Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived.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

Great Article More

Great Article

Comments Filter:
  • My daughter is a freshman at BU, and has gotten no end of hassle for expressing her political views. She had to take down her Texas flag to keep peace with her roommate. With the election over, she's getting set to complain about political proselytizing by professors during class time. I'm not sure if I should encourage her (because she's right) or not (because she will end up with even more trouble).
  • Thanks for the article pudge. It's definitely one of the best I've read during this election.
  • Your plea for tolerance is all very amusing and everything, but the new freshman Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn is advocating the death penalty for abortion doctors, among other charming contributions to the nation's discourse.

    And the new South Carolinian senator James DeMint wants to ban gays and unwed mothers from the public schools.

    Of course, we realize that the gay marriage bans were all about clarifying a legal issue, and not actually a move to gain re-election by dividing the country on moral issues, s
    • Show me where anyone said this is not a problem on both sides?

      In fact, the article specifically noted it is just as hard for a liberal in a red state as a conservative in a blue one.

      Of course, we realize that the gay marriage bans were all about clarifying a legal issue, and not actually a move to gain re-election by dividing the country on moral issues, scapegoating a minority.

      Note that there is no actual evidence the gay marriage bans made a difference in this election. Evangelicals came out in grea
      • Note that there is no actual evidence the gay marriage bans made a difference in this election.

        So attempts to divide the country are fine, as long as it's unclear if they worked? Or if the other side came out in similar numbers to oppose it?

        Surely you must agree the constitutional amendment was a phony initiative. Zero chance of passing.

        Show me where anyone said this is not a problem on both sides?

        Ok, I'll say it now. It *isn't* an equal problem on both sides.

        I am not aware of any equivalent to what
        • So attempts to divide the country are fine, as long as it's unclear if they worked?

          I am making no judgments on whether or not it was OK. You made an assertion. I said there's no evidence supporting it.

          Surely you must agree the constitutional amendment was a phony initiative. Zero chance of passing.

          It was not phony, no. It raised the very valid issue that states are largely defenseless from the imposition upon them by the courts of gay marriage. This is a very important issue, whether you agree wit
          • "I believe anyone who has a belief in God is by definition stupid, and that they and any views that have should be excluded from public life. I believe the state should impose its will on them whenever it sees fit too, because they are too ignorant to know what is good for them and their families."

            I think we're getting close to some core issues here.

            I view what Republicans do as a literal attack on people's rights, or foreclosing the future evolution of society to encompass their rights.

            Your big problem
            • I view what Republicans do as a literal attack on people's rights, or foreclosing the future evolution of society to encompass their rights.

              I view what Democrats do as a literal attack on people's rights, or foreclosing the future evolution of society to encompass their rights.
      • Actually, there is evidence they (marriage amendments) did not work.

        Marriage amendment passed, state still went Kerry.

        Michigan.
  • I live in a very conservative area (67% + of my county voted for Bush), I go to a evangelical church every Sunday, I'm a white middle aged male, and I work as an engineer for a very large defense contractor. But I am a liberal Democrat, and the looks, words, and actions I get when I express this show just as much intolerance as that expressed in this article.

    Yes this is an interesting read, but don't think that such assumptions are made only by liberals.
    • Yes this is an interesting read, but don't think that such assumptions are made only by liberals.

      Who does? You and brevity both apparently read the article, but missed a key line in it: "We've become a split-screen nation, one side Republican, the other Democrat. And to be a conservative in left-leaning Seattle can be just as tough as being a liberal in Bush Country."

  • Bah (Score:2)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) *
    Each side always complains about not being well received by the other side. Try promoting gay marriage in Dubuque and see how far you get.

    • Re:Bah (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      This was a liberal Democrat saying liberal Democrats need to be more open, and he said it is just as hard for a conservative here in Seattle as it is for a liberal in Bush country. Of course it goes both ways, how does that make any difference?
      • Fair enough. And I agree 100% that people need to be more open towards the other side. But I don't see how this is particularly new or different. It's been this way at least since the sixties.

        When the Republicans were out of power after the 1992 election, did they reconcile with the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, or did they stand and fight? As I recall, they fought tooth and nail to get control of Congress in 1994. I don't see why the Dems should roll over now.

        • Re:Bah (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          But I don't see how this is particularly new or different.

          Because it is becoming more prevalent, and is more at the forefront of our national thoughts.

          When the Republicans were out of power after the 1992 election, did they reconcile with the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, or did they stand and fight? As I recall, they fought tooth and nail to get control of Congress in 1994. I don't see why the Dems should roll over now.

          I never anywhere said the Democrats should
  • Slate cutting it both ways in California. [msn.com] Still unscientific, but goes against what some people's notion of the problem is.
    • ABC news did a similar experiment [go.com]. Probably a better one than the Slate experiment, because one must assume that Californians are more used to seeing Kerry t-shirts on the streets, even in "red" counties.

      The article spun it as being about intolerance on both sides, but I didn't get that impression.

      The Kerry campaign is worried about the Bush-Cheney shirts showing up on TV, and otherwise doesn't have a problem with dissent.

      At the Bush campaign, they order the offending t-shirts out and intimidate them wit
      • The point isn't how the campaigns deal with people on the opposite side, its how everyday people from one side deal with the opposite side. There's nothing "better" about the ABC News piece, its completely different.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale." -- Adlai Stevenson

Close