Campaign 2012, or, Let the mudslinging begin (er. continue?)!

[jessm78.livejournal.com]

I guess most of you guys either don't talk about politics much on your LJs or you have mostly conservatives on your flist. But for those of you who have liberal flisters, have you experienced any provoking comments yet?

I have an flister who I've met in person a few times. She's a really nice girl but a very strong-minded liberal. Despite our very different political views, we get along well and don't really discuss politics. Today she made a post showing off a button a friend gave her that said "Dogs Against Romney" on it. She told us she was voting for Obama, how strongly held her beliefs are, and five reasons that she's a liberal. She said at the end that she's fine with agreeing to disagree. I told her that's what I love about her, that she can at least be respectful of opposing views. But one of her friends (who isn't on my flist) decides to say "If you have a vagina and are voting the Ronney/Ryan ticket, I judge you. I judge you hard."

It's comments like this that annoy me because they seem like they're looking for a fight. I'm sure this person thinks that not everyone on my friend's flist has the same exact beliefs. And I'm sure there are some out there, but none of the conservatives or libertarians on my flist say things like this. It always seems to be the liberals. More than four years ago a former (thank goodness) flister was ranting "I HATE THE ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!"

99% of my flist are liberals, so I have a filter for political posts that includes like-minded friends. I know it's my LJ and I should be able to say whatever I want, but I don't feel like slinging mud back and forth with people I otherwise get along with. Has anyone else had to deal with such provoking garbage before? Hoping I'm not alone, lol. I have a feeling it's going to get worse as the weeks go by. *sigh*

Comments

[brendala.livejournal.com]

Leftist beliefs about sex, gender, and sexual orientation are absolutely LOADED with contradictions: one minute they're insisting that sexual orientation or homosexuality are absolute and unchangeable, the next minute they're insisting just as intensely that these things are changeable, subjective, vague, and "fluid."


I never realized that before; but you're absolutely right! If gender/sexuality is "fluid"; than logically that should mean that homosexuals can change if they REALLY want to.

I have nothing against transgender people living how they want if it makes them happy and they're not hurting anyone. But I draw the line when attention whores like Thomas Beattie go on Oprah and DEMAND to be referred to as a "pregnant man" when she is actually just an ugly woman who got knocked up by a turkey baster.

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

"I have nothing against transgender people living how they want if it makes them happy and they're not hurting anyone."

Yes, this is how I see it: a person has the right to live their life in whatever manner they choose. They do NOT have the right to expect others to play along with their ideas.

It DOES affect other people when someone wants to behave in ways that are contrary to their biological sex. It affects other people in all kinds of ways. If a person wants to behave in ways that are contrary to their physical appearance, then that's their prerogative in a free society, but they do NOT have the right to expect or force the rest of us to accomodate their perception of themselves.

If every single person you meet perceives you as male, but you feel otherwise, then what? "Everybody in the whole world is wrong except me"??? "Everyone's crazy but me"?? That's the situation.

And if you expect every single person you meet to not merely tolerate your behavior, but *accept it and accomodate it and agree with it*, then YOU are the aggressor. YOU are the one rocking the boat, not them.

I strongly believe that there's room in a free society for many types of lifestyles and many forms of expression. But I will not be forced to go along with someone's personal fantasy or someone's unconventional ideas about themselves when said ideas are manifestly at odds with objective reality, or when their behavior starts to violate my right to privacy and my right to a non-threatening environment.

You can call yourself Elvis or Queen Victoria, but that doesn't make it real, and while I'll still be polite and tolerant to the best of my ability, I'm under no obligation to be a *participant* in your personal worldview.

And when someone expects others to pretend that X is Y and that apples are oranges, that's exactly what they're doing: forcing every person they meet to *participate* in their personal ideas about themselves.

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

"But I draw the line when attention whores like Thomas Beattie go on Oprah and DEMAND to be referred to as a "pregnant man" when she is actually just an ugly woman who got knocked up by a turkey baster."

Yes. This is the very same example that I was thinking of. Once again, an example of the fact that activists don't really want privacy, at all.

We're constantly being told that the behavior of some group doesn't affect the rest of us at all, and that the members of said group just want to have privacy and go about their business and live their lives in a discreet and dignified manner.

Of course, this is not true at all. If the members of various activist groups just wanted to have privacy, then they wouldn't be incessantly seeking publicity and exposure and public acknowledgement.

"We need to teach children about XYZ group in the public schools starting in kindergarten, and we need XYZ History Month, and we need more XYZ characters on TV shows" is not seeking privacy.

Activist groups don't want tolerance, at all. They reject mere tolerance. They want to be incessantly *praised and celebrated*.

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

Thomas Beattie was a severely disturbed person. If you have your perfectly healthy and functional breasts *surgically cut off* but you're okay with being pregnant, then WTF is going on??
Breasts make you female, but *pregnancy* doesn't?? A bit of facial hair makes you male, even when you're *pregnant*?? There is no logic or internal consistency to this concept, at all.

That goes far beyond merely playing around with clothing or experimenting with different ways of expressing yourself.

Thomas Beattie should have been asked to meet with breast-cancer survivors who had double mastectomies and then explain why she CHOSE to cut-off her own perfectly healthy and normal breasts.

I can't even fathom stuff like this. Like I said, this goes way beyond merely experimenting with different forms of self-expression or having a slightly unconventional lifestyle.