion of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyway, does that mean that our wise and loving Creator d
                • does that mean that our wise and loving Creator designed us so that about 1/3 of human souls get to live for a few days as a clump of undifferentiated cells and then pass away, unimplanted?

                  Quite possibly, sure. No reason why not.

                  That said: you're saying we don't know when the soul gets there. Given. So for us to kill something that MIGHT have a soul, as though it did not, is unfathomable.

                  It's the Star Trek rule. Oops, there might be some sentient life on that planet, so we can't mine it for dilithiu

  • In the past, your journal was informed, contained insightful commentary, and contained references. The last several posts you made, though, could have been made by any ignorant partisan windbag. This seems far below your previous standards. What's worse, most of those commenting in your journal lately seem to be those with the same bias and level of journalistic prudence. Even Jamie has stopped coming by and offering a retort. And maybe this is because you're a little swift in foeing people who disagr

  • The intolerance towards those who are intolerant is intolerable!

    Heh, but seriously...one new thing that worries me is the hatred many Kerry supporters now have towards any red state. They've imagined up red states as being filled with ignorant, unenlightened, redneck Jesus worshippers. And since they are in the majority, these hicks are controlling the intellectual blue states' fates.

    I don't understand this at all. If the left really wants to be more united and win some political races, they need t
    • They've imagined up red states as being filled with ignorant, unenlightened, redneck Jesus worshippers. And since they are in the majority, these hicks are controlling the intellectual blue states' fates.

      It's easy to think that when you have proof [umn.edu] that it is "true". And after all, Bush won the popular vote by roughly 4 million votes. This is the same number of evangelicals that Karl Rove forsaw coming to the polls if sufficiently motivated by state amendments banning gay marriage. Coincidence? Who k

      • It's easy to think that when you have proof that it is "true"

        Yes, and it's frustrating when they also discount other [dispatch.com] proofs that Bush voters are educated, and instead lean towards hoaxed IQ lists [4mg.com] for their support.

        When you compare federal expendatures and grants per state against tax revenue you see that the red states, by and large, are siphoning about 15 cents of every dollar paid in by the blue states.

        This sort of blame game will not win back red states at all. Red states can easily find thi
      • It's easy to think that when you have proof that it is "true".

        What's truly ignorant is thinking that a college degree makes you smarter or more enlightened. My wife and I have three degrees between us, my brother and his wife several (including two doctorates), and my other brother and his wife at least three more. (To come clean, I am the least formally educated person among the six of us ... I have merely a BA, while everyone else has at least a teacher's certificate, multiple BAs, or graduate degrees.

        • Re:hate? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Zeriel ( 670422 )
          What's more, if you believe the CNN exit polls, more people with college degrees voted Bush (53%).

          I think too many liberals equate "atheist" and "tolerant" with "intelligent"...or worse, equate "disagrees with me" with "unintelligent".

          They're not the same thing--everyone has their blind spots, and I've known a number of intolerant, bigoted, prejudiced idiots who just happened to be damn good researchers who published regularly.
        • What's truly ignorant is thinking that a college degree makes you smarter or more enlightened.

          Smarter - absolutely not, enlightened - maybe. Spending 12 or 16 weeks listening to lectures and reading on subjects that one would otherwise not bother with can be an enlightening experience. Going to college will not make anyone more intelligent. It may make you more articulate or give you a broader base of knowledge to draw from when making decisions. I say may because the type of person who already enjo

          • Smarter - absolutely not, enlightened - maybe. Spending 12 or 16 weeks listening to lectures and reading on subjects that one would otherwise not bother with can be an enlightening experience.

            I did not say college cannot make you smarter or more enlightened, only that a college degree does not make you such. And there are, obviously, other paths to increased intelligence and enlightenment. Most of the most closed-minded and unenlightened people I meet are college-educated: they learn something in colleg
    • I doubt that all liberals feel identically here. I've read a lot of angry people lashing out, but also calls for understanding.

      Understand that many liberals felt they were in a battle to save the country from economic insanity, military imperialism, and religious intolerance. The failure is a terrible blow and people deal with it in different ways.

      One reason to dismiss the other side is that it frees you from responsibility. It isn't that your candidate sucked, or that your campaign was confused, or that
      • I doubt that all liberals feel identically here.

        Yes, I am certain they don't.

        Understand that many liberals felt they were in a battle to save the country from economic insanity, military imperialism, and religious intolerance.

        And that's just what I mean, though. The religious right feels the same way, but because you attach the word "religious" to it, it makes it somehow wrong. This is what bothers me.

        I know they are out of sorts because of the loss, and I am not gloating or saying people should no
        • What the 60+ lesbian shrink doesn't understand is that the American public is far more tolerant toward gays than it was 20, 10, even five years ago, but that it simply was not ready to take this huge step.

          I'm sure she does, but even so on Nov. 3rd it's a bit of a slap in the face.

          I wasn't for gay marriage in the USA either -- you clearly weren't ready for it, and the fundamentalists capitalized on this big KICK ME sign the left placed on themselves. And lots of homosexual people weren't keen on gay marri
          • On the other hand, in some states, Supreme Courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to disallow it, so what are you going to do?

            Well that's the point: you can find some states to do that, which -- because of the 14th Amendment -- means all states have to recognize it.

      • How would you like your long term relationship proclaimed from the steps of the state capitol as valueless, unworthy of recognition by the community?

        That's why decisions about these things must come from individuals in the community rather than being voted on. Fundamentally, each individual of the community must have the right to decide what relationships he believes are valuable and which are not.

        I believe the relationship of a church leader to his church is very valuable. Statistically speaking, y

  • It's OK to hate republicans because you want an abortion.
  • It's not the hate that scares me. It's the PITY I see from a lot of so-called "liberal intellectuals".

    My manager actually said, on the 3rd, "Well, I feel sorry for all those Bush voters, because anyone THAT deluded as to think he was better...well, that indicates some sort of mental problem that needs treatment."

    I can understand hate. Hate will pass. I can't understand the desire to "cure" people of their beliefs.

    Personally, I believe that being "liberal" means working hard to understand EVERYONE'S po
    • Personally, I believe that being "liberal" means working hard to understand EVERYONE'S position, even while working equally hard to make sure everyone has the right to do what they wish (without harming others, of course).

      Which means I am one of the most liberal people you know, and most liberals I meet are the least liberal people I know.

      And if you put a Republican in front of me who's NOT a neo-con or a PNAC type, I'm all over him

      Dunno what you mean by "all over him," but I am one of those. Commenc
      • Which means I am one of the most liberal people you know, and most liberals I meet are the least liberal people I know.

        To some extent, I agree with this statement, especially the latter half. Then again, I'm one of those half-baked Libertarian zealots who's trying to make "liberal" into a non-dirty word again.

        Dunno what you mean by "all over him," but I am one of those. Commence being all over me!

        *votes for you in the next election he's eligible to do so* ...provided you're fiscally conservative, and

    • Personally, I believe that being "liberal" means working hard to understand EVERYONE'S position, even while working equally hard to make sure everyone has the right to do what they wish (without harming others, of course).

      Neat! I believe being conservative means the same thing. I guess that's why a lot of us on both sides are becoming libertarians. :)

  • But to understand it, you need to understand the point of views from the other side. Here are the big issues.

    Jobs
    conservatives - looking up.
    liberal - lost a lot.
    problem Who cares, this was stupid politics.

    Abortion
    conservatives - baby is uncorrupted soul undeserving of punishment.
    liberal - mother is more important until baby is born.
    problem Many liberals agree with the conservative point of few, but hate is created when the same conservatives push for reductions in social programs to support poor

Slashdot Top Deals

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari

Close